Andreas Laurencius's Blog / en-US Sun, 04 Oct 2020 05:59:57 -0700 60 Andreas Laurencius's Blog / 144 41 /images/layout/goodreads_logo_144.jpg /author_blog_posts/18837914-crisis-in-the-foundation-of-knowledge-the-epistemology-of-yellow Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:14:00 -0700 <![CDATA[Crisis in the foundation of knowledge: The epistemology of yellow]]> /author_blog_posts/18837914-crisis-in-the-foundation-of-knowledge-the-epistemology-of-yellow
On 18 October 2013, spectators in the Rhein-Neckar-Arena soccer stadium were dispirited after Stefan Kiessling's header sent the ball into the back of the net, giving Kiessling's team, Bayer Leverkusen, a two-goal lead against the home team TSG 1899 Hoffenheim. But right after Kiessling headed the ball, he held his head with his hands in disappointment and appeared to be confused when his teammates congratulated him. What happened? Here's the video of the goal:

Kiessling knew he missed the target but somehow the ball found its way into the back of the net. He headed the ball toward the side netting and the ball went through the hole on the side netting. But the referee didn't see this, so when the players (including Kiessling) protested his decision to award the goal, the referee had to use statistics to determine whether or not it was actually a goal: he had to (rationally) acknowledge that the probability of the ball going in through the hole on the side netting is way, way smaller compared to the probability of the ball actually passing over the goal line between the goal posts, below the crossbar (being a real goal). So, based on statistics, the right decision is to award the goal. But based on the truth, the right decision is to NOT award the goal. Statistics turned out not to be the truth, because there was only one truth that happened, and it wasn't a goal.

Is our knowledge right? Or is it just statistics?

In 1665, Sir Isaac Newton discovered the visible light spectrum by showing that a prism refracts visible light and disassembles it into its component colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. In 1802, Thomas Young, another English scientist, calculated the approximate wavelengths of the seven colors that Newton discovered. Now, what is the relationship between wavelengths and color? Even though a light with a certain wavelength will translate to a certain color (deterministic, that is), we have no idea what causes that certain wavelength to induce the perception of that certain color. We can shine that particular light (that has a particular wavelength) to a robot and the robot will not perceive that light as that color even though the relationship between that wavelength and that color is deterministic.

If we didn't know what color the light with wavelength of 580 nm translated to, how did we know what color it translated to? Was it by studying the mechanism how that wavelength causes that color? No. We can not know how that wavelength causes that particular color. The perception of color is considered an emergent property of our neural network. We can't know the complete (set of) cause(s). What we can do is taking a statistical data: studies showed that this particular wavelength translates to that color, so we can conclude that whenever this wavelength occurs, that color will occur.

In physics, color is not a property of the visible light itself. The perception of color itself needs a whole analysis due to its being considered an emergent phenomenon in neuroanatomy. The known relationship between wavelengths and colors is merely statistical.

These statistics-based deductions are everywhere.

In particle physics, we don't know the reasoning behind the fine-structure constant, the strong coupling constant, the Born rule, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum tunneling, etc; we merely observe the statistical proof of their existence. In Newtonian mechanics, we don't know the reason behind the gravitational constant: its value is experimentally-determined (statistical relationship between the force of gravity, the masses of the objects, and the distance between these objects yields the gravitational constant G), but we don't know where G comes from. In chemistry, we don't know the reason behind the conservation of mass and the second law of thermodynamics. In biology, we don't know why plants keep utilizing CO2 for photosynthesis and not something else. In cosmology, we don't know the story behind the cosmological constant. In systems science, we don't know what causes quantum mechanics to give rise to classical mechanics, what causes inorganic substance to give rise to cells, what causes cells to give rise to consciousness, what causes consciousness to give rise to systems ecology. The deterministic relationships are observed but not well-understood: the causative characteristics are statistically reproducible but the right mechanisms behind them are not known.

