Happiness and the Reality Model, a Love Story.

Emotion is a difficult word as people fight over its usage. I am using it as chemical change that is provoked by the brain's reaction to a set of stimulus: loud noise, fire smoke, and the person next to you has an arm blown off. The brain does not like the direction that this is taking at all and a set of chemicals is released that increases heart rate, muscle tension etc. This is noticed right away by the conscious mind that feels 'fear' or whatever 'emotion' has been unleashed on the body. I 'look around' to determine what is going on. It is my conscious mind that is doing this part of it. My use of the word emotion has generated some controversy, not in the concept, but which part of the physiologic process is described by the word. I don't care so long as the the idea has been understood.

The subconscious mind communicates with the conscious mind with emotion, by my definition of 'emotion'. Some subconscious/conscious communications are not 'emotional' in the sense of strong emotion but something has happened chemically or spiritually (for completeness) to get your body to move or even to notice what has happened, beer! This effect may not seem 'emotional' but in my construction, it is by definition emotion, subtle perhaps, but nonetheless emotion.  For example there is a glass of beer on the table in front of me. My conscious mind did not do a logical process to understand that it is beer and it is within arms reach and I want it and that I go for it. This is all automatic it is unconscious. Hell, I might not even be aware that I went for it and drank it. This happens with smokers all the time. Your subconscious brain can indeed control a person's body.

One principal function of the brain is to construct a viable model of the world around it. It includes: the location of objects in 3D space, that one cannot breathe in water, that fire is hot, lightning has the potential to kill me and that I want that woman, and that hamburger is a good thing. The Reality Model, as I call it is this construction of connections between memories. It goes beyond the physical environment. Some peoples brains have decided that people are evil and lazy, for example. Others that people are good and productive. When something is fully integrated into the reality model it is a belief, by my definition. At this point the brain is unwilling to question the interpretation. My brain is not willing to entertain jumping off a 1000 ft cliff because some fast talking salesman says that I can do it. Nope, not willing to even consider it without some sort of external aid like a parachute. My brain believes that if it jumps it will die. Not up for discussion.

This meme about the nature of man is the same way. Once the brain has an idea, it will look for substantiating evidence and often it will find that evidence and the meme becomes more and more integrated to the point that the eyes and ears are on the lookout for that behavior to the exclusion of contradictory information. The difference in driving to school with Grandma instead of Dad is that there does not seem to be any stupid lazy delinquents on the way to school with Grandma, there are only flowers and good looking boys productively making the world a better place. Grandma and Dad actually remember different things about the trip. Dad's brain is looking for confirmation of his memes and finding them, so is Grandma. Each brain chooses to store different memories of the trip; it is the stored memories that are remembered. That is why it is difficult to believe that Grandma and Dad actually took the same road. They are storing different sensory stimulation in their memory banks. They are living in different realities. They really are.

Conservatives store different words into their memory banks than Liberals do while listening to a speech by Barack Obama, for example. They literally do not hear the same things. They live in a different reality. Each side thinks that the other side is dumber than dirt because the evidence in right in front of there face! Yes, but they each stored away different fragments to remember. Different Reality Models choose to keep different information. Our memories are indeed all we have to describe reality. Personal reality is our memory.

Bias to me is mathematical. The information received by the conscious mind is indeed biased, and it cannot be any other way; it has passed through the Reality Model filter. Sometimes the bias is striking and wrong. The table top is an illustration of this; the two tables look as if the table tops are completely and totally different shapes. They are not. Cut them out and put them on top of each other and they have exactly the same dimensions. The brain has misinterpreted the data. It is interpreting the data as if it were a 3D reality but it is not. It is a 2D set of lines on a paper. The reality model gets it wrong and what your conscious 'sees' is NOT what your eyes see, it is the interpretation that your brain thinks it saw; it is wrong; it has been biased by the Reality Model.

Now take the new knowledge that the rectangles are the same dimensions and look at the illusion again. The brain will refuse to present the reality as it is now known; it insists on the 3D interpretation. It will not let go. My brain *believes* that it is seeing a 3D object even though my conscious mind knows that it is not a 3D object. Political interpretations and the good/evil interpretation of the nature of man suffer the same fate as the table top. Many people's brains *believe* the memes. No amount of logic or discussion can convince them otherwise; it is literally all that they see. When the brain is 'confused' it is unhappy, life is not good. That may be a decent way to define 'happiness'. Brains are not confused when their interpretation, their Reality Model is coherent; it might be 100 percent wrong, but it is coherent. Viola! Religion. Happiness. Contentment. Peace.


