On computer programming, atheism and human cognizance

What started as a light-hearted comment to one of my friend's Google+ posts about the structure of the snowflake ultimately got me thinking about epistemology and the self-imposed limits of human cognizance. In the comment I had jokingly stated that all snowflakes were probably just an artefact of an L-system (*) written by a bored programmer. Now, when one starts thinking about it, the following chain of thoughts immediately comes to mind: Creator / God, Reality / Universe, Evolution, Atheism, Richard Dawkins. All right, I admit that the last sentence was only half-serious but I am sure that now you will be able to understand why I came to the conclusion described below.

For someone like me, atheists like Richard Dawkins seem to be completely irrational when they try to use Evolution as “proof” that Life and Universe could not have been created. Till now I was assuming they had behaved that way just because, as any fundamentalists, THEY ARE irrational (and they are) but now I see that the reason for their madness is twofold. So what is the second reason? It is just that they are not computer programmers ;). For any programmer or mathematician (**) it is natural and obvious that one system can be just an artefact of another system – e.g. a snowflake or a snowflake-like structure (system 1) which may be perceived by us in 3D space and is a part of our material reality can be a product (or a by-product) of functioning of a completely different system 2 which may operate in a totally different space (if you are still not bored but at the same time a little “lost in space”, you may want to check some Wikipedia articles on mathematical concept of space and to fully appreciate the vastness and importance of this topic read about the algebraic space, function space, topological space and so on) and thus may be immaterial and impossible to directly visualise. And yet system 2 may produce something as tangible as snowflakes. One can also put it differently and more succinctly – one system may be just an emergent property of another (possibly hidden) system (again, if you feel a little lost, you may want to read a Wikipedia article on complex systems theory).

What I describe above is so obvious to us (i.e. mathematicians, programmers, system scientists etc.) that we do not usually think about it or even consider that others (and especially other scientists) could have such an impaired perception / poor understanding of reality – which explains why it took some effort for me to consider the possibility that an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins could lack that additional layer of perception which would perfectly explain his flawed reasoning that led him to conclusion that Evolution contradicts the idea of God. Well, it does not. Evolution and God are perfectly compatible. God may be viewed as a programmer who created the Universe/Multiverse, life and each of us by creating a system (or writing a programme/algorithm if you will) which makes our Reality and lets all the events unfold precisely as planned. The material part of this creation (i.e. what Science deals with and what materialists postulate is the only thing that exists) is a chaotic system (you may want to read about Chaos Theory as well - a very cool part of Mathematics) and this brings about another interesting topic – namely that of Free Will. Since chaotic systems are deterministic in nature there is no free will if you are part of such system unless you believe in the concept of soul which is not a part of the material world but is interfaced with it via your material body.

Ah, so many interesting topics and so little time.

To save you some googling:

* An L-system or Lindenmayer system is a parallel rewriting system, namely a variant of a formal grammar, most famously used to model the growth processes of plant development, but also able to model the morphology of a variety of organisms. An L-system consists of an alphabet of symbols that can be used to make strings, a collection of production rules which expand each symbol into some larger string of symbols, an initial "axiom" string from which to begin construction, and a mechanism for translating the generated strings into geometric structures. L-systems can also be used to generate self-similar fractals such as iterated function systems.

** If you do not understand why computer programmers and mathematicians were put in one bag I recommend reading “On the cruelty of really teaching computing science” by one of the titans of computer science famous prof. Edsger Dijkstra. Here are some interesting quotes:

“A further benefit is that it gives us a clear indication where to locate computing science on the world map of intellectual disciplines: in the direction of formal mathematics and applied logic, but ultimately far beyond where those are now, for computing science is interested in effective use of formal methods and on a much, much, larger scale than we have witnessed so far.”

“The programmer is in the unique position that his is the only discipline and profession in which such a gigantic ratio, which totally baffles our imagination, has to be bridged by a single technology. He has to be able to think in terms of conceptual hierarchies that are much deeper than a single mind ever needed to face before. Compared to that number of semantic levels, the average mathematical theory is almost flat. By evoking the need for deep conceptual hierarchies, the automatic computer confronts us with a radically new intellectual challenge that has no precedent in our history.”

The system that crucifies altruists and freedom fighters

A sufferring from depression Internet activist and freedom fighter Aaron Swartz was relentlessly persecuted by the US legal system (controlled by oligarchs and psychopatic corporations) and, if convicted, would face 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines.  The Intellectual Property hounds (I wrote a short article about the IP / DRM crowd here: How to achieve anything you want legally?) chased him to his death.