The same phenomenon occurs in neuroscience. How do we know that brain activity A means action A? It is not by understanding how brain activity A causes action A, but by taking statistical data that when brain activity A occurs, action A occurs. This enables us to build a database that can be used to read mind ( , , ), help patients with motoric disabilities (), and help patients with sensory impairment ().

The same thing also occurs in computer science. If we know the prime numbers (A and B) that are the factors of a large number (C), we can easily check whether A.B = C, but if we don't know what A and B are, it will take a long time to factorize C. RSA cryptosystem, one of the security system that guards our online accounts, is based on this "factoring problem". If we know the causes (the A and B), it will be easy to calculate the outcome, but if we can only know the outcome (the C), which is always the case in our knowledge, it takes a very long time to know the A and B. However, because science had been our most successful tool in understanding everything, I have good faith that we will be able to figure out the A and B.

Was the referee's decision based on statistics? Yes. Was this decision right? No. We can know that the decision was not right because we have a technology called video recording that enabled us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "goal" was (what the causes of the "goal" were). Nowadays, we have a technology called VAR (Video Assistant Referee) that will enable the referee to see what really happens behind the "goal", a technology that will make our decision not based on statistics anymore, but based on truth.

Now, let's change "decision" to "knowledge".

Is our knowledge based on statistics? Yes. Was this knowledge right? No one knows. We can't know whether this knowledge was right or not right because we don't have a technology that enables us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "knowledge" was (what the causes of the "knowledge" were). Nowadays, we don't have a technology that will enable us to see what really happens behind the "knowledge", a technology that will make our knowledge not based on statistics anymore, but based on truth.

We have observed that even a decision that had been based on all available data could be not right. Furthermore, I'd like to point out the discrepancies between a decision that is rational and a decision that is social, where a decision that is rational is made by using data and a decision that is social is made based on what a group or a species wants. We, as social beings, have long claim that our group/religion/truth/nation is right and claim that other groups/religions/truths/nations are wrong. In my paper "Resolving epistemological crisis by identifying emergence and causality: A scientific progress", I showed that right and wrong is nonexistent by showing that everything that exists is not wrong and is not right because everything that exists is the result of the thing(s) that happened before it and everything that exists can’t be right because no existing theory can formulate the future. I have even elaborated on the role of evidence in uncovering the true past that, given enough time, everything that is deterministic can be replicated or altered, that in an attempt to uncover the right past, all present evidence can be shown to be inconclusive. A judge in a courtroom has to be rational, the judge has to collect all available data, and I have shown that even all available data is not enough to convict someone. What makes you think that you, as social beings, can persecute someone?

So, again, was our knowledge right? No one knows. We can't know whether this knowledge was right or not right because we don't have a technology that enables us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "knowledge" was (what the causes of the "knowledge" were). The title of the article is "crisis in the foundation of knowledge" and not "crisis in knowledge". Does the foundation of knowledge actually disprove the rightness of our knowledge just like the video recording disproves the goal? Probably. I have pointed out in my paper that "everything that exists can’t be right because no existing theory can formulate the future", so it is probable that the foundation of knowledge actually disproves the rightness of our knowledge. However, I have also pointed out that it is not acceptable to determine what is right by looking to the future, so it is not acceptable to say that "the foundation of knowledge actually disproves the rightness of our knowledge because no existing theory can formulate the future."

If the referee had had the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) technology, he would have been able to know the right knowledge, he wouldn't have made the erroneous judgment, and the match could have ended in a draw. But because of the 2-1 win, Bayer Leverkusen moved to the top of the Bundesliga table.

posted by Andreas Laurencius on October, 04 ]]> /author_blog_posts/15565253-the-emergence-principle-our-current-understanding-of-the-universe Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:01:00 -0700 <![CDATA[The Emergence Principle: Our Current Understanding of the Universe]]> /author_blog_posts/15565253-the-emergence-principle-our-current-understanding-of-the-universe
Without turning my back, I said, "Studying."

