You are currently browsing the Science category

Forthcoming Conference: Sexual Science 2.0

  • Posted on January 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm

This looks like an interesting conference, November 8-11, 2012 in Tampa, FL:

The Internet and sex go together like Florida and sunshine. Online resources enrich our lives with sexual health and sexuality information, opportunities for relationship formation and sexual connections, sexually explicit materials, and commercial sex products. We can also face unintended consequences from Internet use, including dependence/compulsion, abuse, and inaccurate information and misinformation. However, beyond the Internet, myriad of technologies greatly influence human sexual behavior and sexuality both positively and negatively. Thus, the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) theme is Sexual Science 2.0: Technological innovations in sexuality research. Although submissions from all areas of the scientific study of sexuality are welcomed, we are especially interested in multidisciplinary submissions focused on how technology informs and is a part of the research being conducted by sexual scientists. Potential research topics for plenaries, presentations, and trainings may include:

  • Sex and the Internet (Internet sex-seeking, navigating relationships online)
  • E-dating (finding dates and relationships online)
  • Technology-based sexual health interventions (video, web-based, chatrooms, etc.)
  • Cybersex (sexual interactions mediated by Internet or other electronic technology)
  • Compulsive online sexual behavior
  • Non-monogamy and the Internet
  • Special populations and online sexual communities
  • Sex and new media, social networks, etc. (Web 2.0, Google+, Facebook, Foursquare, etc.)
  • Reproductive and contraceptive technologies
  • Technologies pertaining to pharmaceutical/medical treatments and sexual enhancement
  • Sex toys and other commercial sex products that utilize technology
  • Online sexually explicit material, pornography, and erotica
  • Technologies aiding with sex therapy, sex research, sexuality education, etc.
  • Technologies for measurement and data collection, including new measurement styles
  • Sexual harassment online/cyber-stalking
  • “Sexting” and other innovative ways to communicate about sex
  • Sex and mobile phones/other portable communication technologies (tablet PCs, phones, laptops, etc.)
  • And others…

Sexual Science 2.0 conference

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/AHdj0yIC5LQ/

Edge 2011: What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody’s Cognitive Toolkit?

  • Posted on December 13, 2011 at 6:28 pm

the thinker Edge 2011: What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybodys Cognitive Toolkit?

This year’s Edge question was: “What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit?” There are some good but somewhat boring answers, like Susan Blackmore’s or Kevin Kelly’s. But here are some of the more interesting ones I found:

Stewart Brand: Microbes Run the World

Nicholas Carr: Cognitive Load

Aubrey de Grey: A Sense Of Proportion About Fear Of The Unknown

Jonah Lehrer: Control Your Spotlight

Evgeny Morozov: Einstellung Effect

Jay Rosen: Wicked Problems

Douglas Rushkoff: Technologies Have Biases

Nassim Taleb: Antifragility — or— The Property Of Disorder-Loving Systems

I would especially recommend reading both Carr’s and Lehrer’s.

There are a ton of these, so I haven’t read them all, so there could be some gems out there I missed. What are your favorites?

If I’d been asked, I’d have chosen one of the following:

1. The idea of systematic ideology – that people choose what to believe based on ideology, not reason (an idea also supported by research indicating that facts can actually backfire when trying to change someone’s mind). Systematic ideology, named by George Walford, was proposed in 1947 by Harold Walsby. The idea is now being pursued by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, though they don’t use the term and may not be aware of Walsby’s and Walford’s work.

2. The Decline Effect.

Photo by Andrew Horne

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/y58GGrS7fQc/

60% of Science/Technology/Engineering/Math Majors Dropout or Change Majors

  • Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:31 pm

The New York Times on the problem with training the next generations of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc.:

Studies have found that roughly 40 percent of students planning engineering and science majors end up switching to other subjects or failing to get any degree. That increases to as much as 60 percent when pre-medical students, who typically have the strongest SAT scores and high school science preparation, are included, according to new data from the University of California at Los Angeles. That is twice the combined attrition rate of all other majors. [...]

MATTHEW MONIZ bailed out of engineering at Notre Dame in the fall of his sophomore year. He had been the kind of recruit most engineering departments dream about. He had scored an 800 in math on the SAT and in the 700s in both reading and writing. He also had taken Calculus BC and five other Advanced Placement courses at a prep school in Washington, D.C., and had long planned to major in engineering.

But as Mr. Moniz sat in his mechanics class in 2009, he realized he had already had enough. “I was trying to memorize equations, and engineering’s all about the application, which they really didn’t teach too well,” he says. “It was just like, ‘Do these practice problems, then you’re on your own.’ ” And as he looked ahead at the curriculum, he did not see much relief on the horizon.

New York Times: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds

Possibly related, 30-60% of college students fail their first computer programming class. I’m a big advocate of people learning to program, but research indicates that it might be impossible to teach most people to program by the time they reach college age. It’s not clear yet whether improvements in earlier education could reduce the failure rate, or whether most people’s brains simply aren’t wired in such a way that they can actually learn to program.

However, many of the students like Moniz mentioned above, clearly have the intellectual capacity for these majors. The NYT notes:

The National Science Board, a public advisory body, warned in the mid-1980s that students were losing sight of why they wanted to be scientists and engineers in the first place. Research confirmed in the 1990s that students learn more by grappling with open-ended problems, like creating a computer game or designing an alternative energy system, than listening to lectures. While the National Science Foundation went on to finance pilot courses that employed interactive projects, when the money dried up, so did most of the courses. Lecture classes are far cheaper to produce, and top professors are focused on bringing in research grants, not teaching undergraduates.