He was a perfect target to make an example of as he was a particularly vocal activist fighting for our freedoms and strongly opposing socially harmful actions of corporations and the infamous SOPA.

His crime?  He connected his laptop to the MIT network and started downloading academic papers published in JSTOR to share them with the world for free (a lot of people working in science will tell you that all papers should be freely accessible - anything else (while increasing profit of companies involved in their publication and dissemination) hampers the advance of science and thus will cost many lives of people who are currently waiting for new cures for their diseases).  Curiously enough JSTOR did not side with the prosecutors (who continued their persecution nevertheless) and gave the public open access to the papers the same week as Aaron's death.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia if you are interested in some more details:

On July 19, 2011, federal authorities charged Internet activist Aaron Swartz with several data theft-related crimes, including wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer, all in relation to bulk-downloading academic journal articles from JSTOR.^[9][10] According to the indictment against him, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT's computer network, which allowed him to "rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR".^[11] Prosecutors in the case say Swartz acted with the intention of making the papers available on P2P file-sharing sites.^[12]Notably, JSTOR did not side with the prosecutors in the case.^[13] Swartz surrendered to authorities, pleaded not guilty to all counts and was released on $100,000 bail. Two days later, on July 21, Greg Maxwell published a torrent file of a 32-GB archive of 18,592 academic papers from JSTOR's Royal Society collection, via The Pirate Bay, in protest against Swartz' prosecution.^[14][15] These articles were acquired independently of those downloaded by Swartz.
The case was still pending when Swartz committed suicide on January 11, 2013.^[16]
From September 6, 2011, JSTOR has made some public domain content freely available to anyone.^[17] JSTOR stated that they had been working on making it free for some time, and the Swartz controversy made them "press ahead" with the initiative.^[18] JSTOR announced the same week as Swartz's death it would make "more than 4.5 million articles" available to the public for free.^[19]

So why was a talented young altruist and activist - who co-authored the RSS specification when he was fourteen, created one of the widely used and known web frameworks web.py and shared it with the world for free by making it open source, spent a lot of effort and time (among the top 1500 Wikipedia contributors) democratizing access to human knowledge,  co-founded a progressive advocacy group Demand Progress and devoted large part of his life to make the world a better place for everyone and fight for everyone's freedom - why was such a rare and valuable member of our society branded a felon?  Why did Obama's administration refuse to stop that persecution? Why did Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Heymann and Scott L. Garland pursued the criminal case against Swartz under U.S. attorney Carmen M. Ortiz spending a lot of taxpayers' money and resources and using a legal loophole which, according to the federal appeals court would put millions of unsuspecting individuals in jail for engaging in criminal conduct (more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR)?  Why was Aaron Swartz pushed to suicide by representatives of the very people he tried to help?  It is a rhetorical question.  Let me finish by just quoting Aaron's family and partner whose words perfectly describe the current system so terribly distorted by money and corporations:

"Aaron's death is not simply a personal tragedy, it is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach."

Aaron Swartz
Requiescat In Pace

Outsourcing responsibility for your own survival

I read about the tragedy in Connecticut yesterday.  It happened the day before yesterday and was yet another case of an unarmed crowd falling prey to a shooter.  Fewer might have died if everyone was well prepared.  And what is an overwhelming response from the public petitioning the White House?  Disarm the victims (criminals and murderers will always get a gun irrespective of whether its possession is legal or not so making guns illegal means just that - disarming the victims).  Among all the petitions demanding stripping citizens of their right to possess and carry weapons (with over a hundred thousand signatures) the only voice of reason was the one here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/gun-every-classroom-arm-every-teacher-and-principal-defend-themselves-and-their-students-during/BR1Wj8cc - this one signed by just three thousand people.

That's a difference of two orders of magnitude in favour of irrational fears and wishful thinking.  What world are we creating?

Carrying weapons was commonplace for our ancestors and no one seemed to have problems with that.  It was normal.  It was healthy.  We survived.  I also do not remember reading about children being attacked and slaughtered by their armed parents or teachers... in fact some of those armed adults needed their weapons to teach those children how to fight and defend themselves.

The only sustainable solution for this (vide Connecticut) and related problems is for the system to stop turning people into helpless victims and start producing self-realized healthy human beings.  And part of being a self-realized human being is to be able to take responsibility for your own life and safety (and lives and safety of those around you).  Being able to fight for survival is part of our biological legacy.  It is part of being complete and this part of human development is as important as developing one's mind, body and spirit.

