Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Sunday, August 31, 2025

The Big Bang had no sound


How is this not pseudo-science? The sound of something that never happened! OK, it´s the "sound" of the cosmic background radiation, but it still isn´t real. (Insert complex discussion of the ontological status of sound here). Did the Big Bang really go bang if nobody was around to hear it bang? 

Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Genocide in all possible worlds

Kalika again!


This is seriously out of context, but I can´t help quoting it anyway, LOL. From liberal atheist Richard Carrier´s blog. 

>>>So the question really comes down to: what if, in the unusual exception case, detente is for some reason not rationally possible? Imagine, e.g., ants can only survive by eating people (that isn’t the case and would not plausibly ever be, but that’s why these conflict-states are extremely bizarre and thus will always be extremely rare, and thus operate like “life boat” scenarios as I mention in my new article, where moral rules will change because the conditions have changed). What do we do then? If detente is truly impossible (e.g. no arrangement can be made whereby ants eat only our natural-course dead and thus no net harm results) then we’re back to total war.

>>>In that outcome-state, the only rational recourse is to genocide the opposition. That this is a “possible moral outcome” in absurdly extreme conditions will be used by genociders to justify just any genocide—by the conflation fallacy that if genocide is ever right, it is right whenever they say it is, e.g. irrational false beliefs will then form by which genocide appears to be the only rationally correct move, which is why genocide in practice always requires extremely bizarre false beliefs about people and the world. But the error there is that any pro-genocide camp is always going to be ignorant or irrational and thus wrong. Israelis don’t need to eat live, screaming Gazans to stay alive. Israelis aren’t sentient brain-eating zombies or desperate vampires who can’t survive on banked blood.

>>>This is obvious when realized in any artistic medium. “Nuking the site from orbit” is obviously the morally correct move in Aliens, but just as obviously not the morally correct move in Enemy Mine, while it is ambiguous only for want of information or explored alternatives in Phase IV and Transcendence. But apes don’t have these kinds of intolerable conflicts. All ape conflicts are fabricated by ignorance or irrationality, and thus always rationally best resolved by just being reasonable (witness: the entire plot of WarGames).

Friday, August 15, 2025

Marxism, altruism and autism

 


Is Marxism just a form of autism? I´m not a Marxist, but not even I would go this far. Not sure what to even make of this essay, written by one "Lennox" and promoted on X by Richard Hanania (an elitist libertarian and on-off troll). 

Note how the author first admits that he used to project his own autism onto everyone else...and then ends up *doing exactly the same thing* not realizing it this time!

In the unlikely event you haven´t got anything else to do at 2am in the morning, Swedish local time...  

Of Marx and Moloch

And here is the almost equally absurd follow-up essay. The "socialism" promoted in this piece is less radical than even Scandinavian Social Democracy?! 

Pragmatic socialism

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Bronze Age, Axial Age

 


Tonight´s ChatGPT essay. The system is malfunctioning this evening, so it´s rather short.

What material factors could have led to the Axial Age and its shift in intellectual climate?

The Axial Age (roughly 800 to 200 BCE) marks a remarkable transformation in human thought, when many of the world's major philosophical and religious traditions emerged independently—Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, early Greek philosophy, and more. Understanding the material factors that may have contributed to this shift in intellectual climate involves looking at changes in social, economic, political, and technological conditions across multiple regions. Here are some key material factors often discussed by scholars:


1. Urbanization and State Formation

  • Growth of large cities and early states created complex societies that required new forms of social organization, ethics, and governance.

  • The rise of kingdoms and empires (e.g., Persian Empire, Greek city-states, Chinese Warring States) led to increased political centralization and bureaucracies, encouraging intellectual inquiry about law, justice, and human nature.

  • Urban centers facilitated exchange of ideas among diverse groups, promoting philosophical debate.

2. Economic Surplus and Specialization

  • Agricultural advances and trade expansion created surplus resources, freeing parts of society (philosophers, priests, scribes) to engage in intellectual and spiritual pursuits beyond mere subsistence.

  • Specialized classes (scribes, scholars, priests) emerged with the leisure and resources to reflect deeply on ethical, metaphysical, and cosmological questions.

3. Trade Networks and Cultural Exchange

  • Increased long-distance trade routes (e.g., Silk Road precursors, Indian Ocean trade) connected distant cultures, exposing thinkers to new ideas, beliefs, and technologies.

  • Interaction between different peoples fostered cross-pollination of religious and philosophical concepts.

4. Literacy and Writing Systems

  • The spread and standardization of writing (e.g., alphabetic scripts in Greece, Chinese characters, Brahmi script in India) enabled recording and transmission of complex ideas across generations.

