J.D. Moyer

science fiction author, beatmaker, against fascism

Year: 2010 Page 9 of 13

Low-Hanging Fruit Part III (Quality of Life)

By

On May 13, 2010

In Metaprogramming

Full speed ahead towards all possible fantasy futures.

All of us, to different degrees, engage in imaginary narratives regarding our futures.  Imagination takes work, and most people (myself included) tend towards laziness, so these narratives are often fuzzy.  We have vague ideas about what we’ll do, where we’ll go, who we’ll meet, and so forth.  Sometimes these vague narratives lead us into action and fulfillment; other times they continue indefinitely, running parallel to the inertia of the reality of our lives.

Fear (of death, injury, disease, poverty, failure, loneliness, shame, or change itself) holds us back.  We postpone action for fear of what that action will cost us.  On the other hand, fear can also propel us; considering our own impermanence and limited time on this planet can kick us into gear.  Fear of where our current life trajectory will lead us, if we don’t change our direction, can be equally motivating.  To get to where we want to be, it’s usually necessary to take some risks, to put it on the line, to face our fears, and really go for it.

That’s not what this post is about.

There are other changes we can make in our lives — small changes — that can enormously influence our quality of life.  These changes often have zero (or close to zero) associated cost or risk.  How can we more easily identify these possible changes?  Simple, low-effort actions that result in big positive change are the low-hanging fruit of life (also see Low-Hanging Fruit Part I – Charity and Low-Hanging Fruit Part II – Health).  Implementing positive change can become a habit in itself; small changes can cascade into big changes.  If you’re not feeling geared up enough to turn your life upside down in your quest for greater satisfaction and happiness, you can always start small.

Immediately Actualizing Your Most Accessible Dreams

View from my flat in Paris.

Do you have any expensive fantasies?  Maybe you’d like to own a flat in Paris; you could jet in, stay for a week or two, reconnect with your French lover, and drink crates of obscenely expensive wine.  Maybe you’d like to own a baseball team.  Or perhaps you’re the private island type, or maybe you fancy yourself a space pilot or hot-air balloon circumnavigator, Richard Branson style.  Personally I would like to build a massive prehistoric garden, with Jurassic-era plants, fossil replicas, and maybe animatronic dinosaurs.

Aside from the prehistoric garden, lack of money usually isn’t what’s stopping me.  There are lots of things that we might fantasize about doing for years, or even decades, but keep putting off for no good reason.  We can afford it, we can make the time, and yet for some reason we don’t start.  I’m not sure why this is, but I know that when I can break through the inertia and just do the things I want to do, it’s immensely satisfying and results in a big quality of life jump.  For example:

  • The $2 espresso cup — I’ve always enjoyed drinking coffee out of an espresso cup, but I prefer the taste of drip coffee to espresso.  I bought myself a couple small espresso cups at IKEA for about $2 each, and I get immense pleasure every morning drinking drip coffee out of my little espresso cup.  The coffee stays hot, and I can drink an impressive six to eight cups each morning without feeling overcaffeinated.
  • Ferns — we bought some ferns and planted them.  I love ferns.  It’s not my dream garden yet, but $15 at the nursery went a long way towards helping me imagine my grandiose prehistoric garden.  Ancient plants — essentially unchanged for millions of years.  I love looking at those things.

    Just add dinosaurs.

  • Become a writer — a lifelong dream that I’ve only pursued in earnest since becoming a father.  What’s involved?  Writing every day, or at least most days.  That’s it.  Outside of pens and notebooks, costs are nonexistent.  I’d like to eventually find an agent and get published, but for the moment I’m happy writing and blogging (the latter counts as self-publishing, and the blog only took an hour or so to set up).  Why did I wait so long to start?
  • Live and work abroad — both Kia and I have wanted to do this for years, but it took us awhile to take the plunge.  We’re going to live and work in Costa Rica for six weeks.  We’re renting a house in the jungle, bringing our kid and our laptops, and getting on a plane.  How’s it all going to work out?  I have no idea — I’ll let you know.  But so far it looks like the cost of the trip will be similar to the cost of staying at home.  We don’t have to sell our house, uproot our lives, etc. — we’re just picking up and going for awhile.  If it works out well then maybe we’ll experiment with longer trips.  Reading The Four Hour Workweek definitely encouraged us to take the leap.

