It is shocking to see that adults are damned to stay as they are. Only children are supported to learn something new, but once they threw you into the world of the adults to go out and earn your own money, all support is gone. It seems they just intended to educate you as far as you need to earn tax payers’ money for paying taxes and buying commercial crap. But they do not support you to become a mature personality.

Of course there is self-education, but that is limited to technical things (electronics, computing, …) and does not help to overcome social problems (because of fear to learn what one wants to learn).

And of course, there is experience, but that does not help you to learn social things either, as they only allow you to gather experience (on the job) in areas where you already have some qualifications so that they can hire you. Also people will fear to accept a job that they fear to fail in (as it is about something they need, and maybe want, to learn yet).

And also, there are adult education services, but that is expensive, totally inefficient, and people do not have the time for it. Instead, education must be integrated into daily life.

Might this be a solution: we need hackerspaces for education in technology, and intentional communities for education in social and self governance skills, both with a semi-formal mentoring and evaluation program.

From a practical, motivational and experience-based perspective, it is useless to try to do something that is not favoured by the current circumstances, if that activity is something regular or habitual or something that requires many contributions over time (as part-time work). Such attempts will all fail eventually, and up to that point of time, they burn a huge amount of motivation, strength and other resources.

The solution is to change the circumstances instead. That is, to create surroundings (infrastructure, organizational rules etc.) that favour the activity one wants to do. This can be called “behavior setting design”; see the behavior setting theory.

It is however possible to perform one-time projects “against the circumstances”; this also consumes much motivation, strength and other resources, but that is o.k. if one can “re-fill” that wile living in ones day-to-day circumstances.

Examples:

  • To gain fitness, don’t create regular “train this or that” tasks, instead find a friend as a training partner, or a sports group so that training will get a regular, fun activity.
  • To become a more social person, move into a flat sharing community instead of creating tasks to meet people while still living in a very isolated way.
  • To recover from a burn-out situation, place yourself in a relaxing, supportive situation instead of creating tasks to relax, tasks to train physically, tasks to socialize etc..

A related insight is that it’s complete nonsense to permanently try to exhort and persuade the population to do more sport and live healthier, to increase public health. Because, all of the population know about the risks of not following these recommendations, and still do not follow them; so this must have a reason, and cannot by cured by simply intensifying the exhortations. The reason are multiple obstacles in the circumstances that make it impossible to uphold healthy activities in the long term with average human motivation (see above). People are simpl in a behavior setting that promotes unhealthy action (on average and in long term; individual actions and people might deviate, but a behavior setting is always effective on average, and average health is of interest here). So peopel cannot be blamed for living unhealthy, instead, these circumstances have to be changed to be more supportive.

Examples:

  • open, friendly sport groups to join
  • more informal social security to motivate people (by friends and family)
  • 24 hour gratis gym, operated by the city, incl. trainers
  • well-known places to meet for sports in informal manner
  • city-operated public Internet forums to find sport mates etc.

And has too many meaningless details.

Look at this well-known YouTube clip and you will know the impression I got:

Source: Noah takes a photo of himself every day for 6 years.

When looking at women, everything is a little bit more colorful, but the essence is the same:  She takes a photo every day : 200.

And if you want to use a symbol, use an apple: Rotting Apple (Mould).

Here is Sadness. Pure Sadness.

People have speculated (also before the movie “Matrix”) if this world is actually a simulation. It is said that, if one finds a “limit of resolution” in physics, that might be a hint that this world is indeed simulated. Now the quantization of energy could actually be this limit …

When taking this idea theologically, it is easy to get on the idea that we “are simulated by God”, either by being run on some external machine that God created, or by being a thought of God. This idea would explain how miracles are possible: these might happen if God modifies the current state of the simulation. However, this idea is quite demanding: it needs a “hyperversum” with powerful physics that can run such a mega-simulation, and the attributes and physics of that universum (in which God would be living) would be utterly unknown. Also, we would have no idea of the substance of God, or how he can interact with us (his “simulation”).

But here is a new thought. Not just we, but also God might be “simulated”. Now of course this word loses its meaning if everything is “simulated” (what would be the real thing then?); one should say instead that there are pre-existing, eternal law of physics that can be compared to the laws needed for information processing, i.e. they would work as a processor. And everything that “is” would be a “program” running in this processor, including God, and us.