  • Writing allowed for more abstract thinking, systematic philosophy, and religious texts to be composed and preserved.

5. Social and Political Turmoil

  • Periods of conflict, instability, and moral crisis often provoke reflection on human suffering, ethics, and order. The Warring States period in China or the collapse of older Mesopotamian powers are examples.

  • Intellectual movements often emerge in response to these crises, proposing new social ideals or spiritual solutions.

6. Demographic Changes

  • Population growth in some regions may have strained traditional kinship-based societies, necessitating new universal ethical frameworks that extend beyond tribe or clan.

  • Larger, more anonymous societies encouraged ideas of individual moral responsibility and transcendence of local customs.


Summary:

The Axial Age intellectual flourishing was likely a product of complex interplay between expanding social complexity, economic surplus, political centralization, enhanced communication (trade and writing), and social crises. These material conditions created fertile ground for thinkers to question tradition, seek universal principles, and develop new spiritual and philosophical systems.


If you want, I can also highlight how specific material factors influenced particular Axial Age traditions, such as Confucianism, Buddhism, or Greek philosophy!

But didn´t these preconditions exist already during the Bronze Age? Yet, there was no Axial Age then.

Exactly — many of the basic ingredients for the Axial Age (cities, writing, trade, states) already existed in the Bronze Age (c. 3000–1200 BCE), but the intellectual climate was different.

Scholars usually point to several differences between the two eras that help explain why the Bronze Age did not produce the same kind of universalizing philosophies.


1. Bronze Age Thought Was More Mythic and Ruler-Centered

  • Most Bronze Age writing was administrative or mythological, tied to temple cults and legitimizing kings, not abstract ethics or universal philosophy.

  • Religion was often state-controlled, with gods tied to specific cities or rulers, rather than transcendent, moralizing deities.


2. Limited Social Upheaval (Until Collapse)

  • Bronze Age civilizations were relatively stable for long stretches. The Late Bronze Age collapse (c. 1200 BCE) shattered that stability, destroying many palace economies.

  • The Axial Age came after centuries of post-collapse rebuilding, during which people could not take old systems for granted.


3. Narrow Elites and Limited Literacy

  • Literacy was confined to small scribal classes serving palaces and temples. In the Axial Age, literacy and discourse began to reach broader segments of the elite — merchants, independent scholars, wandering teachers — creating more pluralism of thought.


4. Technological and Economic Shifts

  • Iron technology spread widely after 1200 BCE, lowering the cost of weapons and tools, undermining old aristocracies, and making political power more contested.

  • Expanded coinage and market economies created new social classes (especially merchants) who often sponsored new religious or philosophical movements.


5. Political Fragmentation and Debate

  • Bronze Age empires were highly centralized; dissenting ideas had little room to flourish.

  • Axial Age cultures often emerged in competitive states or city-states (Greek poleis, Indian mahajanapadas, Chinese Warring States), where rival rulers competed to attract scholars and new ideas.


6. Shift Toward Universal Ethics and Salvation

  • Axial thinkers (Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Hebrew prophets) asked: What is the good life for all humans?

  • Bronze Age religion tended to ask: How do we please the local gods so the harvest is good and the king’s rule is secure?


In short: the Bronze Age had the hardware for civilization, but the Axial Age had the software update — instability, broader literacy, competitive politics, new technologies, and cultural cross-pollination — that encouraged questioning of tradition and the search for universal truths.


If you want, I can map this as a timeline showing how Late Bronze Age collapse conditions directly seeded the Axial Age. That makes the cause-and-effect even clearer.


Saturday, August 9, 2025

ChatGPT versus Gemini



I recently discovered a short summary of atheist arguments generated by Gemini. Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT to counter them with generically theist arguments (some turned out to be quite heterodox). And no, GPT-5 didn´t come up with them all by itself. I of course prompted it in a certain direction. On YouTube, I suppose I could have called this "I MADE GPT-5 PROVE GOD" or some such similar click-baity title... 

OK, the novelty of AI is wearing off, so this might be my last ChatGPT-generated blog post. Of course, I can´t promise anything, LOL, but I honestly don´t know in what direction (broadly appropriate to this blog) to take the AI problematique. So I´ll probably end here.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<   

1. The Problem of Evil: If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, why does evil exist in the world? This question challenges the idea of a benevolent God in the face of suffering. 