Combine the problems outlined above by the NYT with the fact that most students seem unable to learn how to program and the fact that most students don’t learn much in college and we’ve got some serious issues with trying to ever get our population’s science, math, engineering and computer science up to snuff. Hopefully universities will follow the advice of this article and integrate more project work. I have very mixed feelings about my alma mater The Evergreen State College, but I think they’re on to something with project work and interdisciplinary approaches to learning (for example, the Science of Mind course is 16 credits and covers neurobiology, cognitive psychology, statistics and philosophy).

Look a bit further and you’ll discover that our best minds are working on finding better ways to serve ads. Grim times indeed.

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/TRnLmTYyV1k/

Academic Publishers Are Out of Control

  • Posted on August 30, 2011 at 11:15 am

George Monbiot has a must-read article in The Guardian on academic publishers. Monbiot points out that academic publishers receive their content for essentially free (the papers are funded by universities, often with public money, and editing is often done on a volunteer basis) and then sold back to the public at exorbitant prices. Individual articles cost at least $30, and subscriptions cost university libraries thousands of dollars per journal per year. The publishers operate at margins of up to 40%. Monbiot writes:

What we see here is pure rentier capitalism: monopolising a public resource then charging exorbitant fees to use it. Another term for it is economic parasitism. To obtain the knowledge for which we have already paid, we must surrender our feu to the lairds of learning.

Monbiot’s solution:

In the short term, governments should refer the academic publishers to their competition watchdogs, and insist that all papers arising from publicly funded research are placed in a free public database. In the longer term, they should work with researchers to cut out the middleman altogether, creating – along the lines proposed by Björn Brembs of Berlin’s Freie Universität – a single global archive of academic literature and data. Peer-review would be overseen by an independent body. It could be funded by the library budgets which are currently being diverted into the hands of privateers.

The Guardian: Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist

(via Brainsturbator)

Update: Matthew Ingram has a post that expands on the reasons why this system remains in place even as other media industries are being disrupted:

Academics who have tried to open up their research or bypass the journal industry say they often run into resistance from a number of sources. Among other things, appearing in a specific journal or publication is a key criteria for advancement at most universities, which means publishing in open-access formats could be a career-limiting move for an academic. Many publish their papers on their own websites, but most also go through the usual journal process as well, which reinforces the existing system. And since universities pay large sums to subscribe to those journals, they often feel compelled to justify those costs by requiring that all research be published through them.

Ingram also cites this post by sociologist and Microsoft researcher danah boyd, who calls for academics to boycott locked down publishers.

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/grdGYZR1lnc/

Thinking You’re Too Old to Learn a New Language? Think Again

  • Posted on August 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm

I’m not sure what the sample size is, or how old the adults in the study are, but:

Ferman and Avi Karni from the University of Haifa, Israel, devised an experiment in which 8-year-olds, 12-year-olds and adults were given the chance to learn a new language rule. In the made-up rule, verbs were spelled and pronounced differently depending on whether they referred to an animate or inanimate object.

Participants were not told this, but were asked to listen to a list of correct noun-verb pairs, and then voice the correct verb given further nouns. The researchers had already established that 5-year-olds performed poorly at the task, and so did not include them in the study. All participants were tested again two months later to see what they remembered.

“The adults were consistently better in everything we measured,” says Ferman. When asked to apply the rule to new words, the 8-year-olds performed no better than chance, while most 12-year-olds and adults scored over 90 per cent. Adults fared best, and have great potential for learning new languages implicitly, says Ferman. Unlike the younger children, most adults and 12-year-olds worked out the way the rule worked – and once they did, their scores soared. This shows that explicit learning is also crucial, says Ferman, who presented the results at the International Congress for the Study of Child Language in Montreal, Canada, this week.

New Scientist: Age no excuse for failing to learn a new language

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/ojYfKkkyZkg/

Scientists Can Now Rewrite DNA

  • Posted on July 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm

tag Scientists Can Now Rewrite DNA

MIT and Harvard researchers have developed technologies that could be used to rewrite the genetic code of a living cell, allowing them to make large-scale edits to the cell’s genome. Such technology could enable scientists to design cells that build proteins not found in nature, or engineer bacteria that are resistant to any type of viral infection.

The technology, described in the July 15 issue of Science, can overwrite specific DNA sequences throughout the genome, similar to the find-and-replace function in word-processing programs. Using this approach, the researchers can make hundreds of targeted edits to the genome of E. coli, apparently without disrupting the cells’ function.

MIT News: Scientists unveil tools for rewriting the code of life

(via Richard Yonck)

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/cq9U5dXxdE4/

Universe Probably Not a Hologram After All

  • Posted on July 8, 2011 at 10:47 am

gammaray Universe Probably Not a Hologram After All

An astrophysicist’s attempt to measure quantum “fuzziness” — to find out if we’re living in a hologram — has been headed off at the pass by results suggesting that we’re probably not.

In October 2010, Wired.com reported on Craig Hogan’s experiments with two of the world’s most precise clocks, which he was using to try and confirm the existence of Planck units — the smallest possible chunks of space, time, mass and other properties of the universe.

Hogan’s interpretation of results from the GEO600 gravitational wave experiment had shown a quantum fuzziness — a sort of pixelation — at incredibly small scales, suggesting that what was perceive as the universe might be projected from a two-dimensional shell at its edge.

However, a European satellite that should be able to measure these small scales hasn’t found any quantum fuzziness at all, contradicting the interpretation of the GEO600 results and indicating that the pixelation of spacetime, if it exists, is considerably smaller than predicted.

