Rise of the Humaroids (1)
by BioBuddha, April 1, 2016.
Scientists get to make up word names. That's because when something new is discovered, it has to have a name to describe it.
I propose a new word: Humaroid.
Humaroids are post-modern humans. They are us. This new word of mine describes humans as they are now or, rather, what many of us have become. A humaroid is an emergent being.
Humaroid is a composite term that combines human with android. Using humaroid as a composite term is appropriate because it describes an emergent being that now exhibits characteristics of the other two (2).
Large corporations and state institutions such as universities have special departments to manage personnel. Frequently, these personnel departments are self-named as “Human Resources”.
I propose that the term, Human Resources, be re-branded to reflect the now-emergent characteristics of of the post-modern human being. It is advised that these human resource departments should all be re-branded as 'Humaroid Resources'.
The director of a personnel departmental might call the executive of their company or university to exclaim, “We need more Humaroids!!”
I also suggest increased use of the word humaroid to replace older terms like mankind. Increased use of humaroid will help us to comprehend our post-modern culture in a better way and it will help purify our language.
In this narrative, I propose a rationale for renaming post-modern human beings as humaroids. I will also explore what post-modernism has done for us in terms of science and the rise of technology.
Yet, perhaps the salient question is not what it's done for us as much what it's done to us.
Idiot-Savants and
Post-Modern Culture
An idiot savant is a special individual that can effortlessly accomplish a difficult task that regular people can't manage. For example, an idiot-savant might be able to play Beethoven perfectly after hearing it once, despite having never learned to play a piano. Such savant abilities appear to be beyond genius.
But idiot-savants show other traits in addition to genius. They are also idiots. An idiot-savant who can play Beethoven perfectly after hearing it only once might not be able to put on shoes, cook a meal, carry on a conversation, or function normally without continuous care.
I propose that idiot-savant is what many of us living in the post-modern world have become, despite the fact that we were not born that way. Rather, it has come to us as a part of our training, vocational aspirations, and cultural environment.
At the university, we frequently have arguments about how to manage graduate education leading to a Ph.D. On a side note regarding wording of the previous sentence, I feel that the word 'education' should never be used in a positive way when speaking of universities. 'Schooling' is a much better term to use.
Digressing further, I always spell schooling with a 'k', like this: Skooling I feel that spelling skooling with a 'k' conveys additional information to readers.
Mark Twain is known for saying “Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.” I am presuming that most people reading this are aware of what Mark Twain meant. Twain's ability to deliver great wisdom in such an effective and brief way shows how brilliant he was (or is).
I often quote Mark Twain's statement about skooling when lecturing to students. I follow up with pointing out to students that they are being skooled. Their education will come later.
I also point out to these students that skooling always costs money. Education is free.
In discussing how to effectively train Ph.D. students in the post-modern era, science faculty often fall into two philosophical camps. An old-skool opinion is that students should be well versed in knowledge outside of their specialty in order to emerge from skooling with a well-rounded background in many fields.
However, the old-skool view is rapidly becoming a minority opinion. Many science faculty now argue that trainees should focus exclusively in one particular specialty because we now live in a highly competitive society. In such a competitive world, one needs to excel above others in whatever specialty is being learned (4).
One might describe it this way: In the post-modern world, the vertical is more important than the horizontal.
There has been a rising-up of idiot-savants. These are they who possess extensive abilities in a one particular specialty, yet tend towards a lack of ability in many things.
Technology,
Interdependence, and Idiot-Savant Society
A doctor has to be good at doctoring, but doesn't need to know how to start a lawn mower, fix their car, or even prepare a meal. Everything else outside of doctoring can be done for the doctor by other specialists whom the doctor pays for their service. Car mechanics need to know about cars, but wouldn't need to how electricity comes into their house, where the crap goes when they flush, or much else outside of their particular specialty.
At this point, I am hoping that most readers are starting to understand the model I am proposing for post-modern society. To clarify, I will try to state it succinctly: Our post-modern technological culture has created an interdependent network of specialists who are required to know only what is needed for gainful employment and little else.
Moreover, specialization in the post-modern era is increasing as each day passes. Here is brief statement of my rationale for inventing new language: Societal and cultural pressures of post-modernism is increasingly evolving humankind into a interdependent technocratic society inhabited by a new type of human that is already present.
These new beings shall be called humaroids.
Science and Wisdom
As a professional scientist, yet speaking as an amateur philosopher, I'd say not. For one thing, scientists are way too busy trying to be precise.
I'd say wisdom requires a lot of time and space. However, post-modern scientists don't seem to possess these things. Most are simply too busy, too focused, and too stressed with practical matters within their own little neighborhoods of specialty to have time and space (5).
Simply stated, our problem is that we are over-employed.
Conclusion (6)
In the tradition of scientific investigation and naming of previously unobserved phenomena, I propose that this newly emerged human being be given a new name: Humaroid.
Using this new term, humaroid, carries another advantage because it is gender neutral, unlike terms such as mankind or simply 'man'.
In order to purify and improve our language, we might even replace all earlier instances where the word man or mankind has been used throughout history, replacing these with humaroid.
For example, the well known phrase “One small step for Man; One giant leap for Mankind” , should be changed to: “One small step for a Humaroid; One giant leap for all Humaroids.”
Endnotes:
1. This is a perspective piece that is the sole opinion of the author. But, I am hoping that my statement on this isn't as true as it appears.2. To avoid confusing the word humaroid with humanoid, I suggest that humaroid be pronounced differently. I suggest that the first syllable (hum) in humaroid be pronounced with a short 'eh' sound, as it sounds in the word 'hem' (3).
3. Proper pronunciation of humaroid might comprise a profound simile in regard to professionals who are often swollen with self-importance and guard the passes of post-modern culture.
4. “There can be only one winner!!” – Chef Gordon Ramsey.
5. My post-doctoral adviser (who knew James Watson) once told me privately that he heard Watson say: “In order to be creative, you have to be underemployed.” I find that to be a brilliant observation.
6. Yeah, I know. This narrative is way over the top. It's meant to be that way. Welcome to post-modernism, fellow humaroid.
Our concept of time-as-the-fourth-dimension might be one of the greatest mind-swindles of the post modern era, right next to the dishonest money system we seem to love so much -– BioBuddha
Space-Time, Red Herrings, and Frequency
by BioBuddha, December 03, 2016
Scientists are forever asking the smallest of questions. We scientists like to dress up these efforts in a nice set of clothes by calling it ‘focus’.
I’ve wasted much of my life at such endeavors. A scientist today can waste their entire mortal existence straining at gnats. Many scientists can have the impact of their entire scientific careers summarized in a single sentence carved on their gravestones: “This one peed in the ocean.”
For now, let’s forget about the small questions.
Instead,
let’s
take a look at a big one: A question of space-time.
Space-time
is
a basic premise out of which a lot
of cosmology is based.
But is space-time true? I say not.
Space-Time
Space-time. We’ve all heard of that, right?
But what if our post-modern notion of space-time is nonsense and misdirection? What if our popular notion of space-time leads away from better understanding of our universe rather than towards it?
I suggest that our orthodox model of a four-dimensional space-time universe (multiverse) is exactly that, a red herring and a false road that leads to a dead end.
So if space-time is not an accurate description of our four-dimensional universe, then what dimensional model of the universe is better? Well, that’s exactly what this article is about.
The Forgotten Tesla
I believe Nikola Tesla to be the greatest scientist and inventor in the post-modern era (1). Did Tesla know something that is widely overlooked by cosmological orthodoxy? I think so. Here is what Nikola Tesla said about the nature of the universe:
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true nature of the universe, one must think of it terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
Tesla proposed a better model for a four-dimensional universe in his statement above. No, it’s not ‘space-time’ as is popularly believed. Rather, it’s ‘space-frequency’.
Before moving further into this topic, there is a pregnant question worth taking pause and mentioning. I believe this question is of paramount significance but, at the same time, it's a discussion I want to avoid confronting directly.
Yes, I have a model of why our scientific models are as they are. However, that’s an ancillary topic and I don’t want to risk consequences of addressing it directly. And there are indeed consequences.
Despite our endless braying about having free speech, such expressions are verboten. The truth is that so-called free expression can cost you dearly, especially in this post-modern era of now. It shouldn’t be that way. But that’s a topic for another day.
Here is the pregnant question of which I speak. It’s one that lies at the root of our popular belief of a universe made out of space-time: “How did we universally and unquestioningly come to believe it?”
Restating this question in metaphorical terms, how did our notion of space-time crawl out of the mud, put down its legs, and then rise up and walk? And, after it began walking, how did it evolve into the prevailing and dominant life-form we see now?
Space and Time
A notion of 3D space seems self-evident. Cartesian mathematics uses X, Y, and Z coordinates to describe width, height, and depth in space.
Three dimensional space is what we see with our eyes, feel with our hands, and conceive in our minds. We understand 3D space as integral to the outer world in which we live. It appeals to our reason and is tangible to the senses.
However, what about the fourth dimension of space that we call ‘time’? Is it true that time is the appropriate added dimension that makes up a 4D universe? Well, that’s exactly what the orthodox view says.
Space-time theory says the universe/multiverse is comprised of three dimensions of space plus an added dimension of time to make up a grand legion of physical multiverses separated by… wait for it… time.
But what if time is not a physical dimension at all? What if our notion of ‘time’ is a mental construct rather than something real?
Yes, we all know about time. We have watches and clocks, we construct our lives according to schedules, and we observe the daily rising and setting of the sun. Natural cycles are measured and predicted according to our perception of time.
However, what does that mean? More specifically, can our perception of time be extrapolated to mean there are infinite forms of you living in the past and more infinite forms of you living in the future, all of these in parallel to the single ‘you’ living in the present moment of ‘now’?
Popular notions of space-time and multiverse theory claim that there are a legion of ‘you’ existing in real places in space-time rather than only one of you existing in the moment of ‘now’.
But, it gets worse too. Multiverse theory suggests that even more (infinite) universes are being created as every moment passes.
There are a multitude of movies from the entertainment industry about time-travelers and paradoxes that arise out of such travels to different space-times. Can you really go back in time to meet yourself and interfere with your own birth?
So if one hypothesizes that now is a future universe of some past (and real) space-time universe, then can the present universe of now be changed by going back to the past and altering it?
Is the future really malleable (changeable) or, alternatively, is it fixed and unchangeable? That is, could the future be fixed in such a way that there is no such thing as free agency in the present time of now? There are a lot of questions with few answers arising from these orthodox models we swallow down voraciously like cat’s milk.
It gets even more muddled and confusing as such things as dark matter and dark energy have made their appearance onto the stage of cosmology. Notions of dark matter and dark energy further increase the number of (multi-)universes that exist in the here-and-now as well as in times of past-and-future.
But how do we know that these popular models of the universe aren’t total nonsense? How do we know that what we call ‘time’ is anything but a creation of our minds that we believe in religiously?
What if the present time (ongoing ‘present moment’) is the only time that really exists?
What if we misdirect ourselves by conceiving a mind-fantasy of the past or future rather than paying attention to where we are at the present moment, ironically just as many Eastern philosophers (non-scientists) have suggested?
And what if our post-modern notions of a multiverse comprised of space-time is one of the greatest mind-game swindles we have perpetrated on ourselves?
Would anyone want to know? Well, I do.
No, Not Time. It’s Frequency.
So if the popular model of a four dimensional universe of space-time is imaginary and a fraud, then what model is better?
Here’s one: Perhaps it’s not multiverses of space and time, but rather multiverses of space and frequency.
I believe that the space-frequency model of the multiverse is more rational. To borrow from colloquial language: It’s better at passing the smell test.
Most are well aware of various frequencies occupying our space, some of which we can detect (and manipulate) using technology. In the post-modern era, we humans even have a place that we go and act called ‘cyberspace’.
Cyberspace, at one level, exists as electron flow through circuits. At that level, one might call it ‘real’. At another level, cyberspace is ‘mind space’. Moreover, we use TV’s and cell phones to tune into different frequencies that we cannot otherwise ‘see and hear’ using our regular senses.
Most know that our physical eyes are limited to a narrow beam of frequencies we call visible light. What would happen if we could see beyond the limited frequency of visible light?
Is it possible that a living entity outside of your realm of frequency is right next to you at the present moment or, alternatively, occupying the same space as you are right now?
So this is what I am proposing in regard to a model of the universe that makes more sense. Maybe different universes in a multiverse are separated by frequency rather than time.
One thing is for certain. These frequencies beyond our senses indeed exist, despite the inability of our body senses to directly perceive them.
Parsimony
When considering models of space-time versus space-frequency, perhaps there is a principle that should be considered. The relevant principle is parsimony.
Parsimony refers to an economy of explanation sometimes referred to in the same way as the philosophical concept known as Occam’s razor. The rationale is that simpler explanations are more likely to be true than complex ones.
The orthodox model of space-time leads to numerous and unusual considerations. Among these are: The future and past are as real in the present moment, though located somewhere else; There are infinite versions of you; There are infinite numbers of you being created and diverging from this universe at every moment in time; and, The here-and-now you is insignificant in this ocean of infinite number of other-you’s in these multiverses of space-time.
What strange children are these?
Space-Frequency Makes Better Sense Than Space-Time
A space-frequency model of the universe/multiverse does not need infinite number of creations of past/present universes, a multitude of you, nor does it diminish the here-and-now universe in which we find ourselves.
Think of it as being similar to radio frequencies. Maybe universes are separated by different vibrations (frequencies) in the same way as co-existing radio channels. Our universe might be one of these channels (frequencies/vibrations) co-existing with other channels (universes) occupying the same physical space as the one in which we live now.
Theoretically, we can change channels (vibration/frequency) and thereby move to another universe, much in the same way we change radio or TV channels. Maybe that’s what happens when we shed these meat-suits that we call bodies that we are prone to identify with as ourselves and devoutly believe we can’t live without.
Do we live on after we die, perhaps in an alternate universe? I’d say I’ve been there by experience (NDE), but debunkers might ask how I know it wasn’t a hallucination? I can’t say my experience was not a hallucination, but neither can I say I’m not having a hallucination right now as I type out these words. What I experienced at those moments of time appeared as real to me as what I experience now in this universe.
Maybe someone doesn’t want us plantation-humans imagining life being richer and more parsimonious than popularly believed. Perhaps that’s a clue as to how we got here, that is, how we ended up with these post-modern ‘strange children of space-time’ that way too many of us accept unquestionably as a wondrous landscape.
Endnotes:
1. No, I don’t buy it that Einstein was the greatest scientist in the post-modern era. At a great risk of blaspheming someone whom many view as a man-god of science, the following two books might be worth reading: Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, July 2002, Xtx Books, 408 pp.; The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, 2006, ebook, 2,825 pp. Nikola Tesla openly called Einstein a fraud and I tend to agree with his views on it.
Planned Articles
A Digital versus Analog World
Vanity, Certificates, and the Emerald City
What Fractal Geometry Tells Us About Biology
Beyond the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology
Yin and Yang of Human Genomes
Simba's Pride and Humankind
Science and Epiphany
You Can't Fix BS