None of these changes involved any more risk than I would otherwise experience in daily life (in terms of safety, I live in Oakland and drive a car — is riding a bicycle in Costa Rica going to be more dangerous?).  What I lose in billable hours to writing, traveling, staring at my ferns, and drinking excessive amounts of coffee out of my little espresso cup will hopefully be made up by new ideas, new relationships, and passive income from royalties down the road (that may sound optimistic, but it has worked out that way for time I’ve spent writing and producing music, and I’m no musical genius).

What’s your easily accessible dream that you can immediately implement?  I’d like to know — please comment below.  I once asked an acquaintance what she would do if she won $20 million in the lottery.  She said she’d like to produce an off-Broadway production of the musical Hair.  What would that cost, $20K?  She didn’t mention what she’d do with the remaining $19,980,000.

Identify High Stress Areas — Reduce 10%

What’s the most stressful part of your week?  What activity, person, or place makes you tense your shoulders or gives you that uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach.  Is it traffic or your commute?  A co-worker?  Dealing with your financial accounts?

Is there a course of action you can take that can reduce the stress level by 10%?  This might not sound like much, but if you think about it in terms of a 10% quality-of-life improvement, it’s worth thinking about the problem.

For example, can you:

  • change your commute time to avoid traffic
  • negotiate a swap of tasks or chores with you co-workers or co-habitators so that you don’t have to do that job you hate (and vice-versa)
  • limit communication with your most high maintenance client/co-worker/customer
  • complete a task online instead of in-person (DMV, filing forms, etc.)
  • change your mode of communication around a contentious issue
  • become more accepting of other people’s behavior, and ask for more acceptance of your own behavior

In relationships (marriage, work, whatever) people have different stress levels around different topics.  Discussing some topics (money, future plans, child-rearing practices, etc.) might be easy for one person but stressful for the other.  The more sensitive party will find their heart rate increasing, their body tensing up, and other physical manifestations of stress when the topic is raised.  It’s important to not corner someone and force them into a conversation when they’re not ready, or allow yourself to be cornered when you’re not ready.  It’s acceptable to say “I don’t want to discuss this right now — can we discuss it at x time instead?”  Ambush conversations are a significant source of stress, and they’re easily avoidable.

In my own life, the demands of fatherhood can sometimes be a source of stress.  Like all parents, Kia and I have been forced to find ways to deal with the demands of small, vocal primate with limited table manners and even more limited self-sufficiency.  I in particular had a hard time adjusting to the absence of vast expanses of free time that used to dominate the landscape of my life and consciousness.  I’d chosen to make a living as a freelancer, forgoing the 9-to-5 lifestyle, mainly because it afforded me opportunities to read books in the middle of the day, stare at the trees for hours on end, and generally avoid people telling me what to do and when and how to do it.  Now a young creature, partly of my own making, charming but also demanding, was making mincemeat of my free time, peaceful sleep, and hard-won lounging about lifestyle.  Worse than a tyrannical boss!

I’ve managed to reclaim aspects of my preferred vacation-like existence, enough so that I’m generally quite happy.  The solution was straightforward; pay for and use more outside childcare than we actually needed.  This, combined with help from my daughter’s enthusiastic grandparents, allows me not only to maintain my sanity but to have enough free “space out” time so that I can spend time with my daughter without any feelings of resentment.  The extra expense requires more financial discipline in other areas, but buying myself more free time feels like money well spent.

Implementing this plan required some acceptance from Kia, which I asked for and she has generously given.  She has mentioned that she didn’t realize how important my “down time” (for entertainment, spacing out, doing nothing, etc.) was for my psychological well-being until there was real pressure on that time (and I turned into a miserable sod, for a while).

The alternative to analyzing and reducing your stress is lower quality of life, and eventually “Id Rebellion.”  If the landscape of your life is weighted too much towards what you experience as drudgery and toil, your subconscious mind will eventually grab the reins; you’ll find yourself acting out (drugs, excess drinking, shutting down emotionally, isolating yourself, gambling … insert your own variety of “bad behavior”).  This happens to everyone at one point or another, and we may or may not emerge unscathed.  I think a measured, analytical approach to stress reduction can mitigate episodes of Id Rebellion.