Wired Science: Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/HDVIY5EI3DQ/

Changing Perceptions of Science and Technology in the 19th Century

  • Posted on April 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Jess Nevins shares an excerpt from Hawthorne’s Mad Scientists:

Earlier, “technology” had meant something more accessible to the average man. Elements of Technology, a book published in 1829 by Harvard professor Jacob Bigelow, was essentially a recipe book, more like the “do-it-yourself” manuals of modern counterculture than an MIT textbook. By most accounts, Bigelow, whose job at Harvard was to bridge the gap between Yankee inventors and collegiate research scientists, was the first to use “technology” in its modern sense….

Jess Nevins: Changing perceptions of science and technology in the 19th century

From http://technoccult.net/archives/2011/04/07/changing-perceptions-of-science-and-technology-in-the-19th-century/

A Treasure Trove for Autodidacts

  • Posted on October 18, 2010 at 10:08 am

dissecting a circle

Trevor Blake sent me this:

References & Resources for LessWrong

LessWrong is “community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality.” I’ve occasionally dipped into the blog, but never made much of a habit of it. But this reference page is excellent – the section on mathematics seems particularly useful. There are sections on artificial intelligence, machine learning, game theory, computer science, philosophy and more.

And via that resource page are two other amazing resources:

Khan Academy: A massive collection of free self-paced math and science lessons.

Better Explained: a site that, y’know, explains stuff. Like calculus.

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/WBJ2INUGUMs/

Science Tarot

  • Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Science Tarot: 7 of Wands - Expansion

Science Tarot: 2 of Swords - Action

Science Tarot

Unlike so many of the cool tarot decks I’ve seen online, you can actually buy this as a full, printed deck.

(via Boing Boing thanks to Chris)

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/5vF_GoF_Wd0/

Britain Brain Drain – Scientists Fleeing to Singapore, Germany, US

  • Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Britain Brain Drain

Britain is facing a major brain drain as scientists abandon the country for better-funded jobs abroad, a Guardian investigation reveals today. [...]

The Guardian has spoken to researchers in fields ranging from cancer and human fertility to nuclear physics, and found that many are preparing to emigrate. Professor Brian Foster, a particle physicist at Oxford, said he was likely to shift most of his research to Germany, having been offered a professorship at Hamburg University which comes with £4.3m to spend on research.

Dr Carlos Gias, a stem cell researcher at University College London, has decided to move either to Singapore or the US. Gias, whose research is focused on a form of blindness called age-related macular degeneration, said: “I have seen people from this department leaving to Singapore, and they have been trying to find jobs in Britain and they couldn’t. It’s not been just one or two [but] several of them, and [in Singapore] … they don’t have any problems of funding.”

Guardian: Britain faces brain drain as cuts force top scientists to leave country

(via Richard Yonck)

The US has actually been keeping our foreign Phds despite concerns. That could always change, though.

From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/_kuOZ_auI54/

Science without Purpose: Suppressing the Teleological Instinct

  • Posted on August 10, 2010 at 10:29 am

total solar eclipse

The teleological drive – the desire to not merely make, but rather to perceive inherent purpose in the world – influences a myriad of adult human behavior. Such behavior may range from conspiracy theories to abstract philosophical works, but even “scientists” may falter. [...]

Both Darwin and Freud introduced highly disconcerting models of thought for a world hitherto predicated on the teleological. The theory of evolution and the unconscious seemed to queer many of the most ingrained human conceptions of purpose and control. However, the drive toward Why Must!? is not easily banished, and rather than die out, it burrowed into the very concepts that threatened it. Little wonder then that many of us today conceive of evolution as Nature’s architect and regard the unconscious (our Id) as an insidious competitor-agent. In such a teleological worldview, emotions such as sadness are no longer random behavioral traits. Rather, they become adaptive instinct, forged by Nature to guide humanity and distinguish intuitively between right and wrong.

All good so far, but what’s this about?

Although the following statement risks being unscientific, what all the aforementioned seems to imply is that human beings have a strong teleological instinct, a propensity for asking Why? and Why Must!? Our obsession with perceiving (and thus ascribing) purpose most likely arose as an adaptive trait in an inter-human, social context. With such complex brains, humans are capable of countless emotional affections and a perhaps infinite array of varied behavior. To perceive someone teleologically is to see and comprehend his intent, his consciousness in relation to one’s own. The comprehension of intent offers security from the innumerable and seemingly purposeless actions humans may exhibit. On an anthropological level, teleology would seem to benefit the formation of complex, social structures, wherein the determination of purpose serves to regulate and maintain varied levels of production and class. The agency-attribution error supports the notion that teleology is an instinct “made” for humans, the only beings with an agenda, that is, capable of being purposeful agents. Both scientists and laymen would do well to remember the influence this artificial instinct has on thought and language. After all, if language-cognition arose under a teleological context (that is, a human-social context), all semantics must contain, invoke, and conceal a Why Must!?

Serendip: Science without Purpose: Suppressing the Teleological Instinct

Sure, it’s possible that there’s an evolutionary function of the teleological impulse (I’ll call it an impulse since we don’t know that it’s actually an instinct) – but we should remember that evolution only selects for “good enough,” not necessarily “optimal.” The teleological impulse may be a side effect of our ability to determine cause and effect (which does seem to serve an evolutionary function) and serve no actual function. We’ve made it this far with it, so it hasn’t been selected out – just like many other harmful human behaviors.

