The criticism of being a commentator

Our tendency for abstraction helps us conceptualise (and humanise?) large amounts of chaotic data which can then delude us into analysing the concept (and not the data) to death under the misbelief that this will provide answers about the actuality of the phenomenon and not become an entirely imaginative exercise into the implications of a fictional construct.

neuroscience and economics both try to conceptualise influences on human behaviour in order to provide any offers of answers but thru their apparent complexity they avoid addressing the gaping flaw in their axioms which is that they have started with vast oversimplifications in the first place in order to make their subsequent answers analytic and subject to fundamentally simple mathematical rules.Black Scholes,market forces,etc

see start the week with andrew marr and michael sandel

then thru the weight of the subsequent multiply derived conclusions they skirt over these fundamental simplicites and sell it by burying this simplicity underneath a mountain of technical and further presumtive statistical analyses.

they embody the very idea of creating an apparent need or market for their services when there is arguably none and where average human intuition demonstrates far more subtle and truer scepticism ,as any early economics student who hasnt been strangled by the technical constraints of their tools and language often suspects ,but soon is indoctrinated by into being unable to think freely by pressure of age and necessity.

the reverse mentality is our repeated inability to to think beyond periods of a generation or so and believing that aggregated trends in human behaviour conceptualised into ideas such as Market forces or democratic liberalism have an inevitability and momentum of their own (again a concept) and not that they are products of people’s inherent values and that the push and pull of human instinct is in fact bucking the trends back and forth over 50-100 year periods at a time and a religious sense of the good must stem from our fundamental schism of individual and collective responsibilty which is always at play and is the only puppet string that remains intact throughout human evolution for that friction is the essence of humanity itself.

and thus the criticism of being a commentator is that society may not gain from the observation that laissez faire is the only reality whether we choose to believe ot or not hence the instinct to justify ones own position becomes paarmount thru asserting suggestions and illusions of control,intervention and participation.

like hamsters running inside a wheel thinking they are going somewhere but in actuality having absolutely no conscious knowledge where the wheel is going

Circle or Wheel?

its good to talk

The next time you see two people arguing go over and muse dreamily about how they embody the fundamental mystery of the line between physical rational computable logic (platonic ideal) and the totally non absolute relative subjectivity of all existence represented unknowingly thru their outwardly quite obvious misunderstanding or difference of opinion but embedded within the obvious is actually the stark naked demonstration as to why applying principles of logic may actually be missing a fundamental non computable ingredient to our understanading of how we and the world have come about from the same stuff since the principles of logic are clearly notadhered to in any absolute and consistently agreed format in the settling of disputes and interactions despite the rest of nature appearing very deterministic in its adherence to a very rational notion of causality and conformity thoughout the visible and measureable universe.
It is true at a fundamental level that we make up the rules.
So what governs our ability to communicate in any useful way at all?
If it is so subjective how come mathematical principles have led to anything concrete at all.
in the context of reaching agreements the equivalent of imaginative concordance is empathy.the ability to translate your experience to help relate with another person’s in order to conform to a common objective.
Insight is not an anti entropic concept ie it does not materialise (metaphorically)out of thin air. It builds from a previous foundation and then applies a useful “slip up” that translates the applicability of a known to a theoretical untested scenario.lateral thinking.when gone wrong its a schizophrenics knights move but that’s the price for inherently faulty wiring.the same stuff that makes you age thru its accumulation is what gives you insight when you are young.and the same faulty wiring that prevents any two apparently similarly constructed algorithms from occupying an identical frame of reference
Our genius is tied up with our decline and if you don’t argue about something you’re actually a non entity in the grand scheme of trials and errors…

Tell em that…

nothing a spot of same sex nude wrestling can’t sort out


From Zuckerburg to Gates

Heightened awareness/arousal causes a dream like state which when reflected on gives the experience an unreal quality which helps deal with it.Maybe because historically such situations are statistically more likely due to negative events rather than positive events and you need to be able to consign them to some other worldliness than for them to remain an ever present and tangible threat in you day to day life.Doesnt always work,hence post traumatic stress disorder and agoraphobia but the philosophical point is that we cannot ascertain the true quality of “reality” which we mistakenly confuse with our daily familiarity with the routine,which accordingly must be numbing us to some aspect of the weirdness of normality.
our perception is just one particular combination of hormonal and neural interactions.
The valium of habit as frequently purported to by those whove stepped outside,must be repeatedly broken for there to be a change.
Rebirth must be preceded by death.
the secret to life?and dementia?

jonah lehrer’s enculturation is the most humanity affirming message and tribute to the wonder of the human brain and is testament to the value of lifelong passion and its pursuit and the self fulfilling prophecy of its benefits and a loud retort to the arrogant certainty of those who interpret statistics as causality.age may correlate with global decline but how do factor in passion?
passion is about will and if age was an unstoppably advancing weight on your faculties then explain the the greats ,the Da Vincis,the Michaelangelos,the Einsteins, the Gausses, the Diracs, the Franklins, the Chomskys,Goya…Mohammed himself started life at 40…
perhaps their rarity points not to the obstacles of age per se but the obstacles of life and its accumulated burdens which are potent and explicable enough as counterweights to our energies than age itself.
Off the back of recent economic prosperity 40 has become the new 30,60 the new 40.80 the new 60.might all change now but goes to show that creativity can be a function of passion driven enquiry and nothing to do with age.
and it is enhanced by like minded peers hence your social circle could not only be life saving,it might actually be life enhancing…

Neural Networking