The Liberal/Conservative Divide

Russell Square, London, England. A Street View photo I found in the Square named after the philosopher Bertrand Russell (my favorite) I thought the photo appropriate.
There are a lot of people and I mean a lot of conservatives, who see Donald Trump as the only real leader on the presidential stage today. For the Republican side, I agree with them. Many of these conservatives think that the Democratic candidates are idiotic *liberals* that are ruining the country and that they should not even be considered seriously. Based on factual history, Clinton and Sanders and the liberals in general are totally destroying the country; this is evident and clear to anyone that cares to take even the most superficial look around. The United States of America needs to be taken back by people that can discuss issues as they really are; people like Sanders and Clinton have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt their intentions and approach. This really needs to stop. The liberal elite is killing the country dead and if we do not get it straight the US is finished as the worlds leader. This is as clear as day to a large number of people. Huge numbers of people.

I know personally people that are highly intelligent and understand the use of maths and logic and have studied the issues and political systems for years that believe the above with their whole hearts and souls. To them Obama and Clinton and Sanders and "Liberals" are total idiots that are in the process of destroying the country. I exaggerate, but not by much. This is not new; it has been simmering on the back burner for a very long time. So what is happening? Here is an idea that at least fits the data and renders coherent the strange twist that vocabulary has taken in the last few (50 or so, at least) years. No, I do not "believe" this idea. It fits the data and may even lead in a productive direction. Hell, it might even be correct but I don't know. Allow me to put some paint on the canvas.

People have been attacking the concept of 'political correctness' for a long time. This has always seemed appropriate to me, at least in the sense that it does not seem productive to insult the people around us, but hey, that is just an idea floating around in my head; I could be wrong, evolution is a powerful force. Another strange concept to me is the idea that 'the press is liberal' when, almost by definition, the press is not liberal with any generally accepted dictionary definition of the term. The concept of 'elite', the term was a positive attribute at one time; it no longer is. The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have morphed radically in their meaning as well. There is a powerful force at play here; what is it?

All of this comes together if one considers that many people have been feeling oppressed because the ideas and desires that float around in their heads have been impossible to express in public without being viciously attacked by the *liberals* and the guys the run the newspapers, the *elite*. *Conservatives* are called racist and stupid for traditional ideas and *facts* that anyone can *observe*. There are many who have been hiding in their closets with thoughts running around in their heads that have been deemed 'inappropriate' by the culture as a whole. They have been hiding in their closets fearful of the repercussions of even discussing the important issues of the day. They see the country falling apart and they cannot even discuss the major causes of this without the liberals destroying their social existence.

It has been considered politically incorrect for quite a few years, for instance, to call black folks as a group, "lazy niggers" but those indeed are the thoughts that rattle around in some peoples brains (oddly enough in some black brains as well). It the same with poor people (lazy) and sick people (bad lifestyle) and Homosexuals (evil aberrations). Many want to isolate those that they consider a detriment to the human race; they want nothing to do with them; they want the gone. This is true with many other animal species as well. Isolating and/or killing those that are annoyingly different is common; it would be foolish to think that humans are totally immune to what affects the entire animal kingdom. Why the devil would one encourage the traits that will eventually destroy the culture and/or the economic engine that feeds it? Clearly it would be silly to encourage that which will destroy one, either slowly or quickly.

Evolution is a powerful force. Heck, It is so important that it has been dictated by God himself; destroy that which will destroy you; one must throw the first stone to survive. Practically speaking and theoretically, this is good advice; at least I think so. Unfortunately, in order to follow this practical survival technique, it is necessary to *know* what is going to destroy/damage an individual and/or a civilization; it is necessary to understand motivation, etc., at least when dealing with other human beings. Unfortunately because these items are impossible to know. All we know is that they violate our own personal take on reality. And it has been definitively demonstrated that personal interpretations of reality are heavily flawed and mostly wrong. Understanding motivation and good and evil and morality is less important when eradicating the non-human microbes that kill people.

