Paradoxes are fun.

My new hobby: making up new definitions that fit my needs. The definition of a Paradox is that it is paradoxically true and its apparent falsehood leads to its truth. I do not know (nor do i care) if this can really be used as an official definition, but its what I prefer to use.

I use it to attempt to dispel polarization. I do this by taking any seemingly and "obviously" false statement, and turning it inside out in order to force paradox. I'll take this statement and use any devious thought form to cast doubt on adherence to dogmatic truth.

I say Rationality Is Irrational. This is because no matter the situation, a fully functional and rational person will invariably run into an irrational person. If you attribute anything to rationality, it will follow that the opposite would be attributed to irrationality. One may believe that it is rational for a person to avoid all that is irrational, but unfortunately, that which is irrational may by the same token be compelled to seek out the rational. Then the two are doomed to meet no matter the situation.
So now when rationality and irrationality meet in the same room, what does the rational one do. As ingrained into our society, its probably rational to not bother that which is unknown to you, and therefore the opposite would be to poke, prod, bother, and maybe even kill that which is unknown. Then what does the rational do? Does it turn the other cheek, and forfeit its livability, or even possibility its life? or does it attempt to banish the irrational by in fact turning it onto itself forfeiting its purity as true-rational? Either way, pure rationality does not survive past this simplistic setup. It breaks down to two possibilities Rationality is Irrational, or Rationality is suicidal (which in turn is viewed as irrational anyways).

Now I know as much as anyone that this is a silly argument, but it brings a Catch 22. What if my logic was irrational in the previous argument? Well then a rational person must disregard everything that I have said. Everything I have said will probably be bulked together and had a big rubber stamp of nonsense. The rational man must dogmatically disregard my claims as I am mindless. But in my opinion I am the rational one, and he is the irrational one for he dogmatically believes things without consideration. Who is right? Well I am because I say so, and Polarization like his is my enemy.

I guess all I can say is anti-polarization is polarizing. I want to irrationally push this rational view to the infinite limits.

Yet Another Disclaimer; oh, and I destroyed the religions by describing them

The more i think about the brain, the more I find i have to change my belief system just to get any new information. So far it seems that staying dogmatic to the ideas I began creating last year, not only is silly as i do not completely agree with them all, but I myself have already taken a step above and beyond them. My older strategy and mindset was as much as i hate to say it, too scientific. I would get to a point where I would need to find some evidence of my ideas to believe them, when in fact the ideas are self referential and in some way affirm themselves. In short, I've been finding a need to scrap rigor in favor of subjectivity, as the brain's thoughts are highly dependent on the core beliefs of a system. In any case, for now on, I can never say if I am making things up as I go, or if I thought of my ideas beforehand and decided to write them down. It doesnt matter; im just going to write.

I've been experimenting with many different thought styles, those of which I am against to the core, but this core is what I'm trying to rip apart a little to get a larger view of the world. I've always had a general interest in all world religions, even though for the majority of my life I've held that I'm an atheist. A year ago I began to attempt to conjoin every religion. I have been able to mutate any religious belief into a simple mental model, each of which I could fit into a single larger one: the brain itself. I decided rather than continuing my long rambling of posts I've been doing, I'd jump right into the grit of my point.

The addictiveness of a mental system, or a religion, comes directly from the structure, or apparent structure of the brain. The belief in a singular god and a singular devil is the belief that there is a single source of life and death in a brain. Cristians' God and Satan are simply embellished wrappers around the concepts of excitation and inhibition. The monotheistic view lacking polarization, holds that there is a single source of both good and evil, light and darkness, etc. This is analogous to the Jewish God, or the Tao Taijitu. This is why the concept of evil is lost on some cultures, but is highly ingrained in other cultures.

