Fields of Reality

image c/o Grand Forks Herald

and the Reality of Fields

In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure which is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics.
— Wikipedia 2021-10-10

In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or another tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.^[1][2][3] For example, on a weather map, the surface temperature is described by assigning a number to each point on the map; the temperature can be considered at a certain point in time or over some interval of time, to study the dynamics of temperature change. A surface wind map,^[4] assigning an arrow to each point on a map that describes the wind speed and direction at that point, is an example of a vector field, i.e. a 1-dimensional (rank-1) tensor field. Field theories, mathematical descriptions of how field values change in space and time, are ubiquitous in physics. For instance, the electric field is another rank-1 tensor field, while electrodynamics can be formulated in terms of two interacting vector fields at each point in spacetime, or as a single-rank 2-tensor field.^[5][6][7]
— Wikipedia 2021-10-10

A cellular automaton (pl. cellular automata, abbrev. CA) is a discrete model of computation studied in automata theory. Cellular automata are also called cellular spaces, tessellation automata, homogeneous structures, cellular structures, tessellation structures, and iterative arrays.^[2] Cellular automata have found application in various areas, including physics, theoretical biology and microstructure modeling.
— Wikipedia 2021-10-10

 If I have not frightened you away at this point, I will try simplify my point, my question

Are Fields the Fundamental Structure of Reality, of Life, of Being?

Today I was watching YouTube videos Sean Carroll - The Particle at the End of the Universe and Neat AI does Lenia - Conway's game of life arrives in the 21st century...

I have watched Sean Carroll many times, and this video several times, as well as many other videos on Quantum Field Theory. In short, the universe is permeated by various fields, and the particles we experience in nature, are simply a disturbance or excitation in those fields.

Today was the first time learning about “Lenia,” but I am very familiar with Conway’s game of Life. While a simple game, with simple rules, almost anyone can learn to play Life. However, it demonstrates some extraordinary principles in mathematics, algorithms, and computing, while producing satisfying visual experiences, that can be highly addictive for people playing the game, and especially people with computer programming talent and skills.

A notable difference between Life and Lenia is that the cellular automata of Life is based on a small set of Integers, while in Lenia is based on the set of Real numbers between 1 and -1. Also, Lenia (and even Life) has been extended into 3 dimensions and more.

It is very compelling to imagine that the fabric of the universe is not only the various Quantum Fields, but these Quantum Fields obey the laws of Cellular Automata, or something very similar. Is this what inspires people's thoughts on Simulated Reality? On the other hand, is there some relationship to what theorists are pursuing in string theory or loop quantum gravity and the ideas of cellular automata? Ultimately, any theory of cellular automata to explain reality would need to be falsifiable, testable, and verifiable... something that string theory has evaded so far... 🤔

One of the profound questions of physics is of the Physical Constants of nature, and why are these the values we see? My question is

Are the values of the Physical Constants the parameters or input values to the Cellular Automata that drive the Quantum Fields, that produce the particles and particle interactions we perceive as reality?

Indeed, many people have pointed out that if any of those Physical Constants differ by even extraordinarily small values, we could not exist, life could not exist, stars and planets could not exist, and largely matter as we know it could not exist.

Theologians like to point out this coincidence as the proof of intelligent design, as this validates that these values must have been chosen by an intelligent agency, of God. The problem with this approach is no theology wants to say where God came from, so this is an unsatisfying explanation as all theology is a philosophy of inventing explanations of reality rather than investigating, understanding, and proving them.

The most satisfying explanation so far, for me, is that indeed reality is a multiverse, a universe of universes, perhaps infinite universes, each with a different set of Physical Constants, such that when new universes are created, they are created with different, possibly random Physical Constants. Indeed, the Big Bang Theory seems to suggest that our particular universe was created about 14 billion years ago. See also the Infinite Monkey Theorem. As well, in biology, it is increasingly demonstrable that life can spontaneously emerge given necessary and sufficient starting conditions. Why can't this be true of reality itself?

Is each universe created with a set of fields, governed by cellular automata, with different start-up parameters?

This raises other questions?

• In the multiverse, does each universe have the same number of fields, and the same parametric cellular automata governing them, or do some universes have more or fewer fields, with different cellular automata?
• Is the multiverse flat, or is there a hierarchy of multiverses, leading to categories or groups of multiverses, distinguishable by things like dimensions, classes of fields, classes of cellular automata, and the set of possible input values to different cellular automata?
• Stepping back further
• What is the ontology of multiverse?
• What is the taxonomy of this ontology?
  