Photo by By Luc Viatour / CC

Share/Bookmark

From http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/08/10/teleological-instinct/

Social Physics with Kyle Findlay – Technoccult Interview

  • Posted on July 15, 2010 at 9:43 am

Kyle Findlay

Regular readers of this site may have noticed a large number of posts on this site credited to “Social Physicist” – the Twitter handle of Kyle Findlay (and yes, you could be forgiven for confusing our names). Kyle works for a group within one of the world’s largest market research companies, which he describes as a “mini-think tank” with the purpose of exposing people to new ways of thinking and doing things. Having enjoyed his Twitter stream for the past year or so, I got in touch with Kyle Findlay to ask him about the practice of “social physics.” He talked to me by instant message from from his home in Cape Town, South Africa.

Klint Finley: What, as a “social physicist,” do you actually do?

Kyle Findlay: Well, at the moment I’m on my own in this “field,” if you can call it that. It just seems like the best description of what I do and what interests me so hopefully it sticks.

Basically, my interest is in understanding how people act as groups. As emergent entities that have their own (hopefully) predictable and describable topological forms. That’s the lofty idea anyway. And the tools of chaos theory, systems theory, network theory, physics, mathematics, etc. help describe this.

Do you have a background in physical sciences?

None at all. I studied “business science” at the University of Cape Town. My first job was for a company with a strong academic background, started by a professor of religion and a statistician. They used a 5-dimensional catastrophe cusp model to describe people’s relationships with ideas.

The moment I was exposed to this thinking, something clicked. A lot of contradictions that I saw in the world around me were resolved. Ever since I have had an insatiable desire to understand these areas. Which led me to interact with experts in many disciplines from neuroscience to economics, math, physics, AI, ecology, biology, etc. Every field has a piece of the puzzle. I am lucky to work in an environment that gives me free rein to indulge my passion.

Fractal Zoom
Sketch: Fractal Zoom by Kyle Findlay

Do you think what you do is different from systems thinking or social cybernetics?

They are definitely components. Systems thinking is a broad umbrella term. Cybernetics definitely helps us to understand and describe the patterns and multi-dimensional shapes that society creates. But I think that you need the hard sciences like math and physics to really get at the heart of it. Which is why I am feverishly trying to catch up on many years of missing education.

Do you think there are any dangers in applying models designed for physical systems to human behavior?

Yes there are – you will always be at least slightly wrong. There are a lot of parallels between the way people act in groups and other types of particles. But you also have the same problems of predictability in complex systems: sensitivity to initial conditions, 3-body problem, etc. It’s kind of the paradox of it all, something I am still trying to come to grips with.

What’s the most surprising insight you’ve discovered since you started studying this?

Everything is the same and everything is just information. The universal nature of nature is astounding. You see the familiar signs everywhere: from the atomic through to the cosmic level. It makes me think that there really is only one true science or line of inquiry and that most specialised fields are just facets of this. The more fields I delve into, the more commonalities I discover. It’s become par for the course for me now I think. But in the beginning, it really blew my mind.

Man's Part in the System
Sketch: Man’s Part in the System by Kyle Findlay

Have you been able to apply this stuff in any interesting ways? For example, I know you’ve prepared presentations on network theory and power laws for work.

Those have gone down really well within the silos I work in. People have really been amazed when I’ve shown them these kinds of things. It gets their minds racing.

I’m also doing some work applying systems theory to sports science, which can really benefit from changing the way they view the human body. Music is another area that makes a lot more sense from this point of view.

One of my favourites is understanding how human attention works and how to synchronise communication so that it becomes internalized, but that is very theoretical and could be seen as slightly Machiavellian so I won’t go there.

Also, I’ve been having some interesting chats with a neuroscientist around decision-making, attention, etc. The applications are really endless, it’s just where you choose to focus you own attention.

An Introduction to Network Theory

How would you suggest someone interested get started studying social physics?

Well, considering I’m not 100% sure what falls into the bounds of the field myself, it’s difficult to say. There’s no university course for it as far as I know. I would say that you need to have an intense desire to understand why people do what they do. And a slightly perverse fascination with the human condition. Looking at life from a systems perspective is a good start. Understand that patterns are formed internally, that change is the only constant. You can then use tools like network theory, noise analysis, entropy, etc. to understand these ebbs and flows.

Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram? He wrote a book called a New Kind of Science.

Yes, I know of Stephen Wolfram from his software and Wolfram Alpha. I’ve been intimidated by the size of his book, though. I struggle justifying devoting so much time to one book, which probably says more about me…

Yeah, I haven’t picked it up yet either.

He sounds like a really bright guy. I think I watched a talk of his at the Singularity Summit or somewhere similar, but to be honest, can’t remember much of it.

Most of my reading is in the scientific literature, interspersed with a good book or graphic novel.

Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott

Speaking of which, do you know of any works of fiction that demonstrate the principles you’re interested in?

Good question. Not too many spring to mind. A classic is Flatland by Edwin Abbot – the quintessential metaphor for perceiving multiple dimensions. The guy wrote a book about perceiving multiple dimensions in the 1800s! Impressive.

A recent book that blew my mind was Accelerando by Charles Stross. He has a great worldview but his insights were more in terms of extrapolating the directions technology is going in.

Yourself? Any suggestions?

Snow Crash seems like it might be relevant. Or the film Run Lola Run.

I am ashamed to admit that I haven’t read Snow Crash. Why do you say Run Lola Run? Time? Sensitivity to initial conditions?

Yep. It shows how tiny changes in a system can have far-ranging results. A starting delay of only a couple of seconds radically changes things for several characters in the different timelines.