Internal Entitlement (not Enlightenment)

I’m not suggesting that we should live small; that we should be satisfied with eking out small pleasures in life.  If you hate your job, or if you have big relationship problems, then big change is a prerequisite to happiness.  And if you have big dreams then you should pursue them.  But small changes lead to big changes.  When we’re proactive, and take 100% responsibility for our own actions and experience of life (regardless of how much we can actually control), then positive change becomes habitual.  More and more we feel entitled to complete enjoyment of life.

This sense of internal entitlement — an allegiance to our own preferences — is different than expecting that the world owes us a living.  And it’s not the same as steamrolling people and insisting that we always get our way.  It is about finding out what makes you happy, and what doesn’t, and doing more of the former and less of the latter.

This simple way of living can be threatening to people that defer their own enjoyment of life for no good reason.  You might become a positive threat; your proactive attitude might be interpreted as a criticism of their own way of life.

However I think that’s probably the exception — most people in your life who notice you making changes will be inspired to make positive changes of their own (and those changes may then inspire you in turn, thus creating a positive feedback loop).

I’d love to hear about your own experiences in either of these areas — stress reduction and dream implementation.  What actions did you take and how did it affect your quality of life?

The Paradox of Entitlement

By

On May 3, 2010

In Culture Rants/Shares, Politics, Utopian Speculations

Proud to be an American (dog).

The United States as a nation is going through a kind of identity crisis, attempting to reconcile our sense of being a hard-working, family-oriented, religious (or at least spiritual), and tolerant people on the one hand, weighed against the evidence that we are in fact financially overdrawn, somewhat xenophobic, materialistic, individualistic, and possibly a bit lazy (or at least in love of shortcuts and get-rich-quick schemes).  Part of this national narrative is the discussion of entitlement, both in the sense of the government programs that constitute the social safety net, and in the personal sense that we are individually deserving of a sense of dignity, safety, and other basic human rights including food, shelter, healthcare, right to work, and education.

The political Right frames this discussion with phrases like “nobody owes you a living.”  The Right, in its eternal quest to create a society of perfect individuals, is chiefly concerned with personal character.  Even the avuncular Mr. Rogers is not safe, FOX “News” recently accused him of corrupting an entire generation via the overgenerous doling out of praise and the encouragement of unconditional self-esteem.

Does the Right have a point?  Maybe they do.  Some child psychologists suggest that parents are better off praising the actions and efforts, rather than qualities, of their children.  In other words don’t say “You’re a good artist,” instead say “You worked very hard on that drawing and it came out nicely.”  Too much of the former leads to timidity and risk-averse behavior; the child become focused on protecting their reputation of being “smart” or “artistic” and thus avoids taking risks and taking on difficult tasks.  And we’ve all heard stories of how children of recent immigrants work harder and more willingly than other kids, probably due to parental encouragement.  Do we, as a nation, give our children too much praise, and let them off the hook too easily when it comes to hard work and discipline?

The other side of the coin is that nations that have the greatest sense of collective entitlement often have the highest standard of living.  Take France, for example.  As is quoted in the Michael Moore film Sicko, “In the U.S. the people are scared of the government, in France the government is scared of the people.”  A democracy born of the guillotine.  The French enjoy entitlements that put our own to shame, and they get them because they clamor for them, initiating country-closing general strikes to get their way, as necessary.  These are people who strongly feel they deserve a fair shake from their government.

Is that the crux of it?  Fairness?  As citizens of a nation, when we hold up our side of the social contract, what do we expect in return?  In the United States we expect safety (even though we have rarely suffered invasion, and never occupation), and cheap gasoline.  Personally I think we should expand our sense of entitlement to include universal healthcare, public education (including university), well-funded scientific and medical government research programs, complete support for the mentally and physically disabled (including the infirm elderly), modern efficient infrastructure (water, energy, transportation), protection and conservation of the environment, reasonable regulation of the private sector, and so on and so forth (the classic wish-list of the political Left, more or less).  If the free market has already tried and failed (as it has in each of these areas) then our only realistic option is biggish government.  Or does anyone want to go back to a private firefighting service?

Private-sector thugs paid for by your tax dollars.