*Conservatives* see nothing wrong with their ideas because their ideas are well supported by observation, look at the *data*. It is clear as one's own eye color that the homosexual lifestyle will indeed destroy the family as they know it; they find the concept of one of their children choosing to be homosexual abhorrent. It certainly would not have come from them so, it must come from homosexuals that trick their children into a life of sin. Of course homosexuals need to be isolated and eliminated, it is a disease. This is clear for anyone to see, yet these idiotic *liberals* behave in a way the will spread the disease. They are clearly nuts. They will destroy the culture. The homosexual lifestyle must be stopped. We are commanded by God to destroy that which will destroy us, are we not?

I do not know, but I suspect the many conservatives find it annoying that one cannot speak frankly about other important topics concerning the reality of the world as well. Another example of might be 'the way the people are'. 'Playing the race card' is now a popular expressions when it comes to responding to liberal accusations. Why is that? What does it actually mean? Perhaps this will help. It is impossible to openly discuss the observable fact that blacks are indeed lazy and violent at least statistically; the *liberals* will have nothing to do with it and make it impossible to discuss the fundamentals of differences between the races. These things need to be talked about, it is important; but they cannot be discussed in this atmosphere that is controlled by the *liberal elite*. They will destroy the country by turning over hard earned work to lazy people; it will destroy incentive and will eventually kill the American spirit. The US was built on hard work and now it is impossible to even discuss the issue without very negative social consequences. These things are important and need to be discussed. This is one of the major reasons that the country is going to hell. The weak and lazy have taken over and they will destroy the country. The country needs to be taken back by the people that understand and can see things as they really are. These topics cannot even be discussed properly with the liberals in charge. Liberal want to pretend that everyone is nice and hard-working and capitalism is evil. Liberals live in a fantasy land. I am pretty sure that this is the way the argument goes.

Some conservatives would agree with the statement that "Liberals are dumb and do not live in the 'real world'." This statement is true, in my opinion. But, I can say the same of 'Conservatives' as well. In fact, I can say the same about everyone on the planet, including myself and including all species that have the structure we call a brain; it is a consequence of having a brain and consciousness and physical devices that record a portion of what happens around us. It should not be considered an insult to say that a person or group of persons do not see the world as it is; no one does. None of our interpretations of 'reality' are correct. We do not experience existence as it exists independent of our own personal existence. We do not understand time and our entire 3 dimensional interpretation of space has been demonstrated wrong, definitively. Everyone lives in a fantasy land to some extent and many of us know that. That is why we have developed physical and intellectual tools to help sort all of this out. We have thermometers to end the arguments about the temperature. We have developed logic as a way to identify fallacious arguments. We have developed the scientific method to help choose between different ideas. There are a myriad of physical and intellectual tools to help create a reasonable reality model that can by supported by the entire population without bloodshed. We have developed tools because no one, not anyone, sees the world as it actually is, everyone lives in a fantasy land.

No, I do not know what is rattling around inside another person's brain no matter how clear that it seems. No, I do not know what another persons motivations are, nor can I know even if they tell me; people lie to themselves all the time; they don't really know themselves. I can only guess at my own motivations. 'Facts', that which can be measured independently are a bit more reliable for constructing our Reality Models. But, our interpretations of these facts are astoundingly unreliable. Yes, a stranger gave me the 'thumbs up'. I assume he meant good job, but ... it also means 'stick it up your ass'. So, hell, I can't even be sure of that; I really don't know what he means with his "thumbs up" gesture; I make an educated guess which in many situations will be accurate. But to actually *believe* that our interpretations are absolutely correct and build our entire reality structure on the *fact* that a stranger gave me a sign that I interpret as meaning that I have done a good job seems like madness to me. Sure, we think that is what he meant, can act on it and often,it will work but often it will result in disaster as well.(innocent gestures that can get you killed overseas). So how to figure it out? Like I said we have a catalogue of tools. Pity that so many people don't know how to use the tools or even that they are necessary. Some do not even know that they exist.

I suppose that it is normal that many people think that what they see is real and if the interpretation makes sense then it is true. I suppose that it is normal that people think that others emotional response of most people is the same as what they themselves feel. That being the case there is no real need to define terms like: liberal, conservative, fact, opinion, lazy, elite, Christian, hot, cold, good, bad. We all know what we mean. Well, we all know what we mean by those terms but we have only the vaguest notion of what other people mean by those terms. What is hot for you may not be hot for me. What is good for you may be bad for me. A leader for you may not be a leader for me. So what the hell are you talking about? This is where facts come into the picture, they help straighten out what is real from that which is a personal sensation and nothing more. They help us sort out what is real for both of us.