True. I’m not going to mention Back to the Future 2 or The Butterfly Effect (although I just did).

Have you heard of the 1990 film, Mindwalk?

No.

It was co-written by Fritjof Capra and consists of several characters discussing the nature of the world from a systems perspective. I have to admit that i fell asleep during it… but I was very tired.

That sounds pretty amazing though.

Yeah – good credentials right there.

My personal favourites are any films or books that push society’s limits. Subversive materials rule in my book (no pun intended). Anything that helps me push back my pre-conceptions and shatter my expectations. They were great at that in the 70s, in music, film and literature. Probably a side-effect of the 60s experimentations. I’m a big fan of exploitation flicks.

Let’s see, what else… I haven’t read Alan Moore’s Big Numbers. But Moore seems to have a pretty good grasp on complexity, judging by Watchmen and From Hell.

I haven’t read Big Numbers either. What elements do you think he draws on in those books?
Watchmen

Watchmen itself seems to be very mathematical – the use of symmetry and so on. In terms of themes, maybe it doesn’t touch on this stuff much, apart from some of Dr. Manhattan’s comments.

Yeah, he definitely weaves a non-linear richness into his tales that is admirable. The way he weaves the various threads of a story together.

I forget why I thought From Hell was relevant. Maybe it’s not.

Also, he calls himself a chaos magician. Watching an interview with him a while back, I could actually identify with a lot of what he was saying.

I wasn’t going to go there, but… have you studying chaos magic or the occult at all?

No I haven’t. That Moore interview is probably as far as I have gone. It’s just not a direction I feel I can go in and remain “grounded” if I want other researchers to take me seriously. But I can definitely see how he got there.

Well, I have and I think you’re better off studying natural sciences, systems, and complexity IMHO.

[Laughs] Cool, thanks for the advice.

But the book Techgnosis by Erik Davis examines a lot of parallels between information theory and cybernetics and mysticism and the occult. I think it stands up pretty well, even if you’re not interested in magic.

I think you have to have a certain detachment to take a step back and observe the world. And when you start seeing everything as inter-related and part of the same thread it becomes easier to start imagining that you can define the tapestry with your perceptions. I guess I don’t want to open that Pandora’s Box. In my view it untethers you. Again, talking from an inexperienced point of view in this area.

Davis’ book sounds interesting though.

From an interview with Manuel DeLanda (who you might be interested in) -conducted by Davis, incidentally:

As Deleuze says, “Always keep a piece of fresh land with you at all times.” Always keep a little spot where you can go back to sleep after a day of destratification. Always keep a small piece of territory, otherwise you’ll go nuts.

Yeah exactly. I find that the concepts I deal with in my day job challenge me enough, and that’s all based on empirically grounded ‘fact’ in the scientific literature.

Most people work very hard to maintain their reality, but I do think that you have to have an affinity towards detachment. A certain world view that is open to having your illusions shattered and actually enjoying that experience. And the cutting edge of science delivers those experiences in spades.

Kyle Findlay

More Info

Kyle on Twitter

Kyle’s Slideshares

Kyle’s Flickr

Share/Bookmark

From http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/07/15/social-physics-with-kyle-findlay-technoccult-interview/

"I don’t believe in God…or magick…or mumbo jumbo."

  • Posted on June 20, 2009 at 3:24 pm

“How can you believe in magick/God/spirituality?  Are you so naive?”

This is sort of question I do get now and then, and I’d like to address it directly.

Rational minded folks, often intelligent and scientific-minded persons, seem fond of being “agnostic” or “atheist” these days.  I can’t blame them.  They probably polarize off the religious right who is always going on and on about how Creationism should be taught in school.  That pisses them off and rightly so.  So let’s make this clear.  I believe in the foundations of science. I also believe in evolution.  I also believe in “God” and I also believe in “magick.”

For me, magick is attempting to harness and master the power of the subconscious mind.  “God” is a principle of universal oneness–that all energy in the universe is ultimately one.

Though I’m a fan of the physical sciences, modern psychology is a joke to me.  They seem about 1000 years behind what was being taught in ancient Greece!  I find Hermeticism, which found its roots in Plato, and picked up steam over the years with insights from Persia, China, and India, to be a lot more useful in understanding who I am and how to make my life a better and more enjoyable place to live.  Hermeticism has found modern outlets with the Golden Dawn, and later Thelema. 

But don’t these types of philosophies talk about demons, angels, magick, spells, gods and the sort?  How can that stuff be scientific?

It’s not scientific the same way Geology is.  We are dealing with the mind, emotions, and our connection to things that cannot be tested or measured with scientific instruments.  Rituals, symbols, and all the trappings of magick are effective ways of staging a drama for the subconscious mind so that it can better lead us to our desires. 

Our subconscious mind contains many strange and wonderful things–some things which function as angels, or demons, for example.  They can be tapped into and utilized.  I do not say they have an external reality necessarily–only that from the human psyche’s point of view they have validity and can lead to change in a person’s behavior–and therefore lead to results on the material plane. 

Modern science, for all its wonderful achievements, is not particularly suited to understanding and utilizing the subconscious mind.  Science balks at ideas of universal oneness (unless its purely theoretical as in quantum mechanics), scorns concepts such as “spirit” and “soul,” and doesn’t seem particularly interested in making people happy or harmonious.  In fact, the most notable achievement of science in the last 100 years is the nuclear bomb.  Science alone is failing our world. 