Now, there are also polytheistic religions, these are simply that there are numerous smaller versions of these 'ultimate' gods that in essence act the same way as them. The only difference is that these deities are constantly battling each other. These also commonly answer to the greater God(s) equivalent to the monotheistic varieties. Each variety of a religion when seen in this narrow view, leads to just a very small number of variables to consider. In my opinion, the polytheistic gots represent the rainbow of emotions humans can employ. No emotion is greater, only different from the others(I also attribute these to the primal forces of Taoism)

The variables i've seen consist of the following
1) Polarization vs. Unpolarization: Good and Evil truly exist and representative gods can be created, or the two are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated into more than 1 entity.
2) Multiple vs. Singular: Are there multiple gods or just one. For that matter it must also be considered if they is polarized or unpolarized. If there is a pantheon, is it a group of neutral ones that get into petty squabbles? or is it a great war of a holy pantheon and an evil pantheon fighting for some higher purpose beyond us? It begs the question, what is the difference between a singular polarized belief system, and a multiple polarized belief system. Well, that is completely dependant on the third variable.
3) # of metaphysical hierarchies: Are we among the gods?, are we below the gods? are we above the gods?. Are we below gods that answer to higher gods? Think of it as you will but i think this be represented as -1, 0, 1, 2, 3+, (infinity?). I think of this number as how many levels you have to travel to get to the concept of the highest god. -1 being the megolomaniac, 0 being the athiest, and 1 being the monotheist, etc. Each follows a very different belief system. Each hierarchical level is also dependant on the.

Now, i guarantee there are more variables; as there always are, but with this simple system, and a little creativity i believe anyone could easily catalogue any religion along these simple terms. In case anyone has not figured it out, I am basically equating this god system to the thought mechanism of the brain. Most probably, these gods are simply the mnemes ive been describing earlier, but at the same time i've decided the mneme idea is far too short sighted and by the same token, so is the religious view of the world.

It is my opinion that in a sense the variables described earlier pull an impressive idea that these religions are both true and false at the same time. They are false on the grand scheme that they profess(IE, im still an athest somehow), but they are very true on a small scale that is (nearly) imperceptable to the believer. However, just because it is imperceptable does not mean it is not useful. The scale that the religions do hold true on is so finite, and so small, that it taps into deep meaning of the simplest objects. A religious (and in my opinion justifyable) view is that these deep deep meanings are not only at our roots, but also watching over us; they are the god(s). But again, as I stand, if there are gods, they are not watching over us, they are watching under us.

The mneme and the anti-mneme

Now we know it is hard to say what a mneme is, but despite how extremely global the definition is, some properties can be extracted. One finding I have found is that perspective is key specifically multiple perspectives. However, a mneme's perspective is a bit different from a human's so a multi-perspective view requires understanding a single one.

From any given mneme it is assumed there is both not only higher and lower, but also equal mnemes. Now it must be noted that equal here does not mean the same, I am only speaking of hierarchical level, It could be of equal level but in a completely separate realm (hypothetically one in the temporal lobe and one in the occipital lobe). These two are physically distant, but could effectively be close in the mneme realm due to the relay capacity of the thalamus.

The best way i have been able to represent the mneme realm is a vacuum containing numerous indistinct mnemes fighting to survive. A seeming necessity for me is to personify the mnemes in a way that they in their own way have desires and almost even emotions just as a full human brain would. The only desire of any mneme can be generalized as the desire to expand and proliferate within the mind. However, as i have said earlier, everything that is thought of is a mneme, and this includes the mneme realm that I am speaking of. However, the mneme realm is the higher mneme in this situation, while the lower ones are fighting to proliferate within this particular idea. Effectively the mneme realm is both the known universe to the lower mnemes, as well as their own little personal god to be appeased.

Now, why would the mneme realm want to be appeased? Again, because this is a mneme in it of itself. It's only desire is to expand. Now the hierarchy as begun to crop up; the mneme realm is swimming within its own meta-mneme realm which it is attempting to appease.

If all mnemes want to do is expand, and allowing lower mnemes is all that can be done to expand itself, then what stops it from simply allowing all inputs to proliferate within itself. Hypothetically if only excitatory neurons existed, this would happen (and the brain would be rather uninteresting and uncomplex). In effect there would be loads of mnemes(if they can even be called such) that would just appear and waste energy, with no meaning. A necessary evil in the brain that controls all of these problems i like to call the anti-mneme. If a mneme is consisting of only excitatory action, the anti-mneme only consists of inhibitory action (in reality, with this view, each are consisting of combinations of both leaning to their respective polaritybut I'll get to that in a later post).