The person said, "You know � you can do many better things than studying."

Without much thinking, I replied, "Many? Yes. Better? Nah." And I continued writing.

I wasn't quite listening to the person when the person spoke again, "I think you've known plenty."

The person then continued, "Why don't you share what you know to the world?"

My chest jolted, my hand shook, it messed up my writing. He might be right, I thought. I looked out the door and walked out my room and heard that everyone was downstairs. I went down to ask who had been in my room but had second thoughts. I refilled my drink, took some food, and went outside.


•â¶Ä¢â¶Ä�


The World As We Know It


Many, if not all of us, don't know what they are doing.

Besides the fact that one can only access very little of the consistent part of the information the world gives out at a given time, there are so many inconsistencies in the world that it is impossible to know what the right thing to do is.

But as we turn on the news, people venerate words like money and globalization as if they know what they are doing.

They don't.

The Emergence Principle is well known in philosophy, science, and art, so some of us may be familiar with the concept. Emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit (Wikipedia).

J.S. Mill wrote:
All organised bodies are composed of parts, similar to those composing inorganic nature, and which have even themselves existed in an inorganic state; but the phenomena of life, which result from the juxtaposition of those parts in a certain manner, bear no analogy to any of the effects which would be produced by the action of the component substances considered as mere physical agents. To whatever degree we might imagine our knowledge of the properties of the several ingredients of a living body to be extended and perfected, it is certain that no mere summing up of the separate actions of those elements will ever amount to the action of the living body itself.


Or as G. H. Lewes put it:
Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same � their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.


The idea of emergence arises out of our continuing realizations that we fail to understand what is going on. For example, in biology, we currently don't know how brain cells give rise to consciousness. In chemistry, we currently don't know how inorganic substances give rise to life. In physics, we currently don't know how quantum mechanics gives rise to classical mechanics.

If the simpler entities from which the larger entities arise are of any significance to the larger entities, we can see emergence as the result of some information being taken away from the simpler entities and their subsequent system and some information being introduced to the simpler entities and their subsequent system. 'Taken away' doesn't have to mean lost and 'introduced' doesn't have to mean new. The sum of these mechanisms can � at least, during its short existence � be called a phenomenon, and sometimes a phenomenon repeats itself and thus is observed as having a purpose, a word that isn't necessarily anthropic.

Part of this phenomenon can be defined, let's call it the defined phenomenon; part of this phenomenon can't be defined, let's call it the undefined phenomenon. We can explain how a cell synthesizes protein, but if we look closer, we have no idea what is going on. We can explain how the human body works to a very great detail, but if we look closer, we have no idea what is going on. Nevertheless, despite our failure to understand everything, we can choose to look past the undefined phenomena and still conclude that everything that happened is explainable. Studying emergence is important in understanding how things are. For example, it is very important in neuroscience where we are trying to find the most effective way to decipher the brain, one of the most complicated structures in the universe.

Turbulence, weather, and consciousness have both defined and undefined phenomena; not to mention South East Asia with its tropical places and warm people, The Middle East with its unparalleled exotics, Europe with its philosophers and kings, Canada with its smile, the US with its faith, Central America with its people and coastline, South America with its football and Amazonian secrets, Nepal and Tibet with its seclusion, India and Pakistan with its ethical cultures, China with its wisdom, Japan with its order, Australia with its absolution, Africa with its gems and savannas. We also have forgiveness, love, greed, wars, genocide, waste and pollution, slavery, death, hatred, wiping out other species.

They are all emergent phenomena. Some of them are more defined than the others. Some of them can be regarded as totally undefined.



Our Questions


We've had the time to gather some information. And now come our questions: Why are we here? Why are some phenomena more defined than the others?