Magick is not afraid to tackle difficult concepts such as God.   Magicians attempt to bring methodology and rationality to discussions of divinity.  Nor is magick afraid to ask for joy on Earth–a magician has no need for concepts such as heaven or hell.  We are primarily concerned with our own planet and how we can make it better for ourselves and those around us.

The great thinkers of old times were not agnostic or atheist.  They were persons of God and science at the same time.  I simply strive to be the same. 

 

xoxo,

Izabael DaJinn

What is Thelema?

  • Posted on June 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Thelema, means “Will” in Greek, and is a philosophy based on the The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley.

 

The Book of the Law (Liber AL) is small, poetic, and symbolic book on the nature of the universe and our place in it. 

 

“Every man and every woman is a star,” the Book of the Law proclaims–that is to say, every man and every woman is complete and whole unto themselves.  We all have the divine spark.  We are all of us the center of our own universe, and need not be subservient or dependent upon anyone or anything external to us.  A Thelemite is someone who adheres to this philosophy.

 

As a Thelemite, I’m regularly confronted with misconceptions about it–if indeed anyone has heard of it as all.  Aleister Crowley’s notorious reputation doesn’t help matters either.  So in simple language let me tell you guys what Thelema means to me:

 

First of all some things Thelema is NOT:

 

1.  Thelema is NOT hedonism.

2.  Thelema is NOT magick.

3.  Thelema is NOT about deifying Crowley.

4.  Thelema is NOT complicated.

 

Thelema IS:

 

1.  Thelema is freedom.

2.  Thelema is personal responsibility.

3.  Thelema is often tied to high magick by tradition, but its principles are for everyone.

4.  Thelemites do enjoy things of sense and pleasure upon the earth, but all our joys are dedicated to something higher than ourselves and our ego-mind.

5.  Thelemites are congruent and without hypocrisy.  They find divine presence in the low and lofty things of the Earth without distinction, therefore there is no need to hide our material-plane passions–they become our driving force towards finding divinity in everything, all the time.

 

“DO WHAT THOU WILT” is the most famous phrase from the Book of the Law.  This phrase is also the most misunderstood. 

 

“Do What Thou Wilt” is not a call to hedonism, but a call to personal responsibility.  The words are chosen carefully as the Book of the Law does not say “do what you want,” but instead “do what thou wilt.”

 

Do what you WILL–not what you “want.”

 

What you “Will” is deeper than superficial wants.  Your “True Will” is something at the core of your being, far deeper than your ego-mind with all it’s petty delusions and desires.  The ego-mind is that part of you that’s incessantly rambling in your head about “I need this” or “I want that.”   The ego-mind is that which goes around in circles, “Should I do this? Should I do that?” 

 

The Will, however, goes deeper than words or emotions.  Our Will is the very essence of who are.  Our Will is what cuts through the circle of mental masturbation and has us take action.   Action is the very essence of Thelema. 

 

To take “right action” with as little time spent in my head as possible, defines me as a Thelemite.

 

That doesn’t meant you can’t plan, but doing your True Will can only be done at one specific point in time:  RIGHT NOW.  Your focus throughout life must be in the present moment.  In every moment lies the ability to do your True Will, to take action that is not only right for that moment, but attunes you to your proper orbit in the world, and helps ensure all your future actions are for the best as well.

 

And remember, Thelema isn’t about a promised land after you die.  Following your True Will leads to joy and pleasure right now, in this world, here on Earth. 

 

Understanding your True Will takes time, and the Book of the Law, though sometimes seemingly confusing with it’s non-typical use of language, helps break through the ego-mind–leaving little cracks where the sun of the True Will starts to shine through. 

 

Next blog, I will give an introduction to the Book of the Law, and how to approach reading it for the first time.   Until then, there are full copies of it all over the web including this one if you want to check it out now.

 

xoxoxo,

Izabael

Hug Therapy

  • Posted on June 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm

 

“We need 4 hugs a day for survival. We need 8 hugs a day for maintenance. We need 12 hugs a day for growth.”
—Virginia Satir, family therapist (http://eqi.org/ht.htm#Introductory Words from Kathleen Keating)

 

There is some information available on the therapeutic effects of hugs online, though not as much as one might hope for.  (Where’s the money in researching hugs, right?  Can’t patent it!)

“A team from the University of North Carolina studied the effects of hugging on both partners in 38 couples. The study showed hugs increased levels of oxytocin, a “bonding” hormone, and reduced blood pressure – which cuts the risk of heart disease.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4131508.stm)

 

hugging-sketchbook

Oxytocin is the feel good hormone released by hugs.

 

“Research in America found that one 20-second hug a day makes a big difference between how happy and relaxed we are. Which is why people in a healthy relationship are happier and feel less stressed.” ( http://www.easier.com/view/Lifestyle/Relationships/Features/article-91375.html)

So why don’t we hear more about hugging when it comes time to go to the doctor?  Well, my guess it’s because you can’t put a hug in a bottle and sell it over the counter of a pharmacy.

Also American’s especially seem to have an innate aversion to anything that might fall under the category of “love” or a the very least “non-violent.”  It’s so much easier to continue the path of violence (even if it’s all internalized through TV programs and video games), than step out of one’s shell to hug someone.  American’s love sex too so long as it’s porn and there is no contact involved.  I mean really. How many people do you know that hug regularly, with openness, and with real caring “oomph” behind the action? 

More hugs will transform the world, but are you guys man enough to do it?  Or are you going to continue to retreat into the world of your own head?  Come out…touch the world.  Touch someone you care about.  Dare to be loving.  The weak are those who give into fear, solitude and think they are too good for hugs!