If only mnemes were allowed, in the lower level than a higher level antimneme could inadvertantly be triggered leading to a complete destruction of the original mneme. This goes completely against the singular desire of a mneme. As I said, expansion is a desire of a mneme, but in reality, an evolutionary perspective yeilds that only those mnemes with sufficient expansion and control survive in the brain. It is an imaginary desire without any internal knowledge of the system being necessary.

Now i think thats enough for this post; eventually i will drop the anti-mneme view in preference for the idea that both mnemes and anti-mnemes have tendency to act as either one in different situations.

I go into this next entry with an unfortunate lack of proof. I hold that it comes out of some very basic logical ideas which are mostly lost to me. I start out with the idea that in this hierarchical structure of the brain, it can be said that any mneme within it is a statistically averaged compilation of smaller mnemes. Here is a classical paradox of an item being defined by itself. But as is written in one of the many examples in Godel Escher Bach, the object is only being defined by smaller Versions of itself. Attempting define these recursively defined objects plagues the mind with recursive problems. Pondering this enough leads one to think that the only way to fully understand the workings of a mneme, you must first fully understand the workings of a mneme. Depending on the kind of person you are, this can either seem like a brick wall, or a path of infinite opportunity. Obviously I think the latter.

Now I would like to say that trying to define the mneme is a bit difficult because no-one would really accept a definition simply as "a recursive object that eludes defining". What I'd expect works best is attempting to define both its smaller parts , as well as its context. But wait, not only are the smaller pieces, mnemes themselves, but the context is a grander mneme the over arcs the original mneme. Unfortunately, the reason it is difficult to explain what a mneme is, is because our only tool for understanding, explaining, visualizing, and thinking, is this universal mneme. Its like trying to explain what an orange is, when all you have is the smell of one; you know there is something unique there, but you do not have the pieces to understand it.

We do however have a couple other tools. We do know that the brain has a basic biological basis, and therefore physical basis. Before i knew much of the structure of the cortex, I had believed that hypothetical webs of neurons with no distinct organization were the hierarchies in the brain. However, upon reading Hawkins' On Intelligence Ive come to believe the basic unit of thought is not a single neuron, but is a highly repeated structure known as a column in the cortex. This is a much more versatile structure than the simple input-output system of a neuron, and has most likely been time-tested by evolution. What must be noted is that the mnemes are not contained in or synonymous with the columns. The networks of columns are the mutable medium for which the mnemes travel through.

The last point I want to make in this entry is that the repeated layers of columns in the cortex are what cause the basic structures of low and high level mnemes to be identical. The individual columns are unaware of their place in the whole scheme of the brain; they are simply built to receive information, process it in its own way, and if conditions allow, pass the information on. As the different layers are built the same way they interact in relatively similar ways, but the scale in both time and space(in the brain's context) are very different.

The Brain: The Beginning of the permanent Journey.

I've wanted to jump into this for quite a while, but i never knew where to start. Up until this point I've been describing how I feel about certain topics but not delving much into what they are supporting. Really I have been searching for a good entry point, and it seems ill never really find the perfect one. To solve my dilemma I have decided to just dive in with no restraints(my difficulty with this seems to be my cripplingly scientific mindset). Ive logged many of my ideas to date but they are mostly consisting of muddled chicken-scratch, and self-referencing drawings. The general plan for this blog has always been to sort out, translate, and (potentially) publicize some of my ideas in a neat, understandable way. Now, until a good basing to my liking has been discussed, I will weekly write an article going page-by-page through my notes. This is the first of many articles in this fashion.


The beginning came from my distaste for all the current forms of psychology and neuroscience (with the partial exception of cognitive psychology). I saw 10 different approaches each barely scratching the surface of the deep questions about the brain. Each perspective scratched futilely at a wall not even knowing if the others were even working on the same wall. The biology themed theories only work with the timeless nuts and bolts without figuring out how they are ordered together, and the more subjective theories pull out a few common tendencies of the brain without knowing why or how. They lack the consideration of the necessary nuts and bolts: neurons. Only cognitive theories attempt to build a bridge between the two, but up until this point a core theory has not really been created. The only real conclusions drawn are the obvious "the means create the ends".