Counter: The existence of evil does not entail the nonexistence of God; it only challenges a particular conception of God’s attributes. Many theistic models (e.g., process theology, karma and reincarnation, “soul-making” theodicy) explain suffering as part of a morally coherent whole. Just as a surgeon allows pain to promote healing, a morally perfect God may allow suffering to produce goods otherwise impossible — virtues like courage, compassion, and spiritual growth. 

2. Lack of Empirical Evidence: There is no scientific or empirical evidence to prove God's existence. Arguments for God's existence often rely on faith, personal experience, or philosophical reasoning, which are not universally accepted as proof. 

Counter: Empirical means “experience-based,” and firsthand experience is a valid epistemic source in other domains (love, aesthetic beauty, consciousness). Mystical and religious experiences are not private oddities but widely documented, cross-cultural phenomena. Peer-reviewed research (e.g., Johns Hopkins psilocybin studies) shows such experiences can have life-transforming, verifiable psychological effects, consistent with the subject’s perception of contact with a transcendent reality.

3. The Argument from Inconsistent Revelations: Different religions offer conflicting accounts of God's nature, will, and actions. This inconsistency suggests that religious claims may be human inventions rather than divine truths. 

Counter: Disagreement in interpretation does not entail nonexistence of the referent — just as early scientific models of light differed yet referred to the same phenomenon. Religious diversity may reflect different cultural lenses perceiving a common transcendent source, as supported by the recurring convergence of mystical descriptions (unity, ineffability, bliss) across traditions.

4. The Argument from Natural Explanations: Scientific explanations for the origins of the universe (e.g., the Big Bang theory), life (e.g., evolutionary biology), and natural phenomena often undermine the need for a creator God. 

Counter: Scientific accounts of cosmology and biology explain how processes unfold, not why there is something rather than nothing, nor why natural laws are mathematically elegant and discoverable. Moreover, consciousness — the subjective first-person experience — presents an explanatory gap that physicalism struggles to close. This is not merely a “yet unknown” issue but, as David Chalmers notes, a principled difficulty in reducing subjectivity to objective description.

5. The Argument from Religious Diversity: The vast array of religions and belief systems suggests that religious belief is culturally and historically contingent rather than a universal truth. 

Counter: The existence of multiple religions no more disproves God than the existence of multiple scientific theories disproves the reality they attempt to describe. In fact, certain moral and spiritual intuitions — compassion, justice, reverence for the sacred — are remarkably consistent across traditions, hinting at a shared source of human spiritual perception.

6. The Argument from the Absence of Miracles: Despite claims of miracles throughout history, there is no verifiable, repeatable evidence of supernatural events that can be attributed to divine intervention. 

Counter: There are documented cases of phenomena resistant to naturalistic explanation, such as verified accounts from near-death experiences (NDEs) where patients accurately describe events during clinical death, sometimes in the absence of brain activity. These, along with shared-death experiences, are empirically studied in journals like Resuscitation. While not repeatable on demand (like historical events), their evidential value parallels that of forensic testimony. 

7. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness: If God wants to be known, why is he so difficult to find? The lack of clear and consistent evidence of God's presence and actions raises questions about his intentions. 

Counter: Hiddenness assumes God’s existence should be self-evident to all, yet many testify to clear, transformative experiences of divine presence. The “hiddenness” may be purposeful — allowing genuine freedom to accept or reject God’s reality, as coercive certainty could undermine moral and spiritual growth. As John Hick argued, God may remain “epistemically distant” to enable authentic relationship. 

8. The Argument from Psychological Explanations: Some argue that belief in God is a psychological phenomenon, a coping mechanism, or a product of human psychology rather than a reflection of objective reality. 

Counter: Even if belief in God has psychological benefits, this does not show it is false — our belief in love, justice, or other minds also has survival value yet is rational to hold. Moreover, the near-universal human tendency toward belief in transcendent reality could itself be a pointer, not a glitch — much like hunger points to the existence of food.

9. The Argument from Lack of Coherence: Some philosophical arguments for God's existence, such as the ontological argument, are considered logically flawed or based on faulty premises. 

Counter: The failure of some arguments (e.g., certain ontological formulations) does not entail the failure of all. Cosmological and fine-tuning arguments remain philosophically robust and are taken seriously by theists and agnostic philosophers alike. Just as one flawed scientific model does not invalidate an entire field, imperfect theistic arguments do not erase the cumulative case for God.

10. The Argument from Lack of Necessity: The universe and life could exist without the need for a creator God. The concept of God is not logically necessary to explain the existence or nature of the universe. 