 

 

Your loving hug-bunny,

Izabael DaJinn

 

p.s. Hugging photos by Xiao Lei (“Thunderlittle”)

50/50 odds on Biological WMD before 2013

  • Posted on December 2, 2008 at 10:34 pm

 

Not sure why they play coy by using the date 2013 instead of 2012 since it’s close enough to still play on people’s fears of the Mayan calendar “predicting” the end/beginning of the world.

 

At any rate.  There is apparently a 50-50 chance for some nasty bio disease (or regular nuke of course, but bio is more likely according the article) exploding into the general populace within the next 5 years?  That’s pretty fucked up.  

 

“The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed,” former Sen. Bob Graham said.

 

All I can say is that your focus determines your reality. 

 

Therefore, don’t war, make love, make love hard, now…as much as possible…always and with as many people as possible at once or alone at your own pleasure, your own sensuous discretion.

 

xoxoxoxo

Izabael

If we evolved, how can there be magick?

  • Posted on June 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

If there is no guiding divine intelligence, if there are no spirits, if we all just evolved perfectly naturally from single celled organisms, into reptiles, into early mammal-reptiles, into mammals, into primates, and eventually into humans, then how can such a thing like magick work? 

It must be superstitious nonsense, right?

I suppose that depends on what we mean by “magick.”

For me, in the most simplest terms, magick means consciously affecting my subconscious in such a powerful way that my subconscious mind will help lead me to “what I want.” 

The conscious mind, however useful in day to day functioning, can often times be an enemy to long term goals.  It voices too many “negatives” for one thing.  “What if I can’t ____” or “What if I fail?” etc.  The conscious mind can be a real PITA, let’s face it.  Also the conscious mind can only be aware of a few things at once–any more than that and the external stimuli is pushed into the subconscious. 

So for me, magick is a technology for utilizing the power of the subconscious mind, which I believe contains *naturally evolved powers* that we do not yet fully utilize.  Even when using “demons” or “genies” all I am doing is using my conscious mind to tap into energies floating around in my subconscious, and if you were to extend that, to a universal subconscious, where our mythic archetypes are stored (ala C.G. Jung).

Magick for me is constantly evolving.  I don’t claim to know how it all works, anymore than modern scientists really have a grasp of how all the layers of human consciousness work and relate to each other.  I experiment, and stick with the most effective methods while disregarding the ones that don’t seem to work. 

I don’t believe in “hocus pocuses.” I believe in effectiveness, and I judge a magick’s effectiveness on its consistent ability in improving the quality of my life and those around me.  Simple as that. 

I don’t think a belief in other realms, such as heaven, or a belief in “souls”, or ghosts, or spirits flying around, or a belief in life after death are necessary to magick–and in many ways I feel these beliefs can be disingenuous to magick as they take the focus away from the present–from our evolved humanity–and from basic scientific principles. 

Magick should never go against established facts of nature, only enlighten them and lead them in new directions.

 

xoxoxo,

Izabael DaJinn

 

Aldous Huxley Quotations

  • Posted on February 28, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Aldous Huxley
English critic & novelist
(07/26/1894 – 11/22/1963)

aldous-huxley

Here are my favorite Huxley quotes along with my own completely superfluous commentary:

 

1) Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

While facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored, I would like to point out that at least you can remove the anguish and mental agony they cause by forgetting about them.

 

2) All that happens means something; nothing you do is ever insignificant.

This is typical of a lot of advanced philosophies.  Everything around us is a perfect mirror of our soul.  Every action we take has repercussions that reverberate throughout the entire universe.

 

3) An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.

I suppose this is why most women are intellectuals.

 

4) Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities.

This goes with almost anything.  If we focus too hard on the goal, we ruin it.  Focusing and deriving satisfaction from the process yields better results. 

 

5) Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.

Demons suffer from this too, so this is something I work on myself.  Why is it sometimes so hard to remember all the amazing things in our life and not focus on the one bad thing that went wrong that day?

 

6) The only completely consistent people are the dead.

They are also the only ones without any problems.

 

7) Children are remarkable for their intelligence and ardour, for their curiosity and tolerance of shams, the clarity and ruthlessness of their vision.

Indeed!  The enlightened have the heart and eyes of a seven year old.

 

8) Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.

How sad, but true is this?  Billons spent on bombs, bombs, bombs.

This is one is also the perfect quote to tie the similar, yet contrasting, themes of two of Stanley Kubrick’s films together, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. 

In 2001, Kubrick shows how we use our technology to advance to the next stage of human evolution, but in The Shining, Kubrick recants, and shows that modern man is actually devolving. 

 

9) Maybe this world is another planet’s hell.

Yeah, that’s one reasonable hypothesis–would also account for my being here.

 

10) I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.

I wanted to change myself, but found the only thing I could be sure of changing was my hair color.

 

11) That all men are equal is a proposition which, at ordinary times, no sane individual has ever given his assent.

America’s forefathers didn’t believe we were all equal either.  Why else have the electoral college?

 

12) The author of the Iliad is either Homer or, if not Homer, somebody else of the same name.

This one probably hides some really deep and secret meaning, but for me it’s just a fine piece of humorous wit. 

 

For more about A. Huxley check out his Wikipedia article.

93, 93/93,
Izabael

 

Robots Evolve And Learn How to Lie. Would they ever evolve past it?