The best way in my opinion to solve this problem is to find the center and work both directions. But what is the center? If one end is the biological basing, and the other end is the final decision that is taken out by the human, then the center must be the mental process itself. As it stands we do not know what that process is, or how it works, but thats alright. I have come to utilize the term, Mneme, coined by Richard Semon, and have expanded its definition to any conceivable mental process in the brain be it a small mental calculation or a full blown perspective (Note there is a difference between Semon's Mneme and Dawkin's later created Meme, which applies to any conceivable unit of cultural memory). Now it may seem rather out there to consider all mental processes the same type because some processes work on such a different scale than others. However it must be noted that the brain is build in a hierarchical style just so it can work with different scales of information. It may also appear that mnemes work too differently for them all to be of the same (hypothetical) structure, but it must be known that they evolve over time. A mneme at its first creation acts much differently than it does a day, or a week or a few years later(assuming it still exists).

Now we know there are mnemes in the brain, and there are a lot. Assuming there is a limited amount of something in the brain, be it space, energy, or even an abstract concept of plausibility, there is a competition for survival among mnemes. This causes a requirement that the medium of the brain be very mutable. The plasticity of the brain is very well known. When the cortex is compared to either a programming or an electronics problem(both approaches to AI), the plasticity and semi-permanence of memory makes the solution not one or the other but a combination of the two. The cortex is a medium where enough force in the code will cause a change in the circuit.

The last point I want to make in this entry is the issue of how the brain is studied. I said earlier that the cognitive field was the only one that was almost acceptable. The reason the brain is most difficult to study is because (much to the dismay of the scientific community) it has a taint of subjectivity. Purely empirical study of an abstract object is nearly impossible. The only truly empirical aspect of the psychology is the cognitive field. However in order to be accepted by the scientific community they have stripped all subjectivity from their field. In doing this they can only observe a faint shadow of the brain's structure. It is true that the shadow may be shaped like what they are studying, but they are still looking at a shadow and not the object. To understand the brain it cannot be purely subjective or empirical. The subjective is necessary to gather the detailed understanding of the brain, and the empirical is necessary to keep the subjective on track and to strip away any falsehoods it has stumbled on.

Missed time

So I have not written in some time. I broke my promise to myself to keep up an article every week. Given this is (mostly) personal as no one has been keeping up with this, this entry is essentially useless but I'm doing it both in case there actually is a reader in the future and is curious in the span, and to convince myself to continue. For all the things that I want to write in this, it spans in so many directions and details that it is difficult to find where to start. It spans the largest entities that can be concieved(the brain and the universe) as they are both recursively detailed in infinite many directions.


I do not know why I stopped writing, Whether it was because of the new(well, old) book I am reading (Godel, Escher, Bach), or if it is fear of writing a falsehood (which to be fair i probably already have). But now I believe that a few falsehoods are a necessity in building something timeless and beautiful. I am reminded of an analogy that Dawkins exemplified in The Blind Watchmaker (the analogy originally coming from a chemist who's name is lost to me currently) where he analogized the mystery of the construction of Stonehenge, to the mystery of the formation of the first DNA and protein macromolecules. The stones of Stonehenge are so large and heavy that it would be impossible for men to lift them up to the top of the other stones. Not only that, but there was no known technology at the time of its construction to build it. Although there is this seeming impossibility, Stonehenge exists nonetheless. A similar believed impossibility is in the existence of DNA, although it exists as well. Some like to believe that there was higher intervention in allowing these things to come to pass. "Creation theory" is the main belief among the faithful in explaining DNA and life, while similar theories like to explain Stonehenge (some even have the gall to explain wonders like Stonehenge with aliens).
Now it has been proposed that the stones were aligned and stood by mounds of earth, the top stones could (relatively) easily be pulled up to the top of these mounds. when everything was aligned as was desired, the mounds of earth could quite easily be moved away leaving the bare bones of the henge. Whether of not this is precisely true the idea is what is important. The Stonehenge is the timeless object and the mounds are the buttresses that are forgotten in time. Now whatever it may be, it has been proposed that the timeless entity of DNA was buttressed by lesser entities of dust, salt, acid, and base formations. I wont go into the full detailed explanation of this, as that is in The Blind Watchmaker but the key note that is heard from it is that the evolutionary process is a long term process that did not begin with DNA. It was the result of lower substances evolving. Now as the dirt mounds of Stonehenge were stripped away and forgotten, so are the pre-life evolutionary substances.
The purpose of all of this is to exemplify why I should not fear dropping a falsehood here or there in my explanations because they are necessary peices of the buttresses to my ideas. As long as I can create a strong enough core stripping away a support here or there in the future will not matter. Once I have built the whole structure, i can indiscriminately remove any earthen mounds that are left.