Several people try to make their phenomena defined: to cure cancer, to build clean energy sources, to build a beautiful world, to educate others, to create beautiful music, to write beautiful stories, to explore the unknown, to cure animals, to feed hungry species. Several people have purposes that can't be defined and impose these purposes on others by globalizing them as if they know what they are doing; purposes like to own more (thus make others own less), to create many brands and produce more than what are needed and thus waste their own backyard, to compete and to deforest a forest in order to be able to compete, to overpopulate a sea, to pollute our drinking water, to kill in order to move diamonds from the Earth to one's body, to quickly or slowly kill others.

A neurologist won't have a job if there is no neurology patient; are patients truly a neurologist's purpose?

Hundreds of mice were decapitated by a neuroscientist who was looking for something; was being decapitated truly the mice's purpose?

When a human first opens his eyes, does he need to construct his own heart and lungs and brain and the Earth before he looks around and asks what he is here for?

In my paper, I wrote that in regard to epistemology, it is not acceptable to find an answer by asking a question because a question is looking to the future (something that doesn’t exist), but it might be acceptable to find an answer to everything by observation of past events thus by appreciation of the cause (the ‘past�/all that exist).

Why did we war so much? Don't ask, it is because we have globalized a system that is based on the barter system, a system people created because they were egotistical and didn't want to share.

Why do people argue? Don't ask, it is because we have only one Earth and different people crave different things.

Why do we run out of resources and many species become extinct? Don't ask, it is because we have globalized a system that is based on supply and demand notwithstanding the fact that Earth has never multiplied itself to compensate for humans' demands [read: stupidity] and humans most likely will never leave Earth.

Can a person understand this? We can look at a person's expression and � if that person isn't a good liar � know the answer to this question even before we ask that person. An interesting question neuroscientists are trying to solve: If we scan the person's brain, will we be able to know the answer to this question before we ask the person?

Try any questions. If you give yourself time to think, you will come to the same conclusion: if the universe lets us know any information about itself and this information is of any significance, we don't need to ask any questions because our questions have been answered before we even ask them.

And now comes our next question: Why did I write this article?

I wrote this article because it had been my observation that if the governments wanted to change the world, they were almost powerless to change how things had become: the governments failed because of us. One thing we could do is we could invite all the world's past leaders, current leaders, and aspiring leaders to stop doing what they are doing, gather around, and rethink the answer to this question: Are we a successful species? Because it is clear that our knowledge is only about the past and thus the only answer that is accessible to us has already been made accessible to us: we are not that successful.

And finally, our planet could have had a very different history; I have written about this in my paper. We have had many tragedies; and we, with all our stories and successes, are the result of these tragedies. Should we do it again? Should we war again? Should we destroy everything that has been given to us including the memory of those who have shaped our history as if they mean nothing? Ignorance is never bliss because even a plant knows a thing or two. Ignorance is that which says that all we've been through, our history, the universe and our place in it doesn't matter.

This is not about right or wrong. This is not at all about what one should do and what one shouldn't do. We can, of course, find our own answers to our questions and feel satisfied with the answers, but give this a thought: if one's past is of any meaning to one, enlightenment seems certain, and despite one's defined successes and failures as a species, eventually it is not what one does that defines one so much as what one knows.

So, do we still have questions about life? Or have there been many things in life about which we have been able to say "I think I've known plenty"?

posted by Andreas Laurencius on March, 22 ]]> /author_blog_posts/9729942-a-nonfiction-explanation-about-genesis-part-1-the-future-of-conscious Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:05:00 -0800 <![CDATA[A nonfiction explanation about Genesis? Part 1 � The Future of Consciousness/The Future of Everything/Can We Finally Explain It?]]> /author_blog_posts/9729942-a-nonfiction-explanation-about-genesis-part-1-the-future-of-conscious
I will start by telling you the different concepts of God:
A. God is the benevolent leader. This God rules over all that occur so this God doesn't need to rule, or even lead. This God is in and beyond the universe. This God doesn't care for right or wrong. This God doesn't have a cause behind it. This entity is the cause behind all that have existed, exist, and will exist. This God can be:
1. Justice and this God sees to it that consciousness survives. According to this God, life and existence is important. This God provides afterlife after life ends. I don't know why this God can't create heaven in the first place and thus sparing us the mortality and the cruel universe which is the reason why we should work and evolve and not drink salt water or enter the outer space without a suit and save resources to survive.
2. Not justice and is only responsible for the creation of the universe and the occurrence of life. According to this God, life and existence is not important. This God doesn't have any role in our survival. This God provided 'the raw materials' for life and existence and let life and existence vanish.

