Posts tagged human.

Immature people falling in love destroy each other’s freedom, create a bondage, make a prison. Mature persons in love help each other to be free; they help each other to destroy all sorts of bondages. And when love flows with freedom there is beauty. When love flows with dependence there is ugliness.

A mature person does not fall in love, he or she rises in love. Only immature people fall; they stumble and fall down in love. Somehow they were managing and standing. Now they cannot manage and they cannot stand. They were always ready to fall on the ground and to creep. They don’t have the backbone, the spine; they don’t have the integrity to stand alone.

A mature person has the integrity to stand alone. And when a mature person gives love, he or she gives without any strings attached to it. When two mature persons are in love, one of the great paradoxes of life happens, one of the most beautiful phenomena: they are together and yet tremendously alone. They are together so much that they are almost one. Two mature persons in love help each other to become more free. There is no politics involved, no diplomacy, no effort to dominate. Only freedom and love.

#love  #Osho  #maturity  #human  

Biologists, Neuroscientists,

Hypothetically, what would you say to someone asking the “chicken or egg” question about neural chemistry: Does neurologocal/chemical/genetic information precede personality/responses/disposition or is it simply an expression of metaphysical “events”?

For example, those who believe in soul or karma and reincarnation, usually are more partial to the latter answer. For them, “chemistry” cannot possibly add up to the complex phenomenon they witness, therefore they accept the metaphysical answers more readily.

For a scientist, there may be other reasons to question “what came first,” but a metaphysical preference isn’t one of them. I wonder how valid the question is right now, for the scientific community.

It seems to me that we don’t yet know exactly how things add up to what we witness, and yet Evolutionary theory gives tells us that things were not even as organized as this, before. So the idea that there are some metaphysical absolutes that govern behavior seems a little silly, seeing how much behavior has changed over centuries and how much it differs between species (so long as we don’t take the anthropocentric stance, and do value the “morality”/experience/behavioral patterns of other species instead of casting that information aside and believing the “humans are special and endowed” paradigm.)

But back to it — how would you answer?

‘You are not the same person you used to be, you have to admit. You’ve stuffed your brain with augmentations … When you grow the religious part of the temporal lobe, you can turn into a very different person, not to mention risking epilepsy. And that was only the start. Now you’ve got the animal stuff in there, you’ve got Pauline in there, recording everything you see—it is not insignificant. It can do damage. You end up being some kind of post-human thing. Or at least a different person.’

‘Every thing I’ve done to myself I consider part of being a human being. I mean, who wouldn’t do it if they could? I would be ashamed not to! It isn’t being post human, it’s being fully human. It would be stupid not to do the good things when you can, it would be antihuman.’

2312, Kim Stanley Robinson
  • A: She likes Jane Austen?
  • B: She would.
  • A: I don't like those stories.
  • B: Stale
  • A: They don't reach beyond the species
  • B: They encourage recursive thinking
  • A: Mental patterns in the same loop
  • B: Man Woman Man Woman
  • ABAB: Not for me.
  • Instead, imagine living with the notion that you are little more than or as grand as dedicated memory. How funny.
  • C: Then, can't you reconfigure?
  • B: Says the AI. What do You know about living?

Fire gods, thunder gods, lightning and volcano gods, every combustible deity, from Agni the Hindu god of fire to Volund the German blacksmith of the gods: all these names attempt to humanize the moon, but fail. Io is not a human place.

2312, Kim Stanley Robinson

Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.

Albert Camus (via unbearablevastness)

I don’t know about that, Albert. What does that mean? What are we to be? Do stick insects and those birds who make flower art also share our stubbornness, then?

(via universalnomad)

But... I want to be a Teddy Bear! ›

Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous.

Lenoardo da Vinci (via inthenoosphere)

••••••

OS:

And when Nature does lack, she simple eats the thing doing the lacking. Problem solved.

Love you Leo, but so pre-Darwin.

‘What the BLEEP’ Is Wildly and Irresponsibly Wrong.