The Universe On Evolution

The subject of this article is one of the most (and confusingly) contested ideas in our time: Evolution. I will try to limit wasted time defending against ill informed arguments against it, but I will review it in a way that anyone should be able to understand.

Lets step away from the word evolution and go back to the basics of it in the contexts of biology. All there have to be are way of causing differences in an organism genetically, in this case: mutation. It is understandable that most changes in an organism will change its ability to survive in a negative or positive way. The tiger with short stubby teeth will not be able to kill its prey as easily, and most likely wont survive as well. This tiger may survive to produce offspring, but all of its offspring will also have defect teeth, many of them will not survive as well as the rest of the tigers. In the world with the stubbed teeth tigers and the normal tigers, the normal ones will survive and the stubbed tigers will either die out, or become so rare that they are insignificant. Of course this is only after 10 20 or even 100 generations, but it happens and it is inevitable. This exact thing is going on for every animal and every aspect of those animals(color, bone structure, organ efficiency, etc.) It is only difficult to comprehend because it works on such a different time-scale than humans normally view the world with. Our lifespan is so short in this time scale that it takes a number of our human generations to perceive a significant change in a species.

Lets take it yet another step back. More important than there being differences in reproductive success, is simply the ability to reproduce. When something has the ability to reproduce, it will do so. And assuming there are more than 1 reproducing object as well, the one that reproduces faster(and/or survives longer) will be more prominent than the others.
Now evolution is not my forte, and explaining it isn't either. A good book for those interested is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It takes my understanding of it to a whole new level in a clear and well explained manner.

But, this is not about biology and the evolution of life. This is about the evolution of anything that can evolve. Biology is simply the first object which evolution was first applied to. Attempting to understand the evolution of lifeforms is a glossed over version that tends to hide many key details about the general term: evolution. At this point most would not see why understanding evolution is key to understanding our universe. Evolution is a subset of generalized change in the universe. The difference is that Evolution has a direction of rewarding that which is strongest in its environment. However, most only apply the term evolution to the strife of animals. I on the other hand attribute evolution to any entity that has the ability to change itself in any way. This opens up the ideas to any entity that has a limited resource of some kind. I attribute evolution to every scale of time and space where there are a few particular properties. It requires that there is any possibility of change, any form of production(reproduction is a special case) which can be effected by these changes, and finally any limited resource. I say reproduction is a special case, but this does not limit its importance. When reproduction comes about, it effectively transfers an object into a much quicker timescale. It is no longer a random production of a type of sand, but it is a collection of chemicals that can reproduce themselves at relative light-speed.

But the DNA-protein complex is a snails pace when you consider the speed of the relatively young brain. The brain creates and destroys more ideas in its lifetime than is possible to count. All is done through the process of evolution. The unique properties of the brain harness the universal concept of hierarchies and because of this, can model itself after the universe itself. In this sense the brain is nearly as complex as the universe, and can truly conceptualize most anything in it, assuming the correct time/space - scale is used.

The Universe - Hierarchies defined(2)

Now the model is nice and all but it does not entirely show how the universe is really made up. It just assumes hierarchies exist and goes from there.

It shows that apparently everything is defined by a quantum mechanic, but as I said earlier, once you get above a few levels of complexity you cannot explain the object. This is why chemists stay in their realm of chemistry even though it effects all matter that we know. Now I am afraid that the last post was getting a bit too abstract so I will begin to use real examples to show that this hierarchy is both relative, hyper dimensional, and effectively neither quantum nor continuous (or both depending on the perspective). As everything is in fact relative, the starting point I choose to define much of this hierarchy is rather arbitrary. So I will pick one and go as far as i can conceptually go in both directions.

My chosen starting point is the single cell in an organism. As a whole it effectively works as one organism(as seen in single celled organisms) but it used as just a part of an tissue in an organ in a body of the whole organism (all of which are intermediate hierarchies). Now lets say this organism was a human. That human is part of a family, which is part of a neighborhood, part of a city part of (occasionally) a state, which is finally part of a country. This country is finally part of a group for the most part is the entirety of the human race. The human race is a part (albeit a large one nowadays) of the global environment which is the arrangement that is particularly one step above us as a whole. But what of the other parts of the global environment, being all the other species in the world, as well as the physical conditions of the world(atmosphere content, average temperature etc.) These simply are other arrangements that are part of the world but came from a different hierarchical path. In any case the global environment is a complex entity on the earth which is a planet among others part of this solar system, which is part of the galaxy, which is finally part of the universe. Here we get to our stopping point because at this point no one has an explanation past this point of hierarchy as much as some believe they do.

Now I will go back and go the other direction. I started with a single human cell and now I will break it apart. The cell has individual live support systems consisting of organelles, one being the nucleus. The nucleus contains DNA information (one of the most detailed entities in existence). This DNA is consisting of all of its parts including nucleotides. These nucleotides consist of the basic elements which finally come down to the subatomic particles. These subatomic particles are treated with quantum rules. Interestingly enough though, we do not really know the make up of these subatomic particles in great detail. It has been proposed through string theory that they are consisting of hyper dimensional strings but we neither can conceptualize this, nor has it entirely been proven. In the end the theory is that matter is a complex formation of the elusively arbitrary concept of energy. Energy however is the basest object that we can conceptualize, and we have barely any base understanding of its makeup. We get to another point where it is too difficult to definitively define a smaller object than energy.

Now this outline seems to run on, but understanding of the hierarchy was necessary. It shows a number of important points in the continuum that can be quantized. These in turn can be seen as the only important parts of the universe while everything else are bridging connections between them. At this point, from simplest to most complex it seems they are energy, atoms, DNA, and finally the brain*. Two points must be made, with this idea, to make sure all the correct questions are made, it should be assumed there is another increment below energy, and yet another increment (which may or may not exist in time yet) above the human brain. The other point that must be made is that in truth the brain is not really the step above DNA, it is instead the medium for which the increment exists: The Idea. This concept is by far the most important one I will use in the Blog, and is therefore beyond the scope of this particular entry.

The importance of these discrete objects is that it leads to the ability of evolution. Evolution has in general become associated only with DNA, but as it will be shown, when made more general, the rules of evolution apply to everything and anything with the ability to be created in one way or another. This will be left for another article.

The Universe - Hierarchies defined(1)

As I stated before the brain is as complex as the universe. To be fair this is not entirely true. Because of the efficiency of biology, the brain is only as complex as it needs to be to get the job of understanding its environment done. But, what is this environment? this universe?

The short answer to this question is "I don't know; and no one knows exactly." The big questions about it are unanswered in a real (meaning proven) way. These include questions such as "where did the universe come from," "is there anything important that we cannot see," "how did it start," and "how it will end," among others.

However because we do know so much about this unknown entity, we can make a few good guesses about the real structure. Unfortunately the difficult part is finding where to start. The two major points that need to be understood in depth are hierarchies, and evolutions. This article will only deal with hierarchies.

I will start with a viewpoint that is used by Richard Dawkins, but I will expand on it greatly. He professed at one point an acceptable way of interpreting reductionism. I believe he called it relative reductionism. This view sets up everything in the scope of hierarchies. In this view you cannot explain something in terms of its smallest unit as it would be too complex. Once you get down to 3 or 4 levels of complexity under what you are trying to explain, it begins to get fuzzy and too complicated. Noone can explain a human heart using only the building blocks of subatomic particles, but when using the mechanisms of blood flow and muscle contraction, the explanation is relatively simple. Now this is key: Complexity is relative for what you are attempting to explain.

I will attempt to create a model that holds true for any complex object. This will actually be seen to hold true for every object, because any object is complex from some lower perspective. I will do this with definitions of only a few abstract entities:

Hierarchy: Order of Arrangements from the "highest"* complexity to "lowest"* complexity

Arrangement: Single generalized entity of lower arrangements connected by lower relations

Relation: Border or connection between arrangements that is categorized by frequency of events between such arrangements. Defined as a steady state between differing lower arrangements and relations

Event: Any significant** change in relations or arrangements. There are only a handful of distinct events such as creation, destruction, and aggregation. There are also a few that are combined versions of these.