How can we have a healthy and thriving society without that?  How can one help and care for others if one cannot even help and care for themselves (and it is not only about weapons and fighting but also other skills like first aid)?  How much better the world could be if everyone around you would be a self-realized, fully-developed and independent human being not only capable of caring for themselves but also for those around who are in need of help?  Instead, we now live in a society, where we are not those magnificent beings we could be.  We are sheep.  We are consumers.  We have outsourced most parts of our lives including our safety, survival and independent thinking.  Someone is being attacked?  Stay away and let the police come and save them (no, really, stay away and do not try to fight off the aggressor or you may get arrested and go to prison... the system is jealous about its power and control).  Someone has been injured and is bleeding heavily?  You don't know how to help them so move along and let the health care system save the victim.  It is not a healthy situation.  It is not a sustainable society.

Another thing which comes to mind is the fact that probably the first thing every totalitarian regime does is to take weapons away from the people.  The next thing is usually putting heavy sanctions on the very right to fight / defend yourself and others which makes people defenceless and unwilling to help each other (and thus breaks bonds between human beings which further protects the system as it is no longer "the people versus the system" - instead it is "a lonely and thus helpless individual versus the system").  The same seems to apply to fortified bureaucracies and police/corporate-controlled states for which we are just inventory which needs to be policed. The system does not want self-realized citizens - they do not live in fear and are capable of survival on their own which makes them difficult to control.  What the system wants is a herd of humble serfs living in fear and co-dependence.  Depending on the system not only for your well-being but for your very survival.  Of course protection the system gives you in exchange for your compliance is largely an illusion.  The system cannot protect you and we just saw it again (for a thousand time) in Connecticut - only you can protect yourself and, ultimately, it is only you who is responsible for your own safety and survival.  If only you haven't outsourced that responsibility long time ago and thus became incapable of surviving when the need comes.  Well, at least you will have some part of the system (e.g. the police) take care of the scene and your earthly remains after you have failed the survival test and, as in Connecticut, produce some explanation of what happened so that the rest of the herd can feel that illusion of being safe again.

Be a Good Sheep or Boycott Apple

Do you often confuse an iPhone with a Samsung when you go to a store and want to buy one? Because Apple thinks "consumers" are just a herd of stupid and easily confused sheep: 'Apple filed a suit in the US alleging that a number of Samsung smartphones and tablets [...] mimicked its "trade dress", the general cosmetic appearance of its iPhone and iPad, in a way that could confuse potential customers.'

It took only two days for an American jury to invalidate all Samsung's patent claims which they had tried to use in their defence against Apple's attack (America's sweetheart Apple told the jury that the Korean company was trying to be a monopoly by trying to stop others from using Samsung's patented technology infringed upon by Apple) and to order Samsung to pay over 1 billion US$ to Apple for infringing their patents.  Apparently, there was at least one Apple Fan Boy who owns multiple Apple devices (plus some Samsung TV sets ;)) among the jury.  Legal experts were shocked as they expected the process of the jury arriving at a decision to take at least few weeks since the case was very complex (109 pages manual on how this particular decision should be made written by the presiding judge; 20-page verdict with 700 options to decide about).  Well, apparently justice is swift when the right conditions are met ;).

The following sums up what just happend quite well (just substitute Global for American): "Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies."

It is sad when a company focuses on using legal tricks to hamper their competitors' progress instead of trying to be better by offering better products but when a giant corporation like Apple does this then it is just a crime against humanity.  Slowing down technological progress and thus lowering the quality of life of everyone on the planet should be punished.  Boycott Apple.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/25/apple-samsung-patent-infringement-trial?newsfeed=true

Can a True Buddhist Continue Teaching Buddhism

I have just watched Neuroscience and the Emerging Mind: A Conversation with the Dalai Lama featuring, apart from the Dalai Lama, Larry Hinman of the University of San Diego, V.S. Ramachandran of UC San Diego and Jennifer Thomas of San Diego State University.  It was meant to be a scientific and philosophical discussion of human consciousness.  The introduction was quite promising (they started talking about neuroplasticity, memory, mirror neurons etc.) but, unfortunately, I feel that, ultimately, the potential of having these four speakers gathered in one place was wasted - mainly because of the language barrier.  There was one thing, however, which made me think.  The Dalai Lama mentioned a difference between what he calls the traditional Buddhism (created in India and preserved by the Dalai Lamas and their followers) and many variations of Buddhism which emerged later (and also Hinduism).  The difference lies in the traditional Buddhist belief that there is no soul or self (as the Dalai Lama said, the Buddhist belief in "soulless").  This immediately raised the following question in my mind:

If there is no soul, if the self is just an illusion, why put so much effort into fighting the suffering?

