Sapiophiles Anonymous

Where shall one point if asked where is the first cell that was "you". This line of thought helped me to understand the trite assurance by physicists that there is no center to the universe. This, because I've held the view for some time that the difficulty in finding the organic/physical boundary pursues an erroneous task due to mismatch in scale. On the scale most "organisms" are familiar with (ie Earth), there are extremely locally unique limited resources. Yet on the scale of stars within a single galaxy, we currently perceive the landscape to be relatively homogenous. This may merely imply a difference in competitive pressures which are the direct inputs to which the time throttle of evolution is adjusted. From this viewpoint, seeing as how competition on cosmic scales is much tamer, we may then begin to see why there exists only one type of body which actually appears to feed on like types: singularities. Excluding these, all other forms of change arise fr...

How can a system be simultaneously chaotic (and thus unpredictable) and deterministic?  A common trend I've found in attempts to predict states is the obligatory necessity of the variable of time into the equations of said system. How else are we to pinpoint when each successive state should occur? This though seems to be a carryover from an antiquated absolutist perspective rather than one of relativism. Here we encounter a problem of identity. One may very well define states in terms of contributing causative variables, which would be instructive in an if/then sense, however we must eventually relate this information back to a location if any prediction is to be had. I propose recursively analytically redressing the state in question's composite variables into equations descriptive of their own states as being necessary before we may do so with a more abstracted subject. Building up the inputs thusly as equations themselves defines them in terms of time on a more subjective a...

Followup to: Testing Bidirectional Temporal Causality Hypothesis: That the human perception of time is proprietarily directional. Similarly, the magnitude of such a vector is called into question, and assuredly relativistic. Whereas (assuming General Relativity) the local background magnitude of time is established at a gravitational baseline, organisms capable of perception may still perturb this standard. When danger is perceived, adrenal hormones activate the sympathetic nervous system which upregulates the rate at which we process our percepts. This has evolved in us because it's selected for organisms who, when in danger, were able to sufficiently rapidly perceive the situation and extricate themselves from harm's way. In this way we already have a shaky relationship with the historical conception of absolute and objective time. Typical detractors of temporal bidirectional potential usually fall into the "free will" camp. They affirm that if the future could affe...

Followup to: A View of Perception Disillusionment is the purpose of scientific inquiry. As subjective individuals we are plagued by (arguably) useful illusions. The severe schizophrenic is only decided to be experiencing hallucinations in that, when compared to his peers, those percepts result in less than competitive behaviors (as interpreted by local ethics and ideals). Hallucination is therefore seen to enter into the field of relativism. Psychologists interested in elucidating perspectivism often turn to child development for answers. A child is born with an equivalent compliment of sense hardware that an adult possesses. The difference in abilities of a newborn and an average adult is therefore one of apperception, of which, an excellent example lies in the field of neurolinguistics. Child A is alone in a room with a toy. A scientist stands on the outside of a one way mirror viewing the room with child B. Child A is seem to place a toy plane under the bed and exits the room. Anoth...

Most of us take the perceived world around us as received truth. So when I first read the philosophies of Plato (and Pythagoras) about how there is the perceived world AND a super-sensible world which is invisible to us (as described by non-empirical sciences like math) I immediately called shenanigans. That is, until I consider that everything man-made is customized to our limited range of the EM spectrum. I am aware of no such bias in the natural world. Snakes hunt by perceiving thermal radiation, bats navigate using sound waves, and platypi use electroreception (ie locate their prey in mud partly by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions). I have no idea how each of these animal's worldviews compares to that of humans, but it is not fanciful to suppose they would be significantly different. These example species too would initially be of the opinion that their perception of the world is it's true nature. Would they be wrong? Are we wrong to assume it si...

Research more about: MiniGRAIL, how antennas work/different types, limits of detection of gravity waves, feasibilty of broadcasting with a minigrail/Mario Shenberg construction (frequency/distance/size/materials??).

I am very interested by anthropological patterns of approach/avoidance behaviors and what they may reveal about the incorporation of taboos into cultures. In modern society the quickest way to determine an individual's self-imposed borders is via language. By adeptly titrating perceived cultural taboos into the conversation, one may determine one's relativisitic level of open-mindedness and as a secondary result, that individual's go-to methods for coping with unexpected situations. Thus forming the quick sketch of an individual in the archetypal first impression.