B. God is not the benevolent leader. This God is in but not beyond the universe. This God's power is limited. There is limited seating in this God's heaven. Something happens beyond this God's power. We and this God have to work together. This God is either bound by time and reality that happens in sequence, or not bound by time but isn't capable of changing our reality very much. This God is bound by a law because this God's existence is not beyond the law. This God is not Justice itself, but instead this God urges that justice be done. This God serves a 'higher God' which is Justice (Justice is above this God). Suffice it to say that this God is like our government. Look to your left and right and up and down, you will see presidents, kings, queens, prime ministers, legislative councils, judicial councils, party leaders, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, managers, gang leaders, the leader in our families, executioners, the alphas in groups of animals. This God is like them. This God can be:
1. The strongest of us all, thus it is true that this God's power has a quantity. Its power is not beyond existence. So this God can be stronger than everything else combined. This God can demand something or everything. This God can rule. This God can demand order, worships, patience.
2. Weaker than the opposite force that is: evil, arbitrary, pro-chaos (order is love and life so this opposite force is pro-hate, pro-fear, pro-destruction), keen to destroy lives, pretty much the strongest version of the dark side. This God is afraid to go out. This God watches. I don't know what makes this God God, maybe this God isn't bound by time, maybe this God is like Professor Hawking � very smart but not very strong. This God has remarkable plans that will work out in the end: this God will win in the end.

Which God do you believe in? Pick one or combine them. Or make a new one. You may change the word 'God' with 'I' and see where 'I' is.

There is a reason why I mainly talk about Christianity because I know about it a lot, and I can say that the God in the Old Testament is B1, and the God in the New Testament is mainly A1 (sometimes combined with B1). In order not to alienate a single group, I'd like to write about other religions too: I guess that the God in the Quran and Torah is B1, the God(s) in Hinduism is (are) A1 and/or the combination of B1 and B2, the 'Gods' in Buddhism and natural religions are B2.

Some of the people might think that what I'm saying is not important. On the contrary, it is of the ultimate importance because it is very important for everything we know: love, tears, joy. Because what I told you about the nonexistence of good and evil has been shown to work eternally. Because this has been our past, this is our present, and this is our future. Because there is no harm in knowing all of it; there is harm in claiming that you know when the fact is that you haven't even tried. Because some of us still believe in these Gods, and there are people who believe in God A1 and A2 and still think that they have the RIGHT TO RULE others. Because some of us still believe in good and evil and are very proud to be good (or bad). Because almost all of us count on the concept of afterlife while this concept is doing nothing for our current survival, if anything, the concept of afterlife aggravates the destruction of our beautiful Earth and the destruction of life itself through greed and what I call first-order hedonism (self gratification: riches and laziness) and second-order hedonism (self destruction). Because by 'us' I mean Homo sapiens and not the other species who/which have been extinct or are still living. Because this is what happens in the present time:

PEOPLE, THE LESSER GODS (GOD B1&B2) AND THEIR DISCIPLES, THE DEVIL, DEMONS, AND ALL BEINGS IN ALL DIMENSIONS STILL THINK THAT THEY ARE RIGHT (GOOD) AND THE OTHERS ARE WRONG (EVIL).

Let's group these beings and give the group a name. Let's call them the A-holes, because they build a hole in the place where God A presides. These A-holes are lesser Gods that can have flaws, and they do have flaws, they don't know better and the systems that they try to establish will crumple.