What’s the downside of a high sense of entitlement?  The obvious answer is higher taxes.  There’s no way around it; public services cost money.  But even at our current tax rates, there seems to be room for improvement, and even the possibility of paying down some of our scarily gigantic national debt.  I would like to see less pork in the budget, and a smaller portion of my tax dollars going to private mercs like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater.  Depending on how you look at it, up to 55% of our national budget goes toward military spending.  There really is room to cut, especially if we limit our military adventurism (occupying other countries) in the future.  But that’s another blog post …

Ultimately I think citizens (in relation to their government), and children (in relation to their parents) should have a high sense of entitlement.  What goes along with entitlements is responsibility; a willingness to uphold your side of the bargain.  For citizens in a democracy this means a willingness to pay your fair share of taxes (unlike the Greeks), a willingness to participate in the democratic process (thus hopefully curtailing the extent to which that process is hijacked by private/corporate interests), and a willingness to extend tolerance and respect (and charity when needed) to your neighbors.

The Power Elite

The Power Elite (the filthy rich, the captains of industry, the manipulators of democracy) fear an entitled citizenry.  Should we, as citizens, start to demand a reasonable return on our tax dollars (in the form of social services, and turning off the gushing money spigot that feeds private military contractors) as well as a reasonable return on our dollars spent in the private sector (in the form of reasonably safe, durable, high-quality products, competent services, decent customer service, social responsibility, and non-predatory behavior), then profit margins might suffer.  The Power Elite want to keep our sense of entitlement down; they want us to swallow whole the idea that our fate depends on hard work, deferred gratification, self-reliance, and other forms of bootstrapping (despite the fact that their own wealth comes mostly, with the exception of a few scrappy entrepreneurs, from inheritance, nepotism, dividends, and government pork).  This is why the interests of the Power Elite align so closely with the political Right, who elevate the idea of a more perfect (or at least more efficient) individual over the idea of a more perfect (or at least more fair) society.

Paradoxically, our individual fate does depend, to a great extent, on the personal values and attributes that the Right holds so dear (self-reliance, hard work, deferred gratification, and so forth).  In practice, however, if we model our society on the assumption that these traits should or do universally exist, then the end result is the exploitation of the working class.  Nobody owes you a living.  Work hard and don’t complain.  In other words, don’t demand that you have a right to healthcare, education, civil rights, and everything else you pay for with your tax dollars, law-abiding behavior, and other forms of loyalty to your country (and are thus entitled to).

Ayn Rand, we gave it a go.  Your champion of champions, Alan Greenspan, took it all the way.  We learned what an unregulated free market looks like.  Greenspan admitted he was wrong.  The failure of the idealistic Right was not as spectacular as the failure of the idealistic Left, but it was still spectacular.

The Conversation Going Forward

Freedom fries -- yum!

I’m not suggesting that be more like France is some sort of national panacea.  But I am in favor of removing the stigma from the word entitlement, instead coupling it with responsibility.  I think David Brooks has thought carefully about this topic, and I agree with his assertion that instilling middle-class values is an important element of narrowing the achievement gap (both between low-income and middle-class U.S. kids, and U.S. kids in general vs. kids from countries with higher levels of academic achievement).  I also agree with Michael Moore on most points — we should demand public healthcare, fair treatment from corporations, and so on.

One problem is that there is very little intelligent conversation between those with Right-leaning values (self-reliance, hard work, a robust and relatively unencumbered free market, fiscal conservatism in government, strong national defense) and Left-leaning values (social equality, public healthcare and education, protection of the environment, worker’s rights, and corporate accountability).  These sets of values are not always in conflict, and there are many solutions and courses of action that we can pursue, as a nation, that satisfy all of them.

The Game-Changing Algorithm Nobody Is Looking For (Part II — The Traps)

By

On April 28, 2010

In Evolution/Biology

Artist conception of Vladimir Vernadsky's "noösphere"

In my last post I described my take on the venerable idea that reality is composed of cumulative layers, and that the “layer cake” view of reality may give us a framework to consider evolution in a broader context (“extra-biological” evolution, if you will).

The question I posed; can we infer any commonalities regarding how one layer emerges from the previous?  Can we construct an algorithm that describes 1) how the molecular layer emerges from the atomic layer, 2) how the biological layer emerges from the molecular layer, 3) how the somatic layer emerges from the biological layer, and so forth?  And if we have such an algorithm in hand, what can we do with it?  Given a sufficiently powerful computer, can we simulate the entire universe?  Can we predict the next layer, or actually generate it within a simulation?