I suppose it is normal to believe that our ideas are the best ideas, they are the ones that are correct. After all they are based upon what we see clearly in the world and they are coherent, they make sense, they are correct, at least to us. Here is how the discussion goes for someone that *believes* what they think. One can see this played out every day in almost any political/religious discussion between 'believers':

--The other guy has not been paying attention; he can be shown. Did not work?
--He has missed something, one can teach him. He still does not agree?
--He is thinking about it wrong? one can demonstrate the correct thought process. Still not there?
--He is just not very smart and can never understand? Oh, he is smart?
--He has an economic investment? No?
--He is lying to fool me. I expose his lie. Still not convinced?
--He is evil, he does not care, he wants to destroy for the sake of destruction.
--He or his idea needs to be destroyed. Evil must die. We have war.

Belief Kills Thought, by definition.
Opinions are different than fact.
Emotion and thinking are different processes.


Islamic Terrorism, My Take

The Daily Beast. Are all terrorists muslims?
Frankly, I want people to stop talking about Muslims and Islam, totally and completely. Let's start talking about the problem, not our prejudice. That's my take so far. Want to stop Muslim terrorism? Christian terrorism? nationalistic terrorism? economic terrorism? Catch my drift? This type of behaviour transcends ideology or religions. They all have it. therefore the problem is not the ideology. That is the logical "therefore" that I use here, by the way. Ideology/religion is one of the tools that sociopathic people use to rationalize/justify their behaviour. It they were born Christian or Hindu or ... instead of Muslim, they would still destroy the social structure around them if it suited their purpose. Time to stop talking about the ideology as if it were the problem. The individuals that use the ideology to trick or otherwise convince other to kill and destroy are the problem. Some people get sucked into things because they are not clever enough to figure it out. That is common. Some people, however, actively convince others to go out and destroy and kill; THEY are the problem, not the foot soldiers.

ALL the ideologies have their deranged. Yes, some ideologies are better than others and some rationalize killing non believers and some rationalize killing homosexuals and some rationalize ejecting families out on the street if they loose their jobs and some rationalize punishing people that dance or drink or listen to the wrong music. What the fuck is the difference? Nasty people are the problem, nasty people wrote the 'rules' and then claim transgression as an excuse to 'punish them'. Nasty people actually like punishing people, they like making rules too. Nasty people think that the world is out to get them, because it is; people do not like ass-holes and will get them if they can. Nasty people need guns to defend themselves and then create an environment where everyone actually needs a gun to protect themselves. We call these areas war zones.

Vengeful people who think that their take on reality is the one 'true' take on reality are the problem. They 'know' how things 'should be' and 'would be' if it were not for 'them'. They are capitalists, socialists, Catholic, Muslim, saxophone players, painters, scientists etc. Stop talking about Islam as if it were the problem, it is not. Vengeful sociopathic people are the problem. I estimate, that a good 30 percent of USians are obsessed with punishing transgressors. this is a number that I invented. Look at our incarceration rate. 'Punishing' people is counterproductive; it makes the problem worse. Think about it. If you want to 'punish' the people that planned the latest round of attacks, then YOU, my friend, are part of the problem. Think very carefully about the word punish and the concept of vengeance.

There are some very strong indications, supported by objective fact, that the the worlds largest terrorist state, averaged over the last 50 yr, is the United States. Average over the last hundred years and Europe becomes the culprit. Yes, yes, I know... Russia, China, Cambodia, Argentina, ... , This serves to strengthen my case. Terrorism, at its root, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, nothing, zero; it transcends even ideology and jumps into nationalism as well.

Neither Africa nor the Arabs, nor any of the Islamic states individually or in total has risen to the level of butchery that Europe and the United States have perpetrated against the rest of the world, and themselves over the last 5 generations. The Africans and Muslims do not even reach the knees of the 'Western World' in this regard; is not even close. Just count up the dead, that is all you have to do. I don't want to hear anything about morals or justification. Now, stop this nonsense about "Islamic" Terrorism. The numbers killed is easy to find. I leave it as an exercise for the reader. Just count up the fucking dead!