David Albert

“It seems to me that what’s at issue (at the end of the day) between serious investigators of the foundations of quantum mechanics and the producers of the “what the bleep” movies is very much of a piece with what was at issue between Galileo and the Vatican, and very much of a piece with what was at issue between Darwin and the Victorians.

There is a deep and perennial and profoundly human impulse to approach the world with a DEMAND, to approach the world with a PRECONDITION, that what has got to turn out to lie at THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, that what has got to turn out to lie at THE FOUNDATION OF ALL BEING, is some powerful and reassuring and accessible image of OURSELVES.

That’s the impulse that the What the Bleep films seem to me to flatter and to endorse and (finally) to exploit - and that, more than any of their particular factual inaccuracies - is what bother me me about them. It is precisely he business of resisting that demand, it is precisely the business of approaching the world with open and authentic wonder, and with a sharp, cold eye, and singularly intent upon the truth, that’s called science.” — DA

via { SLOG }

…My thoughts exactly.

WHY GENERAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS FAILED
AND HOW TO FIX IT
.

Excerpts from an essay by David Deutsch:

It is uncontroversial that the human brain has capabilities that are, in some respects, far superior to those of all other known objects in the cosmos.

It is the only kind of object capable of understanding that the cosmos is even there, or why there are infinitely many prime numbers, or that apples fall because of the curvature of space-time, or that obeying its own inborn instincts can be morally wrong, or that it itself exists. Nor are its unique abilities confined to such cerebral matters.

The cold, physical fact is that it is the only kind of object that can propel itself into space and back without harm, or predict and prevent a meteor strike on itself, or cool objects to a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, or detect others of its kind across galactic distances.

But no brain on Earth is yet close to knowing what brains do in order to achieve any of that functionality.

The enterprise of achieving it artificially — the field of ‘artificial general intelligence’ or AGI — has made no progress whatever during the entire six decades of its existence.

What is needed is nothing less than a breakthrough in philosophy, a theory that explains how brains create explanations

… and hence defines, in principle, without ever running them as programs, which algorithms possess that functionality and which do not.

Despite this long record of failure, AGI must be possible. And that is because of a deep property of the laws of physics, namely the universality of computation.

This entails that everything that the laws of physics require a physical object to do can, in principle, be emulated in arbitrarily fine detail by some program on a general-purpose computer, provided it is given enough time and memory.

Emphases mine.
Abridged version via Kurzweil AI.
Full version at Aeon Magazine.

Amazing Facts About Our Bodies

beben-eleben:

Swallow and Breathe

Fact: Humans are the only mammal that can’t swallow and breathe at the same time.

Every other mammal, and many other non-mammalian animals, can breathe while they eat. In fact, human infants are also able to do so, which lets them breathe while they nurse. We lose this ability around the age of 9 months, when our voice box drops as part of our development. As children and adults, the human voice box lays unusually low in the neck compared to other animals. This allows sound to resonate much more, which is why we are able to produce the wide range of sounds that makes up our speech.

Second Brain

Fact: You have a second brain in your gut.

Well, sort of. You have around 100 million neurons, more than are in your spinal cord, that line your gut from your esophagus to your anus. This is known to scientists as the enteric nervous system. This second brain is incapable of conscious thought and is largely responsible for digestion, but it does more than that. If you’ve ever felt “butterflies” in your stomach or felt as if you’ve been punched in the gut when receiving bad news, that was caused by your enteric nervous system. This also plays a roll in your overall mood, why certain foods can alter your mood and why bad situations or feelings often cause you to lose your appetite.

Loneliness

Fact: Loneliness is physically painful.

Ok, you probably knew that. But do you know why? Researchers at the University of California asked volunteers to play a computer game that simulated a simple game of catch with two other players. What they didn’t know was that the other “players” were just the computer and it was designed to leave them out after a few minutes of play, resulting in feelings of loneliness and rejection. They found that the feeling of loneliness is actually processed in the same part of your brain as physical pain, called the anterior cingulate cortex. This explains the human desire to fit in, to seek out companionship and helps to understand the power of peer pressure. Scientists are also hoping to use this information to help explain and treat some forms of depression.

Saliva

Fact: You salivate more before you vomit.