Let me start by warning of a few traps — traps I’ve fallen into at various times while thinking about the question above.

The first trap is looking for any sort of neatness or directionality, when examining the results of evolution.  The “stuff” we find in the universe may be generated by simple mathematical algorithms (watch this video to see what I mean), but the results are generally quite messy.  Everywhere we look we find complexity, exceptions, and irregularities.  For example, in the realm of biology, the core concept of “species” is notoriously hard to define (so much so that there is even something called “The Species Problem“).  So we should be wary of any model that classifies reality into neat, fixed categories (like the pre-Copernican map of the solar system below).

Ptolemaic/geocentric conception of the solar system. Neat, tidy, and wrong.

The same goes for directionality.  It is tempting to look at relatively simple bacteria (which have been around for a rather long time), and then look at relatively complex human beings (who have been around for a rather short time), and then conclude that evolution is moving in a direction; from the simple to the complex, or from the stupid to the intelligent.  This idea, as any biologist will tell you, is wrong.  Evolution (biological evolution, at least) moves towards whatever forms are most fit for a given environment.  Evolution actually prefers simplicity in a way (simpler forms are often more efficient, and thus more fit); the only reason complex forms (like people) exist at all are because all the environmental niches for simple lifeforms are all filled up.  It’s mighty competitive, down there, for bacteria and the like.  Evolution goes in whatever direction it finds success, be it towards simplicity, complexity, stupidity, intelligence, speed, sloth, or whatever.

The second trap (or third, if you want to count neatness and directionality as separate) is taking a human-centric view.  This has been a common trap in the history of scientific and philosophical inquiry.  The geocentric map of the solar system above is one example.  Copernicus (with help from the earlier work of Aristarchus) displaced Earth (and everyone on it) from the center of things, instead putting the sun at the center of the solar system.  Isaac Newton furthers our discomfort and reduces our specialness with his theory of universal gravitation; the same force that makes objects fall to the ground governs the movement of the planets and moons.  Darwin pushes human beings out of the spotlight with this Theory of Evolution; instead of being created in a divine image, human beings evolved from apes.  We’re but one species on one planet.  Modern telescopes push our little planet out ever further; our little solar system isn’t even in the center of the galaxy, and how many galaxies are there?  125 billion, says Hubble?  The denigration and humiliation continues to this day; modern physicists ask us to consider that the term universe may be a misnomer; the thing we consider to be everything may be just another grain of sand on a beach of multiverses.  The more we look at reality, the further from the center of things we find ourselves.

How does the human-centric trap relate to the consideration of extra-biological evolution?  It relates to the question; what is a unit of evolution?  What entity, or agent, is evolving, on each layer?  Genes evolve on the biological layer, bodies evolve on the somatic layer, and memes or ideas evolve on the memetic or cultural layer.  But where do people fit in?  On what layer are we evolving?

In short, we don’t have our own layer.  We exist on multiple layers.  At least in the way we think of ourselves, we aren’t replicable units.  On the somatic layer, human bodies can make more human bodies, but even identical bodies don’t make for identical people (as anyone who has known twins can tell you).  We think of ourselves as bodies with personalities; both our cultural and genetic heritage make up our identity.  And of course we also exist on the quantum, atomic, and molecular levels, though most of us don’t commonly think of ourselves that way.

This doesn’t preclude that within some future layer, some future version of humans beings might become replicable units (if our bodies and personalities were entirely digitized, and living in a virtual world or worlds, perhaps).  But that’s a different question.

The last trap, for lack of a better term, is uni-dimensionality.  An example of this type of thinking is supposing that stars and solar systems are on a different evolutionary layer than molecules, or that a structured community of creatures, like a beehive, or a human city, is on different evolutionary layer than the individual lifeforms.  The Global Brain concept is an example of falling into this trap.

Ken Wilber presents a better option for looking at extra-biological evolution; the Four-Quadrant model.