👀

Is anyone still reading this far?

In the world of ideas, logic, reasoning, mathematics, and science have helped us understand reality better than any other methods we have discovered.

 

I believe,
that in my philosophy of ideas, logic, reasoning, mathematics, and science,
there may not be limits to the things in Heaven and Earth we can dream of.

 

We all eat lies when our hearts are hungry...

Try as I might, I could not find the original author of this wonderful little quote:

 I only stumbled across it recently, but I stumbled across it after seeing a few related topics:

Then while reading my Google+ feed I found

and

so what does it all mean?

Years ago I started writing a book. It was mostly finished, over 100,000 words. Here is an excerpt from the book:

12 Steps for America

A Canadian Intervention into US Addiction Problems

I really cherish and love my American cousins to the south; they are family to me. While we have different parents, our parents are brothers and sisters and that unites all of us cousins in a special bond. While I am proud of our common heritage over the centuries, of late I am deeply disturbed by the dysfunctional and pathological behaviour of a nation, a people, and a culture I care about. From nation to nation, cousin to cousin, I feel I must propose an intervention of reality to save a beloved family member.

In the classic sense of dealing with people who have succumbed to addiction problems or other destructive behaviours, it is often necessary for loved ones to ‘intervene’ and practice ‘tough love’ for the benefit the people we care about most. I have done this in real life and I know the routine; you have to ambush someone you love and explain in plain and painful detail their actions, behaviours, judgments and choices, and how those dysfunctions have affected your personal life and the lives of others they are damaging. If you are successful, they may pay enough attention to what you say to realize they need help, they need serious help, and (you hope) they will trust that you will be there to help them with all the love that is possible when they decide to get help.

For many years, I have watched in horror, pain and frustration as I have seen America slide deeper and deeper into self-harming pathological dysfunctional behaviours; and for a long time I have not fully understood the severity of the problem, until now. I always thought the United States was mature and responsible enough to solve its own problems, but I now see that the US is past the point of self-reflection, accountability and responsibility, on a downward spiral similar to the fate of the Rome. The US can get well again, I am sure of that, but the way things are going America could hit rock bottom and that would be a tragedy beyond belief.

As nations go in the industrialized world, we are largely adults now, and often-competitive ones at that. If the United States really hits rock bottom just who is going to bail them out; China, Russia, Europe, India, Australia? In many ways, the American Empire is similar to the Roman Empire – they were both democratic republics once with enviable histories of accomplishments – but when Rome started falling who was there to catch it? I suggest you explore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

So what is this major crisis of American addiction and dependency?

Simply said the United States as a nation, society and culture
is just addicted to bullshit!

While this may seem smug or condescending, I cannot be more serious about how bad this problem is. We are all familiar with many forms of addictive and co-dependent issues; substance abuse, internet addiction, pornography, gambling, etc. Bullshit abuse and dependency is just not one of the things we hear about that often. However, this is simply the only explanation I can think of that adequately articulates the nature of the problem.

Smile and laugh all you will (for the moment) this is no joke, but I will tend to use humour when I may soften the abrasiveness of the message, in the hope that people may realize that often in humour we touch the nature of dealing with inconsistent logic so that it is not so shocking and alien.

What I am proposing is a 12-Step program similar to those used by such famous and respected institutions as Alcoholics Anonymous. I do not promise that these steps will cure America (who am I to cure America) but I sincerely believe that if enough of America works on these issues then America will get well enough to solve the rest of the problems on its own.

No matter what artistic gains I get, or gold records, if I can’t make a success out of my relationship with the people I love, then everything else is bullshit. —John Lennon

The book ends roughly around the time of the 2012 American Presidential Election, where Barak Obama was elected for a second term. Never before had I seen so much pure bullshit in politics at that time. Admittedly, the book is often over the top, but it was also intended to be a genre of humor too. Now in 2016, the era of Donald J Trump, my over-the-top book seems tame by comparison.


We come full circle back to

We all eat lies when our hearts are hungry...

which is really what my book is about, or should have more clearly been about. Simply put, Americans, and the rest of us, are typically addicted to bullshit simply because our hearts are hungry, our spirits are thirsty, and our souls are malnourished.