This is an automatic bodily reflex designed to protect your throat, mouth and teeth. Stomach acid is, of course, highly acidic and if it weren’t for the lining in your stomach it would eat a hole right through it. Unfortunately, you don’t have that same lining in your throat or mouth. Salivating before vomiting helps to dilute and rinse away the acid so it won’t harm the rest of your body. Your saliva can also help to neutralize the acid somewhat. This is also why it’s a good idea to rinse out your mouth and brush your teeth after you vomit.

Bitter Sweet

Fact: Cut yourself? Put sugar on it!

Healers in Africa have been putting crushed sugar cane on wounds for generations. Moses Murandu is a nurse who grew up watching his father use the remedy in Africa and was surprised to find that doctors in England didn’t use it. He started a study to research the idea, testing it on patients with bed sores, leg ulcers and amputations before dressing the wounds. They found that the sugar can reduce pain and kill bacteria that slow healing. Sugar is hygroscopic, meaning it naturally absorbs water which the bacteria need to survive. Sugar is also much cheaper than more modern antibiotics. So the next time you cut yourself, give it a sprinkle of sugar before putting on a band-aid!

Forgetful

Fact: Forget why you walked into a room? There is a reason.

Have you ever walked into a room and forgot why you were there? And after that, have you ever noticed that you can sometimes remember if you go back through the doorway? There is actually a reason for that. Researchers in Notre Dame conducted several experiments on rooms and their effect on memory. Subjects in the study were divided into two groups and given a simple task while traveling the same distance. The only difference is one group went through a doorway and the other didn’t. They found that people who traveled through the doorway were three times more likely to forget their task. Researchers concluded that our mind perceives doorways as “event boundaries” and that decisions you made in that room are “stored” there when you leave. That is also why you can remember if you go back into that room.

Color Vision

Fact: Some woman actually see more colors.

Frustrated because you told your hubby to bring your peach shirt and he grabbed a pink one? It might not be his fault. A study from the University of California shows that up to 50% of women carry four types of color receptors, or iodopsins, rather than the usual three. Normal visioned people will look at a rainbow and see seven different colors, while one with four receptors will see around 10 colors. The reason this happens in woman is that the red and green receptors are located on the X chromosome, while the blue is on the Y. The red and green receptors can be slightly shifted allowing for a greater range of color vision. There are also a small number of women who will have both kinds of red and green, resulting in 5 color receptors. This is also why color blindness is much more common in men than women.

Boogers

Fact: Eating your boogers may been good for you!

Your nasal mucus (booger) is designed to filter out airborne contaminants and so eating it has long thought to be bad for you, but recent study shows that it may actually help to boast your immune system by introducing those contaminants in small amounts, training your body to recognize and fight against them. But don’t worry, you don’t have to start picking your nose. You have most likely already eaten your boogers, even if you are unaware of it. Mucus accumulated in your nasal passages is often directed backwards and down your throat by the motion of your cilia (hair like structures on your cells used to move things). Yum…

Redundant Nostril

Fact: You probably only breath through one nostril at a time.

This happens in about 85% of people. The truly interesting thing about that is in those people the body with automatically switch between nostrils every four hours or so, although it can vary based on body position, illness or just from person to person. This is accomplished through erectile tissue in your nose similar to that in a penis or clitoris. The erectile tissue will slowly swell up in one nostril, eventually blocking most of it while the tissue in the other one will shrink, allowing for more air flow. It has been found that which side you are breathing from can have an effect on your body. If you are breathing from the right side, for example, your blood glucose levels will rise and you will use much more oxygen. Also, breathing through the right will cause higher activity in the left side of your brain and vise versa. This could be useful in stimulating your right (creative) side or your left (logical) side as needed.

Blood Vessels

Fact: Every pound of fat gained causes your body to make 7 new miles of blood vessels.

Knowing this, it’s easy to see why obesity and heart disease often go together. Most of the new blood vessels are tiny capillaries, but also include small veins and arteries. This means if you are “only” 10 pounds overweight your heart has to pump blood through an extra 70 miles of blood vessels. The good news is that this also works in reverse. If you lose a pound of fat, your body will break down and reabsorb the no longer needed blood vessels. This is encouraging to dieters, as one pound does not seem like a lot to lose, but even that little bit of difference will result in a large benefit for your heart!

©List Verse

sushoreo:

tweedymcgee:

dundee998:

oneandonlygabriel:

steegeschnoeber:

oneandonlygabriel:

I really, REALLY wish you could read this article about a father who started wearing skirts because his son likes to wear skirts and dresses and he wants his son to feel stronger
Like, holy shit, the end made me feel so happy 

I took the liberty to translate the text.

Please note that it’s not a word to word translation.

Sometimes men simply have to be role models.

Because his son likes to wear skirts Nils Pickert started with it as well. After all, the little one needs a role model. And he thinks long skirts with elastic bands suit him quite well anyways. A story about two misfits in the Province of southern Germany.

My fife year old son likes to wear dresses. In Berlin Kreuzberg that alone would be enough to get into conversation with other parents. Is it wise or ridiculous? „Neither one nor the other!“ I still want to shout back at them. But sadly they can’t hear me any more. Because by now I live in a small town in South Germany. Not even a hundred thousand inhabitants, very traditional, very religious. Plainly motherland. Here the partiality of my son are not only a subject for parents, they are a town wide issue. And I did my bit for that to happen.

Yes, I’m one of those dads, that try to raise their children equal. I’m not one of those academic daddies that ramble about gender equality during their studies and then, as soon as a child’s in the house, still relapse into those fluffy gender roles: He’s finding fulfilment in his carrier and she’s doing the rest.

Thus I am, I know that by now, part of the minority that makes a fool of themselves from time to time. Out of conviction.

In my case that’s because I didn’t want to talk my son into not wearing dresses and skirts. He didn’t make friends in doing that in Berlin already and after a lot of contemplation I had only one option left: To broaden my shoulders for my little buddy and dress in a skirt myself. After all you can’t expect a child at pre-school age to have the same ability to assert themselves as an adult. Completely without role model. And so I became that role model.

We already had skirt and dress days back then during mild Kreuzbergian weather. And I think long skirts with elastic bands suit me quite well anyways. Dresses are a bit more difficult. There was either no reaction of the people in Berlin or it was positive. In my small town in the south of Germany that’s a little bit different.

Being all stressed out, because of the moving I forgot to notify the nursery-school teachers to have an eye on my boy not being laughed at because of his fondness of dresses and skirts. Shortly after moving he didn’t dare to go to nursery-school wearing a skirt or a dress any more. And looking at me with big eyes he asked: “Daddy, when are you going to wear a skirt again?”

To this very day I’m thankful for that women, that stared at us on the street until she ran face first into a street light. My son was roaring with laugher. And the next day he fished out a dress from the depth of his wardrobe. At first only for the weekend. Later also for nursery-school.

And what’s the little guy doing by now? He’s painting his fingernails. He thinks it looks pretty on my nails, too. He’s simply smiling, when other boys ( and it’s nearly always boys) want to make fun of him and says: “You only don’t dare to wear skirts and dresses because your dads don’t dare to either.” That’s how broad his own shoulders have become by now. And all thanks to daddy in a skirt.

I hope it’s alright like this.

Translated version for y’alls liking

;u;

Here is parenthood. This is what it means to take a deep breath and grow a pair of gonads and decide to put the needs of somebody littler than you ahead of your own. Somebody whose motivations you don’t understand, who makes choices you’d never make in a million years, who flat-out isn’t you. (Or your sidekick, or your accessory, or your vessel for all your half-baked ideas about the person you’d like to have been.)

Totally humbled by this dad.

Don’t even know them and I’m proud. <3

What beautiful human beings.

Robot learns self-awareness
August 24, 2012

“Only humans can be self-aware.”

Another myth bites the dust. Yale roboticists have programmed Nico, a robot, to be able to recognize itself in a mirror.

via { KurzweilAI }

••••••

This is huge news.

It’s not only important because “robots will need to learn about themselves and how they affect the world around them — especially people,” as stated in the original article;

this has massive implications for the way we think of ourselves, of what we are, what we can do.

There’s an argument that often comes up among laymen at any scientific gathering: that humans are “special” because we have consciousness, we recognize ourselves, we have thoughts, Minds.

While that is amazing, for the scientifically literate person it’s more like this: what we know to be “the mind” emerges from a system of integrated parts — from “bits” of information, if you like. A lot of little pieces come together into a whole synergetically, and that system-of-parts comes to “know itself” via interaction with the larger system (environment, universe). It’s incredible, but it’s not magic. It makes sense for a thing to be self-aware to some extent, if it’s to function as a whole in a world at all.

Certainly a human is very complex, but again, the complexity is an emergent property.

An illustration: It’s like the images we see on our monitors. What looks to us to be a 17th century painting, our friend, or the comic above, is just a set of cleverly arranged 1’s, 0’s, and some physical equipment that, combined, creates something that looks like an image — not like its components. An even simpler example: a Pointillist painting up close vs. far away.

So, to build a robot with this functionality is… expected, really. We should expect that “unconscious” parts can become aware if they’re built to do so.

The technology may be in its infancy, but it’s a great representation of the above (systemic perception) in action.

••••••

{ memeengine }:

I like the photo, and the idea. But… I think recognizing one’s own physical self doesn’t have much to do with self-awareness. We could train REALLY simple systems to recognize any specific shape and name it “self”.

OS RE ME:

I should have made it more clear; of course I’m stretching it here, and consciousness =/= self-recognition. It’s a baby step. But I think it’s possible to do, eventually. Most essentially, I’m referencing the idea of abiogenesis, and artificial intelligence.

But, also, do you have an example of such trainable simple systems? Curious.

Thanks!

…”the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Having a “point” is a very human category.

Steven Weinberg / Jeremy Bernstein

{ Book Review: Why Does the World Exist? - WSJ.com }

(via olena)

don’t we need to make up a point to carry on?

(via lunazigzag)

••••••

OS:
Not necessarily. After all, isn’t one of premises of Buddhism just that — pointlessness? (It seems so, from the Koans and interpretations of those Koans I’ve read.) They seem to carry on quite well, despite.

However… you could argue that pointlessness is in fact a kind of point.

It’s interesting that, either way, a human philosophy can mimic the System’s (Universe’s) “philosophy” — a system needs no reason for being, especially from a scientific perspective. It might be a far cry to suggest that Buddhist-like thinking — being sans need for a reason — means those people who practice, actively/consciously think of themselves as “systemic” (of the system). Yet it’s possible that the two modes of perception are intertwined.

P.S.
If anyone is reading this thinking I’m saying some garbage about Buddhism that’s absolutely untrue, please speak up. Message me, correct me. (Though, what I’m saying here is apart from the fact that there are other “points” to that practice; for example that a reason to live life kindly might come from the idea of reincarnation — the latter being a point.)

(via lunazigzag)

When we hear about a scientific breakthrough, the first question is always of practicality: “What are the practical applications?” Usually meaning something like: “What technologies will this allow us to create?” or “What will this cure?”

But, why isn’t the question about perception? Shouldn’t that be a priority — isn’t that how scientific inquiry began?

Why isn’t the question: “How will this allow me to improve my understanding of my world? How will this change my point of view? What does this tell me about nature, therefore, about the way I proceed through a life within the same, inescapable nature?”

os…

Who is continually deciding that “Natural Philosopher” should no longer be a title — that a grasp on the way nature works has no place in the way that humans conduct their lives (and for what valid reason)? That science can say nothing about what only seems ephemeral to us, the way that air once seemed ephemeral?

Who is so convinced that, instead, technology will change us, our behaviors? So far, there are plenty of seemingly magical technologies out there, really amazing things that prior generations never thought possible — but they are tools. If we don’t introspect a bit, if we don’t ask questions like “Based on what we know, factually, about A, what does this mean about B?”, tools won’t do it for us. Our tools are more complex and shinier lately, but we’re using them to do the same damned things we’ve always done, if on a larger, more complex scale.