Islam is not the biggest problem, not by a long-shot. Our false perceptions and bad reactions and totally ineffective Reality Models are the problem. Open the  borders and take in these poor refugees, no questions, give them free train and plane bus tickets; give them food and shelter so that they can get to their friends and relatives houses and get set up as quickly and efficiently as possible. We can do the paperwork later. The numbers of people coming is insignificant. Yes, some will be thieves and murderers, so what. Statistics over the years show that migrants commit Less violent crimes than the 'native' populations; they have more to lose. The great majority of these people hate violence. It would be nice if the 'Western Nations' would stop being ass-holes. Want to improve crime statistics? Want to reduce the levels of violence on the planet? Yes? Open the borders. Do it now; it is easy and costs virtually nothing. The alternative is devastatingly expensive and sows the seeds of conflict for another five generations. Open the fucking borders!


The Iranian Accord, 2015. Ratify it.

I have been hearing a great deal from Conservative leadership in the United States that, for the safety of the planet, the Iranian nuclear arms deal must be rejected by Congress. I accept that they may have a point but I also respectfully ask that they present their reason for the rejection, as a matter of courtesy. The sum of the reasons for rejecting the deal should demonstrate that the advantages of rejecting the deal more than compensate for the damage caused by rejecting the deal.

The cost of rejection? No country on the planet would ever again take any negotiation with the United States seriously. This includes economic, financial, military, political discussions. How would it be possible to maintain a leadership role in the world while no country takes Presidential action seriously? In addition to this, rejecting the deal removes all direct observational tools that the West would have acquired in the deal, thereby reducing Western ability to monitor the situation within the borders of Iran. I assert that the cost of rejecting the deal is high. I perceive absolutely no fact based logical argument being put forward against the accord, at all. All I see is that we "could have done better" or "the world will end" or "They will kill us". Are all purely emotional suppositions.

Every argument that I have heard in opposition to the accord is nullified with one simple verifiable fact. World leaders, including the power structures of Iran and Israel, realize that, if Iran posed a legitimate threat to world civilizations as perceived by the West, it would be incinerated one fine morning with enough time remaining to prepare a nice dinner. After which, over a pleasant desert, cognac and coffee, the principle parties involved could lament the total destruction of an entire civilization from the globe; one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man, as documented by those that study this sort of thing. An entire civilization obliterated, man woman and child. This outcome is inescapable with or without any treaty or signed or unsigned document of any kind; the West will not die easily. All of the signatories on the accord know this and the military and political power structures of the entire planet know this as well.

The capability to do this is well documented and it would be a shame to have done so without first having given Iranian leaders every chance in the world to encourage their populations and power structures to relinquish anti-social behavior. Every effort to and including financial aid should be offered up. Failure to having done this in advance would perturb the good taste of the cognac, and that would be a shame. We would then be obliged to spend multiple generations inventing stories explaining to our children why we were not just ordinary assholes who, without any attempt at diplomacy or direct contact, vaporized 77 million people and obliterated one of the oldest civilizations on the planet because "they would not do what we told them to do". So, who is supporting the agreement?

The leaders of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran have, after nine years of negotiation that started in 2006 with economic sanctions on Iran, decided that the best way to proceed with the perceived nuclear material and technology problem with Iran's government is the Iran nuclear deal signed in July 2015. This will lift the Iranian sanctions in exchange for concessions by the Iranian government. They want the US Congress to ratify the accord.

This agreement is supported by the diplomats of those 7 countries. This is to say that the people most familiar with the use of international power have stated that this is the appropriate process and that this will reduce the likelihood of war. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.

Subsequent to signing the accord

29 upper level U.S. Scientists praise the deal in an open letter to Obama. This includes 5 Nobel Prize winners. These are people that are paid to think about science and technology, at least some of whom are intimately familiar with the research, development and production of nuclear weapons. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.

Finally, 36 retired generals and admirals also now support the Iran nuclear deal as well. Once again, this is not to argue that they are correct in their assessment. I am noting that a large number of military professionals of high rank have agreed that this is an important step in dealing with the perceived nuclear weapon threat. They do not rule out a military option. They say instead, that this agreement makes the use of a military option simpler and more effective, should it come down to that. They recommend that Congress ratify the accord.

Let me reiterate, These upper echelon military men have stated that ratifying the accord will make the use of the military option against Iran simpler and more effective, should it become necessary.