Ken Wilber's Four Quadrant Model of Just About Everything

Wilber divides reality into four quadrants, along two axes.  The first axis is the individual/collective axis.  Galaxies are the collective form of atoms; planets are the collective form of molecules, and so on.  The second axis is interior/exterior.  Our subjective experience as human beings is the interior form or manifestation of our brain-body as a physical, exterior form.

Wilber has written a great deal about his four quadrant model.  I would recommend reading Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, as well as the more recent Integral Spirituality.

I think Wilber himself falls into the neatness trap, and possibly the directionality trap, with his four quadrant model, but the multiple quadrant idea is still a good one.  I think Wilber’s 2nd axis (interior/exterior) is something that emerges with complex brains.  Wilber’s model seems to imply that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, and brains merely refine it.  As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve switched over to Dennett‘s camp with regards to consciousness.

As for directionality, Wilber’s main interest is higher consciousness, so that’s his bias when looking at evolution.  There’s no harm in taking a closer look at the particular evolutionary vector that may be leading towards higher consciousness or intelligence, but I’m more interested in the general algorithm that describes (and can hopefully predict) the emergence of new layers (regardless of whether or not higher consciousness is a result).

So, I’ve promised a lot, haven’t I?  An algorithm (or at least a model that can be easily simulated) that describe the emergence of new evolutionary layers.  My model will not fall into the traps of neatness, directionality, human-centrism, or uni-dimensionality.  Will I deliver?  You’ll have to wait for the next post.

The Game-Changing Algorithm Nobody Is Looking For (Part I — The Question)

By

On April 19, 2010

In Evolution/Biology

An ecology of molecules.

A problem I’ve been thinking about for the last twenty-five years or so (I’m a slow thinker, and it’s a big problem) is how new levels, or layers, of reality are created.

For example, what exactly is the process by which the molecular layer of reality is created from the atomic layer of reality?  How does the genetic or biological realm or layer emerge from the molecular?

We know how these things happened, specifically.  For example we know that atomic elements (like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen) were ejected into space from stars.  Some of these atoms linked to each other with a new type of bond (a covalent bond, where the electron rings overlapped, as opposed to the simpler ionic bond).  In this way the first molecules of the universe, like water and ammonia, were formed.  Thus the molecular layer was born.

We also know, more or less, how the genetic/biological layer was created.  Certain types of protein macromolecules — chains of amino acids, or nucleotides — developed the trick of self-replication; assembling copies of themselves from smaller pieces (amino acids).  This led, eventually, to a kind of proto-RNA, and eventually (with the addition of cellular membranes), the first prokaryotic lifeforms.  Hello biological layer.

Diatoms, tiny eukaryotic lifeforms.

What we don’t know, is the rule-set, or algorithm, for how a new layer of reality is created.  Can the process be abstracted?  Does the jump follow a particular set of consistent rules?  There don’t seem to be very many people even asking these questions.  To me, these questions are incredibly important.  I’ll explain why in a moment.

There is plenty of room for debate regarding what constitutes a new layer.  For example, life, on Earth, goes on for some time before anything even resembling what we consider to be a body emerges.  So perhaps we can separate the somatic layer of reality from the biological layer.  But what triggers the creation of the somatic layer?  Is it the emergence of a new cell structure, the nucleus, that gives rise to eukaryotic lifeforms?  Or is the ability of cells to specialize that creates the first true somatic forms (like the famous hydra).

Each new layer of reality is fully dependent on the lower layers (you can’t have molecules without atoms) but it is also distinct — the new layer offers new types of structures, agents, interactions, rules, spaces, etc.  You can even apply the general principles of evolution (like mutation, selection pressure, fitness criteria, etc.) to each layer of reality in the abstract model we’re constructing.

But how do we get from one layer to the next?  This question is often ignored.

My cosmological viewpoint.

For example, the Maxis game “Spore,” created by Will Wright, models several layers of reality.  There is a cellular layer, a biological layer, and a cultural/technological layer.  The mechanics of the transitions, however, are glossed over.  What are the overarching rules that apply to all the layers, and how, exactly, do we get from one to the next?

On planet Earth’s evolutionary time-line, things start to get interesting when consciousness emerges (and I realize not everybody thinks that consciousness is an emergent phenomena–Daniel Dennett won me over to this idea).  What I would call the social layer of reality emerges, with animals, propelled by emotional impulses, interacting sexually, familially, and territorially.