It seems that this model can explain everything (it even can explain everything that can be ever imagined, which could be thought to be a problem, but is rather a necessity as God is omnipotent). Some of the consequences:

  1. God would be the “eternal, and only eternal” program running in this processor. As both God and the processor are eternal, it is conceptually better to say that God includes also the processor (which is an idea near to pantheism, but here, compatible with the personal God of the Bible). See also what Paul once quoted: “For in him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28).
  2. God would be the only “omnipotent” program. A program running in a special mode, comparable to a kernel.
  3. Because everything imaginable can be expressed in information (see e.g. fiction), everything is, in principle, possible if physics is just information processing. Which is the explanation for every kind of miracle. The normal course of the world would however be guided by a program, which limits possibilities to some orchestrated set of concepts, just like every program does (this time, resulting in the physics we know).
  4. This also conforms to the Bible teaching that God is a spirit (the “logos”: something immaterial that is mainly about information), that demons are spirits, and that human beings have a spirit.
  5. This also conforms to the findings in psychology that mental illness like depression seems to be a “self-supporting / self-stable / self-reinforcing” set of thoughts that one might have started by thinking them too much at one occasion. This would be a malicious “sub-program” in our model here, comparable to a computer virus. And it would be not really different from a demon (which might be an “unerasable, self-transferring, non-replicating malicious program”); this is supported by the fact that both these self-supporting thought cycles and demons have the same effect, that is, mental illnesses.

This new idea that both we and God are programs in the same “processing universe” is preferable to the idea that we are thoughts of God, because of Occams Razor: we need much less concepts in the new idea.

Most people are mainly non-rational (emphasis on emotion, beauty, fun, comfort, music, art), while I am one of the very few that are mainly rational (emphasis on truth, logic, adequateness, technology, function). This leaves us with very few common ground to talk about and so is a main communication barrier.

However, I must admit that the non-rational approach to life is probably how it was meant (by God). Because nature and also human relationships are obviously beautiful, but not obviously logical. The forces that keep the creation moving on are also non-logical, like the desire and pleasure to have children.

My current view is just that the non-logical approach is no longer adequate in a fallen world like this. Because, for example, a non-logical approach to knowing God seems to be impossible: many people do so, but all of them end in different unjustified religions, simply because the truth about God is not obvious as the basic facts about a human relationship are.

So what needs to be solved in a logical way before joining in the non-rational approach is, in my view: establishing a justified perception about what is the truth about God, and establishing a view what is adequate to do and not to do in a world like this, i.e. what this world needs.

However, I seem to be unable to consequently live the “rational approach” out, as it grants me not enough motivation to do what it recommends to do. Therefore, I have a basic motivation problem of “not really being motivated to live”. Perhaps the solution would be to start some non-rational activity in my life, like painting, artistic photography, artistic video filming, enjoying nature, singing, playing an instrument, cooking, interieur design (for my expedition vehicle) or something like that.

From the Second Acts perspective, all relationships have a rational and non-rational aspect, but the rational aspect in human relationship is so obvious that it is always taken as granted and just implied. The rational aspect is the factual level: the existence and personhood of the entities in that relationship. Other rational aspects include knowing some details about the other person’s psychology, to be able to deal better with peculiarities. In my view, nobody yet cared about the rational aspect of the relationship to God as a precondition to “subjectively being in that relationship”.

It seems that I just got a thought that might be a contribution to the problem of qualia.

Qualia might be, simple and amazing, the sense impression of a sense impression.

What does that mean? Sense impressions per se, that is, data as such, cannot generate qualia, as data is only sufficient for identifying external entities, but does not say what inner experience should be caused by these entities. So, the latter must be a property of the inner “screen” where all sense impressions and received and then interpreted. However, what sense data causes on this screen would go unnoticed if there would not be another “inner sense” or “meta sense” that would capture that and feed it back as sensual data, perhaps even on the same screen. So qualia is proposed here to mean the self-perception of the brain in the state of perceiving, or, as above, the sense impression of sense impressions.

I recently started to verbalize my ideas on what the “basics of reality” are, resulting from some years of rather casual thinking about the “basic questions of life”. In that process, I hit with the concept of free will, which is a challenging problem in my system.

Wherever one speaks of “free will” and means something that can come up with decisions out of no reason, this is not free will but chance. Because everything that happens for no reason is, per definition, chance. And you surely won’t reason for man being responsible for his actions because he made random decisions. So we cannot have attribute-less, reason-free, unqualified “free will”.

What there can be is decisions because of a reason, where the reason can be a logical conclusion, or the character of a person, which is either an inclination to good or bad. In confirmation of that view, in practice logical reasons and other influential factors can be assigned to every human decision.