Since it is just the self that experiences suffering and the self is just an illusion, there is no suffering at all as there is nothing real to experience it.  If there is no suffering, there is no place for compassion and altruism - the two things Buddhism (and the current Dalai Lama) talk about and try to promote.  Why would the Buddha decide to help people end their suffering by showing them the truth about the non-existence of the self when there is no suffering and no people?  The act of a true Buddhist believing in what he/she teaches and yet continuing his/her teachings seems absurd when viewed from this (Buddhist?) perspective.

"The Divide" Embodies Ideals of Atheistic Capitalism

I have just watched The Divide and it made me think about the new socially created reality the western world is preparing for humanity.  It is a secular world without God where human beings are no more than animals fighting for resources, survival and pleasure.  It is a world where the measure of success is survival and power over others no matter the cost as long as it is not "the successful" who has to pay it.  It is a world ruled by fear where altruism, empathy, sense of justice, mercy and goodness of heart are nothing more than a sign of weakness and an object of ridicule.  It is an ugly world with no room for ethics, no appreciation of aesthetics, a world deteriorating into a primordial goo of barbaric hedonism and savagery.  Fallen creatures (or should I say beasts) inhabiting that world are no longer civilised... they have no manners, no style, no higher needs, no beauty in them.  Do we really want to enter this brave new world?  Do you want your children to live in a world depicted so thoroughly in The Divide?  Do you want them to become such creatures themselves?

The microcosm of The Divide shows what it means for an average human being to attain complete freedom promised by Atheism where there is no God serving as a mirror reflecting our deeds back unto us and showing us what we are and what we can become.  Sure, there may be exceptions - there may be some people who, in spite of being atheists and materialists, would not turn into ruthless savages even when subjected to the most extreme conditions.  But an average member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, when persuaded to believe that there is no God, no soul, no further existence after death, will be smart enough to understand that there is only one true value in life and that is his/her well-being.  The only rational goal is to survive for as long as possible and to experience as much pleasure as possible and let others pay the cost.  Watch the film and, irrespective of your current belief system (i.e. whether you are an atheist or a theist), ask yourself a very cynical question: "Is our race ready to live in a world without God, in a world where faith is no longer a safety net for the law and social pressures?".  When viewed from such perspective, the divide between atheist and theist beliefs becomes something else.  It is no longer a question of what is true but a question of what truth do we want everyone to believe in.

--

As an aside, for a true atheist and materialist, the truth is what they believe in (metaphysical questions, like the one about the existence of God, are by definition unverifiable using the scientific method - the only verification would be possible post mortem and in their world view there is no post mortem) which means that if such a person chooses to believe in the existence of God then that belief becomes the truth for them.

Richard Dawkins Scared of Evidence

Another example showing dogmatic (not to say fanatical) attitude of an infamous militant atheist Richard Dawkins.  This time Richard was not interested in fighting theists or religion but scientists whose research did not agree with Richard's worldview.  Here are some interesting excerpts (the whole can be read here: http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html):

 

We then agreed that controlled experiments were necessary. I said that this was why I had actually been doing such experiments, including tests to find out if people really could tell who was calling them on the telephone when the caller was selected at random. The results were far above the chance level.

The previous week I had sent Richard copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.

Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

...

Richard Dawkins has long proclaimed his conviction that “The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans”. Enemies of Reason was intended to popularize this belief. But does his crusade really promote “the public understanding of science,” of which he is the professor at Oxford? Should science be a vehicle of prejudice, a kind of fundamentalist belief-system? Or should it be a method of enquiry into the unknown?

Like Rupert Sheldrake, I dream about science being a method of enquiry into the unknown - i.e. free from aggressive fundamentalists like Dawkins.  Unfortunately, I fear that the majority of people nowadays calling themselves scientists do not behave like open-minded geniuses and would feel at home in the ranks of Spanish Inquisition.

--

If you are interested in Rupert Sheldrake and his research there is an interesting video of his speaking at Google Tech Talks in 2008 entitled The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence.  The part where he recounts his meeting with Dawkins starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JnA8GUtXpXY#t=5193s.