My sense is that Republicans are vastly better propagandists than Democrats because they put into practice more powerful psychological tools. To understand some facet of this, watch the Veritasium video. To understand more facets, you'd have to read my book. Case in point, "Mind Control Lesson 1" - Hillary Clinton's low favourabily ratings are due in large part to many years of powerful Republican messaging to the public the same messages over and over and over again; Benghazi being a prime example, as well as e-mail.

My point: there are good explanations for why are hearts are hungry. A society can only exist so long on an economy (diet) of lies.

My prescription: the words of Andrew Carnegie

The older I get the less I listen to what people say and the more I look at what they do

As a final thought, the older I get, the more my body is wearing out, the more I have to be cognizant of my physical diet; pragmatically, wisdom comes from being cognizant of your intellectual diet...

Inner Voices of Doubt

Why Do We Doubt?

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russel

Often paraphrased as "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

My hypothesis is that 'doubt' is an evolutionary adaptation that keeps us safe from making really stupid mistakes.

I come to this conclusion after numerous discussion with people about the psychology of doubt. Usually this comes from people who have treated others, or been treated for dealing with the 'inner voices of doubt,' 'the committee,' or other terms, for example: Conquer Your Critical Inner Voice, by Robert Firestone, Lisa Firestone, Joyce Catlett, talks about 'the inner critic.'

People often talk about these battles of doubt as some sort of weakness or disability, but I think they have it backwards. I took a course in 'Resilience Training' a couple of years ago from the Sue Drinnan of the Wisdom Collective. One of the things we did was a self inventory of our strengths and over used strengths. Note, she called them 'over used strengths' not weaknesses.

An interesting branch of psychology is Evolutionary Psychology where we look at various psychological issues not as disabilities as conventional psychology and psychiatry do, but as evolutionary adaptations that do not serve as as well in a modern environment. For example, if we look at various 'attention disorders' in the light of early hunter/gathers living on the African plains, then hyper alertness may have been a benefit: constantly alert to prey or other predators--Squirrel!

I suspect that in a normal healthy mind doubt and confidence are in healthy balance. Indeed, there should be an inner turmoil, especially over important issues and decisions, between the perspectives of doubt and confidence. Sadly I know many people who struggle with self doubt, who feel disabled by it at times, and I do not want to invalidate such important feelings, to be sure they are very real and valid feelings, as I have struggled passionately with this at times. My perspective is that if we think about disabling doubt as an overused strength rather than a weakness, then our approach should be to harness that strength rather than eliminate a weakness.

In harnessing this strength, perhaps it is better to recognize, acknowledge, validate, and support it. I have said before, "the path to love is recognition, acknowledgement, validation, and support;" therefore to use this path on our doubts is to learn to love ourselves more, for who we are. Just as being able to 'speak the truth' is a great strength, there are times when it is not appropriate, it must be harnessed, and moderated with tact.

When I was a young child I used to be afraid to go to sleep at night because of the terrible nightmares I would have that would wake me in the middle of the night. The anxiety was ferocious. Somehow over time my dreams did not change, but they went from being frightening to simply entertaining. Perhaps this is a good way to thing about doubts or any 'disabling thoughts' is to accept them and be able to stand back from them as useful, but not crippling or dire.

To be sure, an important insight of Bertrand Russel is "that in the modern world" because it is the modern world that separates the intelligent from the stupid and cocksure. In the modern world we do not live an existence on the plains of Africa, where evolution quickly sorted out the stupid and cocksure. For example, in the 2016 American Presidential Election, one wonders how many of the myriad candidates would not have been eaten by lions and tigers first, before they had a chance live long enough to earn the merit for such an important role. For their supporters, one again wonders how many of them would have survived long enough in a dangerous world, while having little or no self doubt.

Just because the modern world seems to define confidence as success does not mean that confidence is a more important strength than doubt, it only means we are out of balance. For the most part, I would rather err on the side of doubt, as that is generally less dangerous to yourself and others, than errors on the side of the confident and cocksure.

As an aside, why do we say 'cocksure' and not 'pussysure' - or does pussysure simply mean to be sure some overconfident cock is talking nonsense. :-)

Just thinking out loud...

Ux Rx

User Experience Prescription

Today I had an especially bad experience at my doctor's office.

After thinking about it for a while I decided to analyze why the experience was so bad, and I approached it based on my past experience with User Interface Design, or as it is called these days User Experience (Ux) and Human Factors.