You have read my book and my blogs. There is no good or evil as there is no right or wrong. I've been waiting for a counterargument for this. I'll just tell you: one can counter this with: Yes there is no right or wrong in the universe but consciousness (we, the devil, God B1 & B2 and their disciples, demons, all the beings in other space-time continuums) is able to distinguish right and wrong.

You are mistaken. Let me elaborate:
1. There is no free will. If you think that consciousness posits the existence of free will, and therefore the existence of right and wrong, you are mistaken. Two reasons (you actually only need one of these to prove that free will is nonexistent):
- Let's take a look at an animal, a wild dog, for instance. This dog reacts to a rabbit when it's hungry. It chases the rabbit and eats it. Over time, another rabbit develops abstract thinking, it can sense what is not there yet. The rabbit becomes attuned to its surrounding and develops the first form of abstract thinking which is foreknowledge, and it succeeds in not being eaten because of this. The dog also learns and develops abstract thinking, its abstract thinking is way more advanced than the rabbit's, it is the next form of abstract thinking, it is conceptual thinking. The dog doesn't react to its concrete thinking (hunger and the existence of the rabbit) instantly but instead the dog plans, it says to itself that it should refrain from attacking directly, it has learned that attacking directly (or succumbing to its primal instinct) will mean failure to eat and survive. And voila, using abstract thinking, the dog succeeds in eating the rabbit. Several years pass and human beings start to domesticate rabbits, and the dogs learn that if they kill the rabbit for food, the dogs will get slaughtered by the humans, and now the dogs develop the next form of abstract thinking which is self-restraint.
If any of you thinks that this abstract thinking is free will, you are totally mistaken. If any superior entity holds this against you and says that you have free will while it is clear that our survival is our own responsibility and there is no help whatsoever from above (species went extinct and we will too if we don't learn), then this superior entity is being unreasonable and we must at the very least not listen to them.
- The second one is the arrow of time. Time happens for a being when that being perceives nothingness as a sequence. Everything has direct and indirect causes and direct and indirect effects; nothing in existence can free itself from these. There is no 'will that is free'. If you choose to hurt something, one of the causes of your deed is the existence of that thing (you can blame it on that thing), and you will get the effect of your deed. If you choose to not hurt something, again one of the causes of your deed is the existence of that thing, and again you will get the effect of your deed.
2. This is how the universe is: there are infinite direct and indirect causes for something to happen. If you say that something is right, the universe can easily prove to you that that something is wrong, and vice versa. It is too easy for the universe to prove to you that the path you choose is the wrong one, or the right one, at the time the path is chosen. Two beings get into a fight and Being 1 claims that he is the right one and ends the life of Being 2; the entire species also think that Being 1 is right and support the decision to end Being 2. Now, after that, as fast as a lightning strike or as slowly as continental drift, the universe can easily make Being 1 the reason for the death of a whole clan of beings and prove that Being 1 was after all the wrong one. Why? Because there are infinite factors that can lead to a single event.

So, now we've established that: right and wrong is nonexistent, as much as good and evil is nonexistent.

Want another proof?

Let's go back to the group, which comprises us, the devil, the lesser Gods (God B1 & B2) and their disciples, demons, all the beings in other space-time continuums who still think that right (good) and wrong (evil) exist.

When this group formulates, builds, establishes any systems to define right or wrong (these systems can be ANY types of governments, punishment, hell, ethics, maxims, principles, relationships), the system will crumple.

***

So, what can we do if there is no right or wrong?
We can try to realize God A1's heaven. Let heaven come down to Earth. Let the true sovereignty of the true God rule over us. It's already clear in my past blog that the 'There is no right or wrong, there should be no death or dearth' will bring us toward Moral Excellence and Utopia and the Peace Forever.

Can we finally explain it?
Yes.

Do we finally have the key to secure peace?
Yes.