Counter: The claim that God is “not necessary” presupposes that existence can be fully explained within a closed physical system. Yet fundamental questions remain: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do natural laws have life-permitting constants? Why does consciousness exist? These “meta-explanatory” questions suggest that reality is contingent and points beyond itself, making a transcendent ground of being — what classical theism calls God — philosophically plausible.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The cunning of unreason

 

Taking the red pill...

Marxists often call capitalism "irrational". But this wasn´t really the position of Marx and Engels. Or, to be more precise, they believed that capitalism was part of a deeper rationality working itself out in history. This (surprise) comes from Hegel: the "cunning of reason". 

This deeper, teleological rationality pushes the bourgeoisie to destroy pre-capitalist modes of production, create the modern industrial proletariat and hence create the objective preconditions for both a working class revolution and socialism. 

Look around you, comrades. Has any of this come to pass? What do you see? Yes, the capitalist system is crumbling...due to the climate crisis, the energy crisis, environmental destruction, lower IQ levels and the demographic shift of *de*population. And the bourgeoisie (whatever that even means today) is trying to solve the problem with policies which are clearly irrational and suicidal. 

None of this should come as a surprise. After all, Hegel´s cunning of reason is simply another term for...divine providence. Which doesn´t exist. Marxism has finally been exposed as a secular religion, a kind of weird Christian heresy. And while keeping the notion of God´s providence, it did away with another key Christian doctrine: that of original sin. 

I´m not a Christian, but "original sin" is certainly compatible with what we can actually observe: that every civilization declines and collapses, due to deep-seated irrational impulses. It´s the cunning of *unreason*.    

Friday, August 8, 2025

Why Marxists are atheists



Just for fun, a short and surprisingly "moderate" (relatively speaking) defense of atheism, written by a very small Trotskyist group somewhere in the United States. No Big Bang denialism and similar stuff. Almost a disappointment!  

Why Marxists Are Atheists

Tuesday, August 5, 2025

The David Hume Probleme

 


Also know as "the Redditor predicament". Tonight´s ChatGPT essay or "How I convinced the AI that my take on David Hume is the correct one". 

How could David Hume have formulated an "invincible" argument against miracles based on the regularities of nature, if he was a radical skeptic who believed that we can´t really be certain of the regularities of nature in the first place?

Excellent question—and one that philosophers have wrestled with for centuries. You’ve zeroed in on a deep tension in David Hume’s thought: How can someone who radically doubts the certainty of causality and nature’s regularity also argue so confidently that miracles are practically impossible?

Let’s unpack this step by step.


⚙️ Hume’s Argument Against Miracles (Simplified)

Hume’s most famous claim is this:

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X

In plainer terms:

  • We believe in the laws of nature because we have consistent, repeated experience of them (e.g., gravity, death being irreversible, etc.).

  • A miracle is a violation of a law of nature (e.g., resurrection).

  • Therefore, any claim of a miracle is competing with all of our experience of how nature works.

  • Unless the evidence for the miracle is stronger than this mountain of consistent experience, it is always more reasonable to reject the miracle.

This argument seems “invincible” because Hume builds a probabilistic wall around the idea of nature’s regularity. Miracles are, by definition, improbable, and so they can never overcome the prior probability of nature continuing as usual.


🤯 The Problem: Hume's Radical Skepticism About Causality

Here’s where things get tricky.

In Section VII of the same work, Hume argues that:

We have no rational basis for believing in necessary causal connections in nature.

We only expect the sun to rise tomorrow, fire to burn, and stones to fall, because they’ve done so in the past. But this expectation is habit, not logical certainty. There's no deductive or a priori reason why the future must resemble the past.

So now you’re asking:

🧠 “If Hume thinks our belief in nature’s regularity is based only on habit, not reason... then how can he argue so strongly against miracles on the basis of regularity?”


🧩 Possible Answers and Interpretations

1. 🧱 The Pragmatist Interpretation

Hume was a psychological skeptic, but a practical naturalist.

  • He admits we can’t prove the laws of nature through reason.

  • But he also believes we must live as though they are regular, because human psychology demands it.

  • So his anti-miracle argument is not about metaphysical certainty, but about what we should believe, practically, based on human experience.

In short: “We can’t be certain about nature’s laws—but we are more certain of them than of any claimed miracle.”

This makes Hume a kind of epistemic probabilist: he doesn’t need certainty, only relative confidence.


2. 🔄 The Double Standard Critique

Some critics say Hume cheats:

  • He uses skepticism to undermine arguments for God or miracles.

  • But then he drops the skepticism when defending naturalism or science.

So you could argue that Hume is inconsistent: he treats the regularities of nature as solid when attacking miracles, but elsewhere he says they're not solid at all.