 

The Experience

Last week I received a phone call from my doctor's office that my blood test results were in, and my doctor 'urgently' wanted to see me. I asked when I should come in, and the caller said Monday. I asked if there was any specific time on Monday and the caller said "any time would be fine and she [the doctor] will just see me."

So today I show up about 11:00 AM and announce myself. The receptionist tells me to come back after 2:30 PM. I explain that I was told to come in anytime because it was 'urgent' so she looks up my file and says there is nothing urgent there. Note that this is a very invalidating response, because for most customer service staff, if anything is wrong, they almost always try to blame it on the customer, or someone else.

I explain that I have already paid for parking and she gives me that 'deer in the headlights' look that I also find frustratingly common with customer service staff. She then tries to tell me the doctor has a new policy in that there are no appointments and that people should just walk in, but I have to come after 2:30 PM. I explain that last week on the phone I was told to come in "any time." Again, that 'deer in the headlights' gaze makes me suspect there is very little empathy or compassion operating behind those eyes. She asks if I would like to come back at 2:30 and I say "No, just have someone call me when you can give me at time to come in" and I walk out.

I walk back in a few seconds later to add "I am really angry about this because it has happened several times now, so please tell the doctor to call me when she has time," then I leave.

A few minutes later after I have left I get a phone call from the regular receptionist who knows me quite well. She is very apologetic, and says I am a valued patient, and that some of the temporary staff don't know how to handle things well. Finally, she gives me a time to come in tomorrow, and I agree to come back then.

 

Root Cause Analysis

As a very experienced software developer I am accustomed to facing software, systems, and process defects on a routine basis. In general, after solving a problem I have learned to perform some sort of Root Cause Analysis of the problem in order to understand it, and hopefully prevent it from occurring again. Usually this is some twisted technical issue, but it applies equally well to User Experience issues.

 

Temporary Staff

The first part of the failure was 'temporary staff.' While the receptionist who saw me today was temporary, the regular receptionist also claimed that it was a temporary staff member who contacted me last week.

The basic problem with temporary staff is they are generally incompetent to do the job given because they do not have the experience to do it properly, or the attitude to do it well.

 

Staff Training

Staff training is a constant problem, especially for front-line people like receptionists who have to deal with other people. They are generally not trained well, and tend to be especially poor at dealing with people, especially frustrated people. Training is even less likely for temporary staff.

 

Business Processes, Ux, and Human Factors

The quality of a business is directly related to the quality of the processes the business uses. In most doctor's offices, making appointments with patients is the norm. It is not really important why my doctor implemented a policy of no appointments, but the failure was to consider how this change in a standard business practice would affect other business processes as well, in particular staff training and customer relations.

In most doctor's offices it is generally understood how to make an appointment, and what the process is. However, it is not well understood how other processes need to change when there is no appointment system. In particular, the staff need to be better trained to explain the new process to customers (patients), and the new process has to be tested and refined until the defects are worked out.

For example, if you are going to run a non-standard business process, then document it, and train your staff in how to implement it. For temporary staff, make sure they have the document, or at least a cheat sheet near them. When calling a patient, here is what you say... When responding to a patient, here is what you say...

For non-standard processes, there needs to be Quality Assurance process to make sure the non-standard process is giving you the result you want, and not giving you results you don't want, such as frustrated customers.

 

First World Problems

Check out the video above on First World Problems. Every business that has customers, clients, patients, etc. really should watch and understand these issues. The main problem is that most business contribute to these problems because they have no motivation to consider them. This is especially true in my field of technology with computers, mobile devices and web applications; but just as important with mature businesses such as a medical practice.

 

Great Doctors and Great Businesses

To be sure, I really have a great doctor. In fact, I chose her after researching various doctors on the web, and she had the highest ratings, and number of excellent patient testimonies. My medical experience with her also confirms she is an excellent doctor.

However, running a medical practice is more than just being a good doctor, it is also running a business. But having business experience is also not enough, as it is clear the most CEOs and other business leaders do not care about User Experience either. Having an MBa is only going to give you insight into increasing profit, it will never give you insight on the importance of Human Factors or User Experience Design.

I am not really sure what the answer here is, but I suspect it is related to First World Problems, and how people don't take these seriously. We often joke about first world problems, like "OMG, there is a fly in my wine" while in the back of our mind we know there are people starving around the world.