Can we defeat death?
Yes. The second part of the blogs will be about whether the benevolent God is A1 or A2, what consciousness is, and whether it is possible to make heaven on Earth (no death or dearth). I need research for this. Science will bring good news. Science, philosophy, and religion shouldn't be separate. They should be one.

I will give you a preview of the second part of the blogs. One of the things I will write is whether this sentence above "When this group formulates, builds, establishes any systems to define right or wrong (these systems can be ANY types of governments, punishment, hell, ethics, maxims, principles, relationships), the system will crumple." extends to the laws and theories in natural science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geoscience).

It is very important that all beings know the first part of the blogs first, so I should refrain from publishing the second part of the blogs before all beings know the first one. Please help telling others by liking or posting a comment below.

posted by Andreas Laurencius on March, 21 ]]> /author_blog_posts/9499018-we-are-one-step-away-from-utopia-and-that-step-is-breaking-down-our-beli Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:36:00 -0800 <![CDATA[We are One Step Away from Utopia and that Step is Breaking Down Our Beliefs.]]> /author_blog_posts/9499018-we-are-one-step-away-from-utopia-and-that-step-is-breaking-down-our-beli
Now let's see where humans' pride has taken them: the conflicts, the killing, the concept of afterlife, the condemning, the folklores, the stories, the conspiracies, and the killing again, the judicial system, the bias, the justifications, the convictions, the musings, the worships, the conceptualizing God, the scriptures.

HUMANS PLAY GOD.

Some can say that this is due to God's absence and humans' curiosity makes them feel the need to fill the void. Humans need to fill it to explain the mysteries of life and consciousness, and success and failure.

There's actually no void. And instead of trying to fill it by assumptions that had cost us many lives (our heroes, our villains), I and many people decided to learn what is there and corrected the old views. What I found works better: /author_blog...

You can decide too:
1. To leave the past behind and start over.
2. To refuse to evolve and keep doing the same thing.

My choice is clear and I'm pursuing a research to store our memories.
/author_blog...

Absolutely no harm will come from 'no death and dearth' policy. We didn't know this policy in the past and look how much it had cost us, all the time and resources and lives. We should've done the researches a long time ago, instead of warring and saying there is an afterlife because we are very lazy and we find it easier to take our life and beloved beautiful Earth for granted which will be fatal. No time is better than now. The Earth is changing and Mars is getting closer.

Even the literature's 'Satans and Gods' will finally be at peace if they apply the 'no death and dearth' policy.

Because I wonder whether you think I said there's no God.

Because never once have I ever said that �. Please check all my posts. What I said was: you shouldn't conceptualize God. Study it instead.

I think I'm sure I never said there is no god except a few days ago, when I and my goodreads friends were discussing creationism/evolution. In fact, the first reviewers know that the original description of my book said 'There is a creator', but I had to erase it because apparently many people thought I was talking about creationism.

No God will object to PEACE ON EARTH, only presumptuous humans will.

If we put a tiger and a cat in one room with limited resources for a year, it is most likely that the cat will die first. The universe doesn't care for who is right or wrong. The universe lets both happen and the universe lets both end. A natural disaster claims all lives.

"THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG. No matter who you are or what you are, you must never harm life and you must never spend resources! These are the ones that matter."
This works in all conflict scenarios:
Let's say someone hits your car, who is right and who is wrong then? Here, both of you should understand that it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, because according to the universe it doesn't matter. What matters is both your lives and the resources. You and the other driver should instead adhere to the policy "no death or dearth". If you adhere to this, no conflict will ensue because conflict will consume life and resources. Both individuals will come to an agreement that is acceptable as common purpose.
The Israelis and Palestinians should never care for who is right and who is wrong. They should instead take care of the thing that matters: life and resources.