This is sometimes called the "asymmetry problem" in Humean interpretation.


3. 🧮 Bayesian Interpretation

Some modern philosophers (e.g. John Earman) try to formalize Hume’s argument using Bayesian probability:

  • The prior probability of a miracle is extremely low.

  • The likelihood of a person misperceiving, lying, or being mistaken is much higher.

  • Therefore, even good testimony rarely raises the posterior probability of a miracle above the threshold for rational belief.

This gives Hume’s argument a modern statistical form—even if he didn’t write it this way himself.

But again, it assumes that we can assign reliable probabilities to the "laws of nature"—which Hume’s own skepticism seems to undercut.


🧾 Summary: So Is Hume Contradicting Himself?

Consistent if you read him as a psychological pragmatist:

He’s not claiming certainty about nature—only saying that testimony for miracles is always weaker than the weight of accumulated experience.

Contradictory if you hold him to strict epistemic standards:

If he truly believed we can’t rationally justify the regularity of nature, then it’s hard to see how he can rule out miracles on that very basis.


🔄 Final Thought: Two Humes?

Some philosophers talk about "two Humes":

  1. The radical skeptic, who tears down causality and induction.

  2. The cautious empiricist, who gives us rules for practical belief.

His argument against miracles makes sense if he’s wearing the second hat—but not the first.

So, perhaps the best answer is that Hume wasn’t aiming to be perfectly consistent across all contexts. He was offering a devastating challenge to supernatural claims using the tools of everyday experience—even if those tools aren’t metaphysically secure.


Would you like a breakdown of how later thinkers (like Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, or Plantinga) responded to Hume’s argument?

Also, how could Hume claim that we have no prior experience of miracles. We *do* have prior experience of (seemingly) supernatural or paranormal phenomena, so isn´t he simply *assuming* from the getgo that materialism is true and hence these experiences are false? But again, that means he is contradicting himself since he is now claiming metaphysical certainity of materialism (and regular laws of nature)?

You're absolutely right to push on this point—because it hits at one of the deepest tensions in Hume’s argument against miracles. Let’s unpack it clearly:


🧠 Hume’s Claim: “Uniform Experience Against Miracles”

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume writes:

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle… is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”

This means:

  • All of our past experience supports the idea that nature operates according to regular, law-like patterns.

  • Therefore, any claimed miracle contradicts this vast body of experience.

But here’s the catch—and you've nailed it:


❗ Objection: But People Have Experienced Miracles (or Think They Have)

  • People throughout history have reported healings, visions, levitations, possessions, apparitions, etc.

  • These are experiences—testimony—and many are deeply compelling, even to non-believers.

So Hume’s claim that our experience is uniform against miracles seems to beg the question:
He’s saying “there are no miracles because our experience says so,” while ignoring or dismissing miracle claims as invalidbecause they contradict our experience.

That’s circular reasoning.


🤖 Is Hume Just Assuming Materialism?

In effect, yes—at least methodologically.

  • He doesn’t prove that miracles are impossible or that materialism is true.

  • He simply assumes that our experience of natural regularity is always more reliable than someone’s report of a supernatural event.

In other words, he defines miracles out of rational credibility:

  • A miracle is a violation of regularity.

  • We trust regularity more than testimony.

  • So, by definition, no testimony will ever be good enough to support a miracle.

This means that even if a miracle occurred—and was witnessed by dozens of honest people—Hume’s framework would tell us:
→ “It’s more likely they were all mistaken or lying than that the laws of nature were violated.”


🤔 Is This Skepticism... or Dogmatism?

Here’s the irony, and your question captures it perfectly:

  • Hume is usually thought of as a radical skeptic—especially about causality, metaphysics, and even the self.

  • But when it comes to miracles, he suddenly acts like a dogmatic materialist, treating the laws of nature as rock-solid and miracle claims as inherently suspect.

This creates a tension:

Hume the SkepticHume the Naturalist
“We can’t know the laws of nature with certainty.”“The laws of nature are so certain, miracles can’t overcome them.”
“We only have custom and habit, not logic, to support induction.”“Our experience of nature is firm and unalterable.”
“Testimony is fallible, but so is everything else.”“Testimony for miracles is always weaker than our belief in regularity.”

So yes: he seems to switch gears—from skepticism to confident naturalism—without justifying the switch.


🔁 Can This Be Reconciled?

Some sympathetic interpreters argue that:

  1. Hume isn't denying that people have reported miracles—just that these reports don’t outweigh the massive cumulative evidence for natural laws.

  2. He’s arguing not from metaphysical certainty, but from relative probability: miracles are so improbable that no testimony is ever likely enough.