Basically, it is a first world problem that many business, including medical practices, do not take the time to fully understand the User Experiences of their customers or service users. This is a cross-cutting concern that everyone should study and understand in school, college, university, etc.

There are models for success. Consider Apple, for example. Much of the quality of Apple products and services is based on the fanatic perfectionism of Steve Jobs. Apple customers are some of the happiest, most satisfied, most loyal in the world. Largely this was because Steve Jobs actually used his own products and services, routinely had to demo them to other people, and would become passionately upset if something was less than perfect.

If you are responsible for any kind of product or services, try actually using that product or service the way your customers do. Talk to your customers, and ask them how your products and services are. Make it easy for them to give you feedback, and act on that feedback.

The Doctor

The Daemon Dances

 

Have you ever been in a debate?

Was it good or bad for you?

Did you win or loose?

Was it a contest?

Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly.^[1]
Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
Debating is commonly carried out in many assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by a vote. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. In particular, in parliamentary democracies a legislature debates and decides on new laws. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are sometimes held in democracies. Debating is also carried out for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments. The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop the ability to debate rationally from either position with equal ease.
Although informal debate is common the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. The outcome of a contest may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two.
― http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

I have discovered there is another form of debate that I actually enjoy, and that is when two or more people discuss important issues, not as in a game of win or loose, but in a passionate exploration of facts, ideas and a journey, without destination, into new truths.

While I cherish these debates, they are few and far between on my journey through life. Sadly, all too often, most of the debates I end up in are the win/loose kind. What is even more sad is that I end up in these debates, when I really did not want to enter them at all, ever.

Once I was sitting in a park, along the ocean, chatting about the weather and other light topics with my girlfriend. Before I knew it, I was ensconced in a debate. Hold on, isn't “ensconced” supposed to have something to do with a safe place? My point was, I was feeling safe, in the park, on a grand day, sitting by the ocean, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and suddenly I found myself “embroiled” in this debate about (gawd, I can't even remember any more).

Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
― Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

When Someone is Listening to Understand

• They look relaxed
• They nod their head a lot
• They smile, that dreamy smile like they are enjoying what you say
• They stop to paraphrase what they understand
• They make short, clever, interjections to show they relate to what you are saying

When Someone is Listening to Reply

• They look agitated
• They shake their head sideways a lot
• They grimace, or otherwise do not look pleased or content
• They stop to interrupt and invalidate what you are saying
• They try to hijack the entire conversation to their agenda

It's not rocket science, I can pretty much tell pretty soon which way things are going. What I cannot understand is why I cannot control myself better when the debate turn ugly.

Thinking, Fast and Slow

If you have not read “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman, you should. In a nutshell, our minds tend to function in one of two modes:

1. Thinking fast, when quick decisions are required, especially life or death.
2. Thinking slow, when we have the luxury of reason, thoughtfulness, and reflection.

Whether or not we are in danger, there are some things are minds do very well, very quickly. For example, what is 3 times 7?

It is 21 of course because we memorized the multiplication tables in primary school, and the fast thinking part of our brain can remember that fact in an instant, whether we are in a crisis or not. OK, what is the square root of 856?

29.257 of course, because I used a calculator. However, I bet a lot of you thought WTF? How do you calculate square root? For those of you who know how to calculate square root, it is a long process, involving division and estimation, but it is certainly not a quick table look-up from childhood training. I could have done it without a calculator, but it would have taken me many minutes.

For some of you, you might even have felt “who is this fucking intellectual snob challenging me to some stupid esoteric bit of knowledge and reasoning? This bastard is some some holier than thou asshole trying to make me look stupid, and someone needs to put him in his place”

And there we have it. The slow thinking person might have actually parsed and tried to understand I was talking about slow thinking, whereas the fast thinking person might have been reacting instantly to their emotions, parsing half my words, and none of my semantics, reacting instantly to their passions, and thinking of how best to reply to my perceived insult to them.

Dance

I have been a swing dancer since the late 1990's and while I am not exceptional, I am experienced. As a dance lead you learn many many patterns―that is the core of your training. Along the way you also learn skills and techniques, and in particular you (try) to learn to listen to listen to the music in real-time, choreographing moves, and leading your partner into a successful experience or performance for both of you.

Dance is usually about thinking fast, because if you are not intimately familiar with the music, you need to improvise a lot, instantly, in real time.