Property: Complex combination of simple arrangements relations and events that create a general tendency of the larger arrangement (eg. destructive property commonly destroys that which is around it)

Void: Partly unknown. All that can be said is that it is either an arrangement of such low complexity that it has its own unique properties, or it is complex in a completely different direction making it difficult to understand know and understand. Possibly the only hole in the logic because this model assumes the definition of all that exists, and that non-existence does not exist. In any case voids appear to be relative as well; space is a void to a planet, air is a void to a human and water is void to a plankton.

*assuming high and low complexity are all relative and hypothetically go infinitely in both directions. High complexity is defined as complex and low complexity is defined as simple.
**significance is also relative and dependant on the perspective

The most interesting facet of this model is the recursion of the 3 key ideas: Arrangements, Relations, and Events. Arrangements are combinations of simpler arrangements and relations. Relations are combinations of simpler events and relations. Events are effects in time on simple relations and. I will stop here for this article, but the story definitely does not end here.

Introduction

Well, I finally decided to put my ideas down. I feel almost hypocritical using a Blog for this as I hold a distaste for them in general, but sometimes there is only 1 option available to you.

This Blog will be about my interests in general, which are surprisingly specific. From the onset the bulk of information will be mixed between two subjects: The Brain, and Neutrality

The first is a collection of theories on the human brain (some cited and some self-concocted) and its implications on the whole of the world including religion, philosophy, society, and morals among others. For the record I consider myself an atheist, while at the same time I feel I am more faithful and hopeful than any other person I come in contact with(including the religious). I believe that the most significant factor that has shaped all of human history is the mechanism of the brain. In all of human history it has been the only true constant. We live in a real world that is highly complex, but in that complexity there are only a finite number of true relations between conceptual objects. The human brain only has to be as complex as the world around it to understand it, and it is. It however is not perfect. The ability to hold a belief is also implicates the ability to hold a false belief. The most significant false belief was due to our inability to understand the world around us like we do now: Religion. Now I am not going to say the stereotypical atheistic idea that all religion is wrong, at least not in such a blatant way. It is my belief that most all religions were interesting and highly believable explanations for the world around us. But why were they so believable? Because they utilize the brain's own system to insert itself into and even sometimes abuse it. The range of this Blog will go into detail about this through history as well as show how science and religion should not be opposed as they are now. The real picture is unknown and that is sure, but with this view, religious events as well as scientific theory can help each other to find the truth. This gets to my second topic: polarization.

I have a general distaste for polarization in any kind. I believe the world has lost its ability to compromise intelligently. Everywhere we look there is the overarching concept of black and white, right and wrong. This groups everything into collections of opposing forces. In the chaos confusion causes all that are involved into believing that black and white are synonymous with wrong and right, but in actuality, they are nothing but opposing. Once this happens the question of right and wrong is lost, and these arbitrary collections are all that matter. Now this is semi-abstract, but examples make it sound like I am talking specifics. I can make this sound like a socio-political object by listing examples of Republicans vs. Democrats, Arabs vs. Israelis, science vs. religion, but these are just what they are: examples, nothing more. The bigger picture is the fact that there is no real Gray Force, that understands the arbitrary conflict of hate for the sake of hate, and attacks that conflict itself. It would understand that there just because there is a dispute that neither side is necessarily right, that each side is usually based in something truthful but has lost its roots. However, this is not a gray annoyance, it is a Force, and it would use all its power to find that which is right and that which is truth. This is a world that is in dire need of the so-called radical moderate, whom fights and fights hard for neutrality.

Now it appears that the two interests are completely divergent, but in time the ideas come full circle. It is a funny thing to be noted that in millenia past science, religion, and philosophy were essentially the same entity. But now science and religion became polarized due to differing views on truth. Philosophy, a neutral entity in the conflict is left in the dust to waste away with quiet philosophy students that will never speak outside their realm. My main hope here is to attempt not to revive archaic philosophy that in general is dying on its own. Instead I hope to create a new realm of thought that combines neuro-science, a selected few philosophical ideas and spiritual concepts, to make a coherent outlook of the human, and society that even the most secular person can have faith in, while the most religious person can accept.