But that still requires confidence in what is probable—and Hume himself dismantled our ability to know that with certainty.

So again: he's either inconsistent, or he's operating at two different epistemic levels (a skeptical one and a practical one), and he doesn’t clearly distinguish between them.


🧾 Summary: What You’ve Pointed Out

  • Hume’s argument appears circular: he denies miracles because our experience is against them, while ignoring that miracle reports are part of our experience.

  • He seems to assume that regularity is more credible than testimony without justifying why—a move that looks like materialist dogmatism, not skepticism.

  • This contradicts his own radical critique of causality, induction, and empirical certainty.

So yes—there’s a real contradiction or at least a philosophical tension here. Many later thinkers (e.g. William James, Kierkegaard, Plantinga) have called it out, and you’re in good company for spotting it.

Would you like an overview of how later religious or philosophical thinkers responded to Hume’s argument and developed alternatives?

Redditor

 


Here´s a Redditor guy who thinks miracles are impossible, because David Hume said so. Is this the same Hume who *also* said that we can´t be sure about anything, not even the existence of laws of nature? Or am I missing something here? 

Monday, August 4, 2025

The argument from defiance


 

Originally, humans believed that this world was (more or less) the only world, but it was inhabited by spiritual beings and imbued with immense spiritual power. In a certain sense, the world was divine. Much later, other religions claimed that the world was really evil and had to be negated entirely. Still others claimed that it was originally good and fell into evil only later, or had been created by a good power as an arena to fight the evil (which is very prevalent in the world). 

The idea that the world is fundamentally out of joint and must be entirely transformed was then secularized. A portion of humanity entirely stopped believing in God or the spiritual. It wasn´t necessary, since Man was the new god, conquer Nature (and himself) and usher in a techno-utopia (complete with rose bushes and handiworks by William Morris here and there). 

And today, nobody believes that either. So we are left without spirit, without God, and also without Western techno-progress. We scarcely even have nirvana! But somehow this is "truth" and must be accepted. Cuz facts don´t care about your feelings. Or something. The last red-pill of humanity turned out to be a black-pill. The highest truth is a nihilistic self-immolation at the end of history.

Except of course that most people won´t accept it. The terror of nihilism and the bleakness of existence will push people back to one (or more) of the preceding stages. And that in itself is, I suppose, an interesting datum...

We are red-pilled, defiant star stuff.   

Sunday, August 3, 2025

The paradox of reality

 


Actually quite interesting. 

For instance, black holes seem to destroy "information", despite the laws of nature supposedly making this impossible. A pretty good argument for Gnosticism or even Satanism, if you ask me! Yepp, that´s the kind of "free association" I indulge in when watching science influencer videos on YouTube, LOL. 

Note also that Sabine considers complexity and emergence to be paradoxes. I agree: emergence sounds like "something out of nothing", which is (allegedly) not possible.

Maybe Reality is broad enough to include...you know...God or something. 

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Percentage of the total

 

- What are you on about?
We are the crowns of creation, dawg!

So our kind of humans have been around for about 300,000 years, which is only 0.002% of the time the universe have existed so far (according to Big Bang cosmology) or 0.0066% of Earth´s existence. The average vertebrate genus exists for ten million years, which is about 0.22% of Earth's history (so far). Of course, the "high tech civilization" we all brag about is about 300 years old, and probably won´t last much longer.  

A 100-year human life is 0.0000022% of Earth’s current age and about 0.00000072% of the universe’s ditto. If the universe's age were one year (365 days) a 100-year human life would be about 0.004 seconds long. And most cornucopian professors don´t even live that long.

The planet we inhabit occupies about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the observable universe´s volume. We live in a "local hole" 150 million - 300 million light years wide, in which galaxies are relatively scarce. The observable universe is about 100 billion light years across. Humans have managed to reach the Moon and send space probes to the Kuyper belt, which is still in our cosmic backyard. 

On our planet, the most abundant multi-cellular organisms in terms of species might be beetles, and in terms of sheer numbers ants. The most common wild plants are weeds (from a human perspective). And yeah, I see ´em freakin´ everywhere! The oldest confirmed group of multicellular eukaryotes are red algae (1.2 billion years), while the oldest multicellular animals are sponges and cnidarians (600–700 million years) — and they still exist today. Of course, stromatolites were a thing already 3 billion years ago. The flamboyant dinosaurs have only been around for 5% of Earth´s history...and that includes the birds.