I have experience more than my fair share of couples counselors and other so-called communications experts, who all say, it is better to discuss important issues face-to-face rather than in e-mail. To all those people I say: bull-fucking-shit, you are so out to lunch. Scientific research shows that people do not usually think rationally quickly. It is really hard to reflect and listen to understand quickly, especially when emotions are in play. I think it is more important to know when you can discuss things face-to-face rationally, and when some other form of communication is necessary.

When people, especially people with strong feelings, try to communicate, we become like dancers. When we hear the music of our emotions, we fall back into our dance patterns, and we either listen to understand or we listen to reply, based on the dances we are most comfortable with.

More recently I have become enchanted with Blues Dancing. What I feel compelling is that this form of dance is more about listening to the music, and interpreting what you hear. There are just not as many patterns to choreograph, and there is more emphasis on the conversation with your dance partner. Overall, there is more emphasis on the experience and less on the performance. Maybe there is some fundamental truth here to relationships, that there should be more emphasis on the experience of our relationships than on the performance of them.

There are daemons in all of us that drive us to react on our emotions instead of our reason. Communication is the most important dance any of us will know or experience in our lives. Until we learn to ignore the daemons in our emotions, we can never learn to dance to the true music of life. Any debate that is reactive instead of reflective, is just fear as opposed to love.

As I grow older and wiser, I am inclined to believe that love is more about reason than emotion, that is true love is about reason, while false love is about emotion.

The Daemon Dances

The Daemon Dances are those interactions we have with people where we fall back on past traumas and ineffectual responses, where we listen to reply, as opposed to listen to understand. In the end, is our choice to understand life, or reply to it?

And I leave you with Samba Pa Ti, one of the songs I feel is most about love. There are no words, just love. Maybe you will listen, and there will be no debate.

Do You Validate Here?

Don't frown because you never know who's falling in love with your smile.
-- Xandra Moss, age 13

That quote is from the book "Tommy Transit's Bus Tales" by Tom Tompkins and Michele Hall. It pretty much sums up Tommy's mission in life, validating everyone he meets, finding ways to make each of us feel special, appreciated, visible, and validated.

I was once told, by a trained psychologist, that I should not require or expect validation from others, rather I should learn to self validate. Fair enough, that is sage advice, and I practice it when I can.

The problem with that advice is that life, our world, society can be incredibly invaliding at times. Every time I get into a phone menu system I feel dehumanized, my humanity is invalidated. I feel like I am treated like a robot, relegated to follow some script some junior programmer has concocted for me, who in turn was probably invalidated by his or her boss or company. To be sure, modern corporations, capitalism and consumerism are just machines that take human beings as input, and grind us up to extract profit for the small minority controlling the machines.

Even worse than phone menu systems are the ubiquity of web sites and web applications on the cloud that have automated the process of extracting profit from consumers, largely in a dehumanizing and invalidating way. I say this not as a lament, but as an expert option, for I am a software developer too, who has taught user interface design in a third year university course. I know with confidence that we can do better, we certainly know how to do better, we simply choose not to do better.

Don't even get me started on politics; one of the most invalidating achievements of the new millenium.

We owe it to ourselves to want validation, we need it, we deserve it.

I was sitting in the Humming Bird Pub, on Galiano Island, one night having a short philosophical conversation with my new friend Andrea. I was commenting on the TV show Glee, how I liked it because it taught more than just tolerating each other, it taught accepting each other. Andrea picked up on that sentiment and said "yes, tolerance is not enough, we can do better than that, and we should."

The next night I was back in the pub watching Andrea and her partner Auto play another set of music - they are very talented. Tom, who I met the night before, walks over and says to me "Are you here again? We're going to have to get you a membership." He found some time from his busy schedule to sit down and chat with me, and handed me a copy of his book. This was his personal copy, full of editorial notes, hand written in pencil. WOW - what a trusting guy. While he was gone on his next bus run, I manage to read the first quarter of the book. Much of the time I was in stitches, laughing wholeheartedly -- all of the time I was smiling. When he got back, I asked Tommy if they carried the book in the Galiano Book Store. He said "better than that, I have a couple of copies in my car." I bought both copies.

Since that amazing weekend on Galiano a lot of great stuff has happened in my life. More recently Andrea and Auto were in Vancouver playing another gig, and I went down with a couple of friends to see their show. They had a lot of their friends there too - it was a pretty happy room. I stayed late, and was privileged to get invited to a party the next night.