  • Posted on January 15, 2008 at 1:43 am

A recent experiment with small robots confirmed that if left to evolve on their own that they would eventually start to lie to each other:

“By the 50th generation, the robots had learned to communicate, by lighting up, in three out of four colonies, to alert the others when they had found food or poison. The fourth colony sometimes evolved “cheater” robots instead, which would light up to tell the others that the poison was food, while they themselves rolled over to the food source and chowed down without emitting so much as a blink.” (from Discover)

The thing is I’d like to know what happens after the 100th generation or the 1000th.  I’m sure the “lying” group did not prosper as well as the other groups would soon evolve ways to exclude lying “tribes” and refuse to include them in their evolving society.  Would there always be upstarts trying to get a “quick fix” or would the greater society of the robots eventually weed out the dishonest strains of evolution completely?  Dishonesty within a system does it no good. Imagine if your computer’s memory started lying to the operating system about how much space it had left!

*iza

 

How does your drug of choice stack up?

  • Posted on December 31, 2007 at 12:14 pm

 

drug_of_choice 

 

Party responsibly ;-)

A public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood djinn.  Happy New Year!

Technorati Tags: ,

Are you sure you know what people mean when they mention Soma?

  • Posted on December 30, 2007 at 2:49 pm

The word "soma" has four distinct meanings:

  1. The plant, or the intoxicating juice of the plant, used in ancient Indian religious ceremonies. Inevitably, given the Indian tradition, the plant and its juice were personified as a god, Soma.
  2. The imaginary "ideal pleasure drug" in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World (1932). Its chemistry and pharmacology are undefined. As described, the drug resembles a hangoverless tranquilliser or an opiate. 
  3. "Soma" is the most common brand name of the muscle-relaxant carisoprodol, otherwise known as N-isopropyl-2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3-propanediol dicarbamate. Soma is marketed by Royce Laboratories, Inc; it was FDA-licensed in 1996. Soma/carisoprodol is broken down in the body into the active metabolite meprobamate. Meprobamate is a Schedule IV sedative-hypnotic, an anticonvulsant and anxiolytic muscle relaxant. It was first marketed in the USA from 1955 under the brand name Miltown as an anti-anxiety agent. The "miracle drug" of its era, Miltown was immortalised by the Rolling Stones as "Mother’s Little Helper".
  4. the body of an animal or plant excluding the germ cells.

I’ve noticed that literary people usually pick up on Soma as a Huxley reference, my party friends know Soma as the prescription med, and my Shamanistic/herbal friends know it as the juice of a plant.  I rarely hear the 4th meaning but maybe I don’t hang out with enough Biologists.

The Strokes has a song called Soma:

"Soma is what they would take when hard times opened their eyes
Saw pain in a new way
High stakes for a few names
Racing with the sunbeams
Loosing against their dreams"

These lyrics sound most like the imaginary Huxley drug, but I couldn’t find anything definite so it could refer to the Indian plant.  However, the Smashing Pumpkins also have a song called Soma, which was definitely named after the Huxley pleasure drug and Billy Corgan said this specifically about it:

"[The song] is based on the idea that a love relationship is almost the same as opium: it slowly puts you to sleep, it soothes you, and gives you the illusion of sureness and security." 

Amen to that!  Now let’s get to some pictures. 

First the Soma tablets:

soma-20579

 

Next is a hot picture of Aldous Huxley (July 26, 1894 – November 22, 1963):

Aldous Huxley

 

Here is a picture of the sacred Hindu plant:

harmala

 

Here is a picture and story about the Hindu goddess, Saraswati, who retrieved the stolen Soma plant:

saraswati4

"The Gandharvas were demigods who sprang from the fragrance of flowers.  Once they stole the Soma plant whose inebriating and invigorating sap was much sought after by the devas.  The theft of the Soma infuriated all the gods.

Saraswati promised to recover the soma plant.  She went to the garden of the gandharvas and with her veena created enchanting tunes: the ragas and the raginis.

‘Give us this music,’ begged the gandharvas.

‘Only if you give back the Soma plant to the devas,’ said the goddess.

The gandharvas returned the Soma plant and learned how to play music from Saraswati.  In time they became celestial musicians whose melodies had more power to rouse the mind than any intoxicant."

 

The connection between inebriating drugs and musicians leaves quite a trail back to antiquity, does it not?

It’s also easy to see why the definitions sometimes get blurred in public consciousness since they are all supposed to be pleasurable drugs of some sort. 

Hope that clears everything up.  I gotta go; all this talk of Soma is getting me excited….;-)

 

Sleep long & sleep well,

Izabael

 

The World is a Simulation: Solipsism 2.0

  • Posted on December 11, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Some of you may be familiar with Solipsism, the belief that no one besides yourself exists (including me if you are reading this).  If you want a humorous explanation of it, check out this link.

Many of you are also familiar with the simulation-argument, which is a well-developed argument that we are living inside a computer simulation.  If not you can read up on it here, but basically it’s like in the Matrix but not necessarily run by malevolent robots–instead run by our race as it is evolved perhaps thousands of years from “now.”

Solipsism goes back to the Greek presocratic sophist Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) but the simulation idea is of course much more recent.  But to me the arguments are the same, and in fact the simulation argument is a little like Solipism 2.0.

Either way, I like this view of the world.  It means there is no scarcity of resources or any damage that can truly be done to me or anyone else.  Everything is just set up for experiential value–there is nothing gained or lost except experience….wait, now I’m sounding Thelemic again. 

At any rate, if I am in a simulation, were any “backdoors” programmed in that I could use to make changes to my “reality” with?  Is that what Magick is? 

Wish I could just yell out “tech support” like in Vanilla Sky though.

 

*izabael (who is just a figment of your simulation)

 

Laughed?  Cried?  Outraged?  Discuss this blog at my forums.