Relatively soon after, big-brained primates learn to think abstractly, plan, and manipulate their environment in complex ways,  thus introducing the cultural layer of reality.

Various technological layers follow.  Our current state of reality, the half-cyborgified human operating half in physical reality, half in virtual space, with instantaneous access to all the world’s information, with a just-emerging ability to manipulate its own genome, is most likely not the end of the line.  It’s likely, unless we self-destruct sooner than expected, that new layers of reality will continue to emerge.

But how?  What exactly is happening?  Is there any way to simulate the emergence of a new layer?  There isn’t, unless you have a model and an algorithm.

It’s necessary to define, in abstract terms, what exactly constitutes a new layer.  And that’s just the first step.

So why is answering this question important?

1) So we can perform interesting simulations.
With quantum computing, we’ll have an enormous amount of processor power at our disposal.  We’ll be able, potentially, to model evolution itself (not just biological evolution, which we can already model in a fairly sophisticated way, but the multi-layered evolution of the universe itself).  But we’ll need models — algorithms and rule-sets — to plug into the computer.  We need to better understand the multi-tiered nature of reality in order to simulate it.

2) So we can understand extra-biological evolution, beyond the realm of metaphor.
Richard Dawkins introduced the concept of memetics — applying the principles of biological evolution to culture.  Certain memes (words, phrases, melodies, ideas) survive and thrive in memetic space (in our minds and media) because they are more fit than others (fitness in this context being catchiness, replicability, aesthetic value, usefulness, entertainment value, etc.).

It’s a brilliant idea, but the study of memetics is arguably dead.  The field has failed to advance beyond the realm of metaphor.  The most basic question — what is or isn’t a meme — has never answered to the degree where memetic evolution could even begin to be measured.

By understanding and defining exactly what constitutes a layer of reality, and what constitutes an agent, or unit of evolution, within that layer, we might be able to start looking at extra-biological evolution (evolution in general) as a quantifiable field, and not just a grand analogy.

In my next post, I’ll offer my take on The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything (and it won’t be 42).  I’ll present my definition of what defines a level of reality, and put forward one possibility for how we can model the jump from one layer to the next.

Pick the Low-Hanging Fruit, Part II (Health) — continued

By

On April 15, 2010

In Health/Body-hacking, Metaprogramming

Berry berry yummy.

This post is a continuation of Pick the Low-Hanging Fruit, Part II (Health).

4. Reduce artificial light in the evening.

Are you sleep-deprived?  Do you “try to go to bed earlier” and fail, night after night?  I’ve been there.  If you enjoy browsing the internet or watching TV or playing video games or even just reading, you may, like many other people, fail to get sleepy in the evening (even when your body and mind are exhausted).  You know what’s keeping you up?  It’s the artificial light (blue spectrum light in particular).  At least according to this book, the blue light (equivalent to day light) is blocking the serotonin to melatonin conversion process — and the melatonin is the hormone/neurotransmitter that tells your body it’s time to go to sleep (and makes you feel sleepy).

I’d always thought of myself as a “night owl” until I tried an experiment; go without artificial light in the evening.  I found that without light bulbs, the TV, or the blue glow of the computer screen keeping me up, I would often be yawning by 9pm (otherwise my “natural” bedtime would be midnight or 1am).

The experiment I conducted was not easy.  But there are two very easy steps you can take in the same general direction.

  • use fewer lights in the evening — no need to have the whole house ablaze
  • download and install the free f.lux software on your computer — if you do then it won’t be your computer that’s keeping you up!

5. Exercise intensely 1-2 minutes a day, at least a few times a week.

All the latest exercise physiology research is pointing to these two general conclusions:

  • intensity (achieving maximum heart rate, lifting maximum weight) is more important than duration
  • less is more (recovery time is very important, over-training is very damaging)

If you really go for for that 1-2 minutes, you’re going to achieve MOST of the benefits in the following categories:

  • cardiovascular fitness (maximize heart rate)
  • strength (maximize weight lifted, move very slowly and with good form, stress muscles to the point where GH is released)
  • bone density  (especially with jumping or sprinting — both stress and thus strengthen the long bones)

What qualifies as intense?  Sprints, jumping and leaping, body-weight exercises (pullups, pushups, chinups, bar dips, etc.), carrying/lifting/pushing heavy objects, running up stairs — that sort of thing.  The best exercises are the ones that you actually enjoy doing — don’t bother with exercises that feel uncomfortable, boring, etc.