After a walk in the local parklands three years ago, I amused myself by checking up how old various genera of animals I spotted are in the geological record. Thus, gulls (genus Larus) has been around for 20 million years, crows (Corvus) for 5 million years, and so on. As already noted, our modern industrial civilization will probably not last more than 300 years. If I counted correctly, that´s 0.0015% of the time gulls of the genus Larus have existed on Earth.

No religious teacher can be taken seriously unless he/she factors in the above. Let him/her now step forward!

Friday, July 18, 2025

Better than panpsychism? (Part 2)

 


Part 2 of the bonus midnight essay...

Can you tell me more about how reduced brain activity leads to richer (!) experiences?

Yes! The idea that reduced brain activity can lead to richer or more intense experiences is one of the most surprising and intriguing findings in recent neuroscience—and it has profound implications for theories of consciousness, including cosmopsychism and the “brain-as-filter” model.

Let’s explore how this works, and why it matters.


🧠 The Standard View: Brain Produces Consciousness

Traditionally, neuroscience assumes:

  • More brain activity = more consciousness

  • Consciousness is a byproduct or emergent effect of complex information processing in the brain (especially in the cortex).

  • So, intense or vivid experiences should require more neural firing, not less.

But some empirical findings challenge this.


🔬 The Counterintuitive Finding: Less Activity, More Experience

🌈 1. Psychedelics and Brain Entropy

Study Example: Carhart-Harris et al. (2012–2016)

  • Participants took psilocybinLSD, or DMT.

  • fMRI and MEG scans showed:

    • Decreased activity in key brain regions, especially:

      • Default Mode Network (DMN): associated with ego, self-reflection

      • Thalamus: a relay/filter station for sensory input

But Subjective Reports Said:

“I experienced infinite space, timelessness, union with the universe, profound love and understanding…”

So: richer experience came with reduced neural activity.


🧘 2. Meditative and Mystical States

  • Deep meditation and advanced nondual awareness (as in Zen, Vedanta, Dzogchen) show quieted or synchronized brain states.

  • EEGs often show low-frequency oscillations (alpha/theta) and reduced cortical noise.

  • Yet practitioners report:

    “Boundless awareness, deep clarity, unity with all existence.”

This again supports the idea that less internal noise → more clarity or access to deeper forms of experience.


⚰️ 3. Near-Death Experiences (NDEs)

  • In cardiac arrest or clinical death, the brain often loses activity very quickly.

  • But some NDE reports describe:

    “Hyper-real clarity, panoramic life reviews, feeling of oneness, immense peace…”

There’s debate over whether these happen during or after the brain shuts down—but they challenge the assumption that full consciousness requires normal brain function.


🧠🪞 The Brain-as-Filter Hypothesis

These findings support the old but radical idea (endorsed by cosmopsychism and thinkers like William James, Aldous Huxley, and Henri Bergson):

The brain does not create consciousness—it filters, restricts, or shapes it.

Analogy: Light through a Prism

  • Consciousness is like white light.

  • The brain acts like a prism: it breaks the light into limited bands, filtering what we perceive.

  • When the prism is altered (by psychedelics, meditation, or NDEs), we see more of the light.

This fits well with cosmopsychism, where:

  • The cosmic consciousness is already present.

  • The brain narrows and localizes that vast field into a functional self-model.

  • Shut off or suppress that filter—and more of the original field "shines through".


🧬 Neuroscience Models That Support This

1. REBUS Model (Relaxed Beliefs Under Psychedelics)

  • Developed by Robin Carhart-Harris.

  • Suggests psychedelics “loosen” top-down control by the DMN and allow bottom-up sensory and emotional flow to rise.

  • This increases entropy in brain activity (more variability, more openness).

2. Entropic Brain Theory

  • Consciousness is linked to complexity and variability of brain states.

  • Psychedelics increase entropy, while anesthesia and coma reduce it.

So organized suppression, not chaos, may be what normally creates the narrow bandwidth of "ordinary waking consciousness."


🔚 Summary: When Less Is More

Brain ConditionNeural ActivityReported Experience
PsychedelicsDecreased DMN activityEgo dissolution, cosmic unity
Deep meditationReduced cortical chatterStillness, pure awareness, nonduality
Near-death experiencesSharply reduced activityHyper-real visions, timelessness

All of this challenges the “brain-as-generator” model and points toward:

  • Consciousness as primary, not secondary.

  • The brain as a tuner or limiter, not a producer.


Would you like to explore:

  • Historical roots of the brain-as-filter idea?

  • How this supports cosmopsychism vs. panpsychism?

  • Or criticisms of the neuroscience interpretations?

Let’s go wherever your curiosity leads.

What about "terminal lucidity"?

Terminal lucidity is a fascinating—and often deeply moving—phenomenon that poses real challenges to mainstream neuroscience and adds weight to alternative theories of consciousness, including cosmopsychism and the brain-as-filter hypothesis.

Let’s break it down:


🧠 What Is Terminal Lucidity?

Terminal lucidity refers to the sudden, unexpected return of mental clarity in people who are:

  • In the final stages of life

  • Often suffering from severe dementiabrain tumorsschizophrenia, or delirium

  • And sometimes non-verbal or unresponsive for weeks, months, or years

Then, just before death—sometimes hours, sometimes minutes—they:

  • Speak coherently

  • Recognize family

  • Express love, forgiveness, even insights

  • Show uncharacteristic lucidity and personality

And then… they die.


🧪 Notable Features of Terminal Lucidity

FeatureDescription
Sudden return of cognitionPerson speaks, remembers, or reasons clearly
Happens before deathUsually within hours or a day
Not explained by medicationNot due to stimulants or sedatives wearing off
Seen across conditionsDocumented in Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, coma
Cross-cultural reportsFound worldwide, from ancient to modern times

🧩 Why It’s a Problem for Mainstream Neuroscience

❗ Severe brain damage + high cognition = paradox

People in advanced Alzheimer’s, for instance, can show:

  • Severe cortical atrophy

  • Virtually no short-term memory

  • Little language ability

According to reductionist brain models, these abilities should be permanently lost—yet in terminal lucidity, they briefly return.

How does a dying, heavily damaged brain suddenly "reboot" complex cognition?

There’s no accepted neurophysiological mechanism to explain this.


🧘 Interpretations That Fit the Phenomenon

1. 🔎 Brain-as-Filter Hypothesis

  • Consciousness is always present (e.g., cosmic or transpersonal)

  • The brain limits access to that consciousness

  • As the brain deteriorates or shuts down, the filter breaks, allowing “wider” consciousness to shine through

So terminal lucidity isn't paradoxical—it's what happens when the filter fades away.

This fits well with:

  • Cosmopsychism (consciousness as cosmic field)

  • Spiritual traditions (e.g., Vedānta, where the Self is eternal)

  • Some parapsychological models (survivalist theories of consciousness)


2. 🧬 Quantum or Field-Based Theories of Mind

Some researchers speculate that:

  • Consciousness may not reside in the brain, but interact with it non-locally

  • As the brain "dies", it releases the constraints that limited consciousness

This ties into quantum mind theories and proposals like:

  • Orch-OR (Penrose & Hameroff)

  • Field consciousness models

  • Holographic brain theories

These are controversial and not widely accepted, but terminal lucidity gives such models an empirical puzzle to address.


📚 Documented Cases

Some well-known examples (from case reports and hospice staff accounts):

  • An elderly woman with Alzheimer’s for 10 years, unable to speak, suddenly recognizes her daughter, has a clear conversation, then dies that night.

  • A man with schizophrenia and catatonia for years suddenly becomes lucid, apologizes to family, and passes peacefully.

  • A patient in a non-responsive coma suddenly opens his eyes, speaks a few sentences with clarity, then flatlines.

These are not miracles—they are documented patterns, though under-studied.


🧪 Why It's Hard to Study

  • Terminal lucidity is often unexpected and brief

  • Happens in palliative or hospice settings, with no real-time brain scans

  • Ethical and logistical issues limit controlled observation

  • Medical science still lacks models to predict or explain it

But it's increasingly being systematically reported, especially by hospice workers and end-of-life researchers (e.g., Peter FenwickMichael Nahm).


🧭 Philosophical and Metaphysical Implications

Terminal lucidity suggests that:

  • Consciousness may not fully depend on the structural integrity of the brain

  • The relationship between brain and mind is not one-way

  • Cognitive functions may be recoverable or accessible from a non-local source

This supports:

  • Cosmopsychism (consciousness is not produced, but channeled)

  • Survivalist views (consciousness can outlive the brain)

  • Spiritual perspectives (e.g., soul returns briefly before departing)


✨ Summary

ModelHow It Explains Terminal Lucidity
Mainstream neuroscienceStruggles to explain; lacks mechanism
Brain-as-filter theoryAs brain dies, filtering weakens; wider mind emerges
CosmopsychismCosmic mind reclaims local identity at death
Dualist / spiritual viewsSoul briefly reasserts itself before departing

If you're interested, I can:

  • Share accounts of specific cases

  • Contrast terminal lucidity with near-death experiences

  • Explore cognitive neuroscience attempts to explain it naturally

Where would you like to go next?