Man can only be responsible if he knew that his own behavior is “morally untrue”, i.e. against the will of God. And, penalty is only a just action if man knew of the impending penalty for his morally untrue behavior. Else, a reason to obey (the fear of penalty) would have been inaccessible to the mind of the respective person. Also, knowing that ones own behavior is untrue will make the (hardware-based) conscience ring.

Now to uphold behavior against the will of God, man must employ self-deceit, namely, thinking that God is small. But self-deceit is a lie, so his conscience will ring, being a DNA-contributed “program”.

Emotion as the source of non-rational behavior in man must be involved in the free ill issue: only if man chooses an emotional (non-rational) decision though knowing that the opposite only would be true, this can be thought to be an act of the will, as it’s not guided by reason in any mechanical way. In Eden, the right option would have been an (in that situation) non-rational decision for God, out of positive emotion towards God. Today, emotional decisions to do evil in spite of knowing that it’s untrue are decisions of the (free) will.

Which means also, free will decisions can only be towards items one is emotional about (towards persons and animals and plants and things, e.g. “loving ones car”). And, free will decisions are only possible if logic and emotion point in different directions. Emotions are influenced by facts, but slowly, and only if a persona allows it.

It must be wrong to think that you can sort out an instance or subsystem in man that “is” the free will. Because that would be either separate from all other subsystems, so tat its decisions are chance, not free will. Or it would be a reasoning subsystem, so that its decisions are logic, not free will (and perhaps chance, where logic cannot come to an conclusion).

Rather, free will is a joint achievement of the whole system “man”, including brain, emotions, body, senses, etc.. It is not free in the sense that there would be an arbiter (the “heart”, or “person”), independent from everything, that emits decisions. Instead, free will is qualified with all attributes of the individual system “man”, and necessarily so because else it would be chance. But, free will is free because it cannot be guessed out, because it’s the result of a complex system (an emergence?), that is, being mad up in a feedback-rich process. There are multiple influence factors like emotions, simulations in thought, aims, experiences, memories, logic, values (“first principles”) etc.. To get to a decision, these (which together make up the “inner man”) are in chaotic interaction, like influence factors of weather, and it might be even in theory impossible to calculate the system behavior even when knowing the starting conditions most exactly, as thoughts are not exact in character, but can take on various degrees and forms in various contexts (“fuzziness”).

So after all, we have the whole man being involved in a decision, and it’s free because it cannot be guessed out before, but it’s qualified so that an educated guess will often be correct. If man is a self-referential information-based system, there is no meaning in saying he decides “as he wants”. Instead, he makes up his will by making a decision, because before the decision, there is nothing that knows or can known what man wants.

Now the interesting question is, can man influence “himself”, i.e. the content of his inner man that will eventually lead to a decision? Yes, if he happens to decide (because of some external event, perhaps) to submit himself to a situation that will change his character, or to an authority that he wants to obey.

The problem with this view is, does it reduce man to a machine? The answer could be, man is a machine that nobody can understand, and that lives on its own. Then, “personality” (including responsibility etc.) is a concept introduced to regulate the interactions (social interactions) of such machines. The interesting question is, then, if only man is such a machine (because he’s an image / model of God, not a real God) and God a “real person”, or if being a real person and being such a machine are identical things.

If you have a machine that understands the basic stuff about the objective reality, then this machine can be responsible. Because it understands that it must decide adequate decisions according to that understanding, which includes the will of God, the role of love, the mode of function of societies etc..

The chaotic mode of making up decisions should not let you get the impression, these decisions would be made by chance or by illogical means. It’s rather comparable to an unguided group decision process.(And in addition, in this process every “group member” learns from a decision for its behavior in the next decision process.) Free ill is therefore free as a group decision can be. In the internal decision process, group members are individual emotions, thoughts, memories etc..

Now, if there is no free will in the sense that everybody could decide in every situation “whatever he wants”, but he’s mostly bound by inclinations and stuff, what about responsibility? Ain’t it unjust to treat people as responsible for their actions? Yes, if responsibility is understood as being the justification for vengeance. But no, if it is assumed that, though somebody might not have been really able to avoid an evil deed, he’s able to change, or better, be changed by education. The concept of responsibility would then be an expression of the moral will of God, namely, to bring morally deviant individuals “back on track” by means of education (which even might include educational punishment). The difficulty here is, how would a concept of eternal punishment (“hell”) fit in?