This knowledge will also safeguard our lives and bring them toward the true heaven: where there is no death and dearth. Or would any of us prefer an oblivion type of paradise after death? If we lose the neurons, all these concepts of out-of-body experience, other dimensions, transcendental meditation, including all we can possibly think of as heaven will not be felt as something that exists, therefore lack of consciousness/neurons will cause all that to cease to matter. Any ideas of an afterlife, all the other concepts that have any slightest possibility of being true, ALL THE CONCEPTS THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY DREAM OF will cease to exist for us if we die. This isn't arguable. There is nothing anyone can say to defend the concept of afterlife, because beyond what we can possibly think of or subconsciously dream of is nothing.

I shared this with you so that if God were up there, He could say:
I gave them the universe, finally, the humans get it. They finally get what consciousness is for. The bacteria, dinosaurs, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis didn't get it. Homo sapiens didn't get it before with their religious scriptures that they claimed to have heard from Me or from the other species before them, and their subjective, speculative nature and moral values that have harmed and killed many.

posted by Andreas Laurencius on March, 02 ]]> /author_blog_posts/9474094-peace-finally Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:50:00 -0800 Peace, finally. /author_blog_posts/9474094-peace-finally
There is no god or satan, because there is no good or evil.

So far, we know nothing of God except from religions.
One concept speaks of God's being the good one.
Another concept speaks of God's being The Creator.

Both concepts present us with a problem:
"Proclaiming the presence of divine intervention"
1. In the past and present, in the form of stating that the forces in existence are good and evil, which will result in our:
A. not bearing the responsibilities for our deeds (blaming God and Satan even blaming Adam for our mishaps).
B. justification to end anything we condemn as evil including those who take our limited resources (time and matters), without knowing that good and evil only exist in the mind of the condemners.
2. In the future, where we assume the existence of afterlife and the concept of a greater good (saying it is OK to kill).

There is no good (right) and evil (wrong). And if we adhere to a new scientific, absolute principle which is "There should be no death or dearth":
1. We can achieve the highest possible form of morality.
2. People including the government can make decisions easily.
3. People will stop smoking.
4. Scientific researches will have clear purposes. Genetic researches will be expanded to create better humans, who will never be a threat to any existence.
5. Corruption and rich people who are not productive will be no more.
6. Death penalty will stop.
7. Future intergalactic war will never happen. And current wars will end. Finally, the Middle East can be in peace.
8. Rich people will care about poverty and stop using sports cars.
9. Capitalism and socialism will halt and people will work together as what I propose in the book.
10. Socio economic gap will be reduced to minimum and criminality will go down to 0.

And many more.

It will be all peace instead, forever.

posted by Andreas Laurencius on March, 21 ]]> /author_blog_posts/9415534-support-the-memory-coding-project Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:11:41 -0800 <![CDATA[Support 'The Memory Coding Project']]> /author_blog_posts/9415534-support-the-memory-coding-project
Please support by clicking the 'Like' button below this blog.

The time is now. Or would you rather wait for everything to end? Your loved ones? Yourself?

I won't respond to religious questions and I suggest that everyone do the same. I have seen many deaths. I am just a medical doctor who does social works and a scientist. Please keep me that way.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.�
� Margaret Mead

“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.�
� William Faulkner

“Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.�
� Harriet Tubman

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.�
� R. Buckminster Fuller

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.�
� Nelson Mandela

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
[These words are also inscribed upon his grave]�
� Karl Marx, Eleven Theses on Feuerbach

“[Life]It is what you make it. If you think you can't change the world, then go on and follow the path already carved out for you. But there are other roads to choose, they're just harder to trudge through. Changing the world is'nt easy, but I sure as hell am going to keep trying. Are you?�
� Simone Elkeles, Perfect Chemistry

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.�
� Albert Einstein

“I don't want to live in the kind of world where we don't look out for each other. Not just the people that are close to us, but anybody who needs a helping hand. I cant change the way anybody else thinks, or what they choose to do, but I can do my bit.�
� Charles de Lint

posted by Andreas Laurencius on February, 13 ]]>