I got to the party early, and enjoyed a nice chat with early comers. By about 10:00 PM it became apparent that this was no normal party, as many of the people there are very talented music artists, and before long I found myself in heaven listening to one performance after another. From time to time I stepped outside my rapture to observe, and what I saw was amazing. This crowd was warm, welcoming, touchy-feely, huggy-kissy, happy, vibrant, laughing - but most importantly, they were validating.

In addition to actively validating me, and each other, I realize that the arts in general are one of the most validating agencies we have. Music and poetry speaks to our souls, validating our dreams and emotions. Visual arts validate those ineffable truths we all hold, making use feel connected to each other, connected to the inner spirit of the artist, leaving us to wonder how the artist can read our minds and souls too. And then there is dance: using movement to create an emotion.

Quite some time ago I told myself I needed to bring more art and artists into my life, but it was just a feeling, a desire, it felt right. I finally realized what I was doing, I was exposing myself to validation, and creating opportunities for it. The world will always be there with dehumanizing voice menus and frustrating web forms, and I am pretty good at self validating when I need to, but validation is out there everywhere if we look for it, learn how to see it -- more importantly, learn how to create it, give it, share it.

And then there is Tommy, who is also a gifted artist - the art of the compliment and positive quip. He taught me that I too can offer people validation. I am no angel, and I have been known to cast a few invalidating remarks around when the machinery of invalidation gets me down. A little repenting goes a long way.

There is simply no greater blessing in life than that moment when you realized you have made someone else's moment, day, week.

Andrea is right, we can do better; we can do better than tolerance, we can even do better than acceptance, we can validate each other and ourselves.

In and Out

David Eagleman on the science of de- (and re-) humanisation

After watching these presentations lot of things became clearer in my mind. Many of the questions I have about how people treat each other seemed to have explanations now. Why do the strong pick on the weak? Why do people bully each other? Why are there bigots and hate mongers who are always finding ways to divide people up and label one group as good and another group as bad?

It all has to do with 'in-groups' and 'out-groups' and 'group-selection'

Now my bigger question is that if all this hate and ignorance has such a compelling explanation, why don't more people know about it or talk about it?



I would have thought that in general most of us could agree that bullying, bigotry and hate mongering are things we should reduce or eliminate in our society. If that were so why don't we do more to solve this problem? Oh, it's not that people don't complain about these problems, but what do we really tangibly to do solve the problem; or what can we tangibly do?

I have learned over time that the most important step in solving any problem is recognizing there is a problem. Maybe some people don't recognize there is a problem, or maybe some people don't want to solve this problem because it profits them in some way.

The next step in solving any problem is to define the problem. While I don't think David Eagleman has really defined the problem here, he certainly has defined the mechanisms that contribute to the problem. Maybe if more people watch these videos, collectively we will be able to define the problem.



Part of the problem is that we have a need to dehumanize other people, and once we do that we can no longer empathize with people, and now we are free to hurt them, or even delight in hurting them.

I guess when we compete for resources, or other things, we would rather not share with everyone, it is harder to compete with people we empathize with. The greater extent that we can dehumanize others, the more we are free to complete with them ruthlessly - after all, they are not human. In particular, when we dehumanize others we can extract more profit from them.



Fundamentally peer pressure is manipulation, whether intentional or not. Ultimately peer pressure is what keeps us in one group or another. Obedience is a measure how willing we are to do what we know or suspect is wrong. Pathologically, obedience is the peer pressure to conform to the group no matter how wrong, bad or evil the group is.



So it seems one of the most useful tools in re-humanizing society is education. Who profits when we increase funding and opportunities for education? Well that would be society as a whole I guess. So who profits when we cut funding and opportunities for education? That would be anyone who profits from de-humanizing society or a situation; I guess.



While I am a scientist, and I profoundly believe in science, science is not a person or a god; science is just a tool. No matter how much I can see how this science can be used to re-humanize our society, when I put on my evil genius hat, I can just as clearly see how this science can be used to further de-humanize society.

Now why would someone deliberately want to de-humanize society or a situation? The answer is simple: profit. If you can profit by de-humanizing others then it is easier to say "it's not personal, it's just business."

I guess where this leaves me is: are the decisions we make everyday for ourselves, for our community, for our county, or for our world human decisions or are they business decisions? Maybe I have finally defined the problem now.