Most of the people flogging themselves in the gym aren’t improving their health.  Instead, they’re spiking their cortisol levels, stressing their joints, overburdening (and possibly enlarging) their hearts, and probably boring themselves to death in the process.

6. Floss before you brush.

My “floss every day” intention used to lead to flossing three or four times a week.  I would wait until right before going to sleep to brush my teeth, and half the time after brushing I would be too tired or lazy to floss.

Gum health is massively important for overall health.  Even mildly inflamed gums can raise your risk of heart disease (“leaky gums” are an open door for pathogens to waltz right into your bloodstream, thus giving your immune system a constant low-grade battle which can lead to chronic inflammation and the formation of arterial plaque).  Even knowing this, AND having a family history of both heart disease and gum problems, wasn’t enough to get me to religiously floss every day.

The trick that worked for me was switching the order.  I don’t think I’ve missed a day since.  Flossing doesn’t seem difficult anymore, because I’m not waiting until I’m exhausted to do it.  Even more important is anchoring the less ingrained habit (flossing) to a more ingrained habit (brushing).

One other thing I’ve noticed is that flossing is easier and faster if I’m not looking in the mirror.  Something about the visual feedback slows down the process — I can floss more quickly (and just as thoroughly) by touch alone.

The low-fat diet is just crazy.

7. Eat more fat.

In general, carbs (sugars and starches, including bread and pasta) cause the release of insulin, which lowers your blood sugar.  This makes you want to eat more carbs.  Eating dietary fat, on the other hand, leads to the sensation of fullness.  It’s easier to avoid overeating if you tilt the balance away from carbohydrates and towards healthful dietary fats.

There are a few types of dietary fat you want to avoid, including trans fats (hydrogenated vegetable oil), highly processed fats (like canola oil), old/rancid fats (processed vegetable and seed oils are especially vulnerable), and overheated vegetable/seed oils.  These oxidized fats can damage your health in a number of ways.

The good news is that most fats that are delicious are also health-promoting, including butter (especially from pastured cows), olive oil, coconut oil, fatty fish, chicken fat, and beef fat (again, especially from grass-fed/pastured cows).

Keeping a good ratio between Omega-3 fats (from wild-caught fish and grass-fed animal sources) and Omega-6 fats (from nuts and seeds, seed oils, and grain-fed animal sources) will support overall health, including immune function, heart health, mood, and blood sugar regulation.  Most people consume too much Omega-6 and not enough Omega-3.  Taking supplemental fish oil is the easiest way to improve this ratio (you can check out this site and this study to see which brands are best and which ones to avoid).  Keep fish oil refrigerated.

These days the prevailing wisdom says that we should avoid saturated fat to maintain optimum health and avoid heart disease, but the actual evidence behind this claim in extremely weak.  Most of the studies that claim saturated fat harms our health don’t control for intake of salt, refined flour, trans-fats, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, and processed food.  For example, a typical dietary study might compare the health of people eating the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.) to the Mediterranean diet — in other words hamburgers, hot dogs, white bread, corn oil, soda VS. fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, olive oil, beans, and whole grain. Conclusion: saturated fat is bad for you!  Really?  What about all the other junk on the S.A.D. side?  What about all the protective effects of the healthful foods on the Med side?  Studies like this don’t prove anything about saturated fat in particular.  Next time you see a headline that proclaims the evils of saturated fat, drill down and take a look to see what foods were actually being consumed by the study participants.

The original Ancel Keys “7 countries” study that got us collectively believing in the evils of saturated fat was based on cherry-picked (in effect, falsified) data.  Ancel Keys only included data from countries where both dietary saturated fat and heart disease were high — and left out data from countries where dietary saturated fat was high and heart disease was low.

The latest clinical research shows there is no relationship between eating saturated fat and getting heart disease.  Here’s the direct link to the meta-analysis.

For detailed discussions and numerous citations to the studies behind these assertions about dietary fat, I encourage you to explore Dr. Eades’s site and Mark Sisson’s site.  That is, if you like butter, and bacon.

Page 9 of 13

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén