Comet Holmes was a pretty understated but important example of how we are surrounded by a huge variety of stellar objects. Expanding to become the largest object in our solar system whatever happened to this comet must have been pretty dramatic.

Knowing that Comet Holmes was visible to the naked eye myself and some friends decided to go out on the Downs to do some star gazing. We found a great spot in a car park near Devils Dyke and started setting up. A couple of dubious cars were already lurking and we guessed this must be a dogging spot. When two women and three men got out of the car, the lonely sexual desperados must have thought their luck was in. As I got out my tripod they must have really got excited at the kinky potential of what we could all be doing. Unfortunately this must have been shattered when I setup my astronomical binoculars; and tea, biscuits and a hip flask of lovely whisky were passed around.

One of the doggers immediately left in obvious disgust, then after about ten minutes the final car departed but what was truly astonishing was that as the last car past us a bloke leaned out and shouted “GET A LIFE”. After an ironic chuckle, we continued to waste our lives looking at the infinite wonders of the Universe rather than participating in the fulfilling act of sticking our cocks through car windows.

Like Richard Dawkins, I am myself an atheist, that is, I do not believe that divine beings exist, let alone influence our lives. I have been fascinated to see the rise of Richard Dawkins over the years and have been a fan of his approach and work until the last couple of years. There is no doubt that this known but hardly celebrity level academic has suddenly exploded into the public eye through a number of TV programmes and of course through the controversial book ‘The God Delusion’. With the establishment of the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Reason and Science (RDF), he is now the figurehead of a movement to rid the world of the superstitious and ignorant views of religious zealots and lazy thinkers.

Richard has questioned representatives of most faiths and has exposed clairvoyants and spiritualist charlatans for what they are, and although his arguments are solid and completely rational, I wonder what his objectives really are? Let us not forget Richards background. He is from a privileged landed gentry background and certainly represents the intellectual elite in our country. From the lofty heights of academic supremacy there is no doubt he can look down upon the teeming masses, scrutinize their illogical actions and dissect them into a palatable example of how ignorant many people truly are. Ignorance is often the result of poor education/cultural influences and is also the result of choosing to be ignorant as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional trauma. An erudite and accomplished academic will find it incredibly easy to overturn most orthodox religious assumptions as well as dissect the fickle modern interpretations that seem to constantly evolve to cope with modern changes. Yet, within the madness are reasons however banal or poignant. The reasons why people choose irrationality over reason is often due to a survival or coping mechanism. Dealing with the death of a close relative or adapting to a harsh theocratic dictatorship. This is obvious, but what may not be so obvious is that poverty plays a massive role in the establishment of the uneducated, traumatised and terrible life experiences that people have to deal with. The disparity between rich and poor is extreme and I will not venture to explain what most people know to be the truth.

This is where my admiration of Richard Dawkins starts to curdle as I watch him simply argue in a rather self-satisfied way that rationalism and scientific methodology can give wonder and hope to everyone in the same way that is does to him and no doubt as it does to myself. The truth is that atheism is a luxury, something to treasure and respect. It is predominately found in rich liberal western societies and has no doubt freed many people from the constrains of dogma and superstition. I argue as much as Dawkins against supposition and assumptions believing in a Socratic method to weed out untruths and delusion. Yet, like Socrates, I believe that personal development should over-ride financial aspirations, something I’m not convinced Richard Dawkins completely agrees with, especially with BUY NOW buttons plastered all over his website. As much as Dawkins seems to understand rationality he seems to be incapable of understanding the importance of self-delusion. There is no doubt that lying is fundamentally important to every-one’s sanity and forms a fundamental part of our creative and imaginative tapestry as a species. Embellishments, exaggerations, and lies are creative processes and no doubt form a hugely important part of every day lives. From fiction books to films, urban myths to legends their prevalence and importance cannot be understated. We all allow ourselves these escapes, yet it is most evident in areas where poverty stricken people live life in a way most westerners would find intolerable. It is here Dawkins fails to deliver a fair case for an idealised secular world through evangelised atheism. To truly enlighten the ignorant he needs to tackle its main cause, poverty. It is this irony that strikes at the heart of Dawkins argument. How can a man of so much privilege and obvious intelligence fail to recognise that the very wealth and liberality that allows him his freedom to study, scrutinize and communicate his ideas is formed directly from the capital which drives these people into poverty and ignorance. Dawkins is a perfect example of a bourgeois, intellectual bully boy.

To sustain my interest I would like to see him become a braver man and address the socio-political reasons why people turn to religion or fundamentalism. I know empirical data to Dawkins may just seem like filler in an already won argument but I think that Dawkins needs to challenge his own cultural inheritance and its contribution to keeping the plebians ignorant. Understanding and facing the reality of poverty and the inevitable poor educational standards this creates should be his priority now and would certainly give him far more credibility than slamming average Joes who never had the chances he had. Dawkins should be addressing why people turn to religion and supernatural beliefs rather than proceeding to duck shoot the ignorant.

Every morning at about 8.30am a car steams past my window making this awful sound that is obviously trying to sound like a blow-off valve on a high performance car. The thing is the car is a 1990-ish Toyota ‘crap’ model. It would never have had turbo or sports gears. When this thing drives past it sounds like someone has just let the pressure valve off a steam engine. A farty pfffffffffffffffffff sound on gear changing cannot be something serious car modder could truly want.

Well I found the culprit.

http://www.makesyouthink.com/turbosound/

Now if it was a novelty 80′s horn at least it has some entertainment value.

The British Banger has gone through many changes over the years. The rusk filled, mechanically extracted meat of the sausage in the 70′s which are still the mainstay of most cheap sausages nowadays have been ‘poshed’ up. Now you have the main supermarket chains supplying pork, apple and leek sausages, redwine and onion sausages, chilli sausages and so forth. Many of these ‘posh’ sausages I find rather coarse with nasty chunks of gristle and many unseemly tubular things that make me feel rather queazy on closer inspection. Yes, they may have minimal rusk but I still think the meat quality is pretty poor and these ‘posh’ sausages are far from the authentic farm produced sausages that they are marketed as. I’d rather have a Walls or Jameson sausage.

Being rather despondent about the sausage situation while on a rare visit to ASDA (as im more of a Sainsburys person) there was a stall with sausages being cooked on it with the usual cocktail stick thing going on. Over I went and scoffed down three samples then stopped. Rather than ignore the guy who was rambling on about the sausages I started to listen. The reason I started to listen was that the sausage was bloody nice. In fact, it was the best British sausage I have ever tasted. Even though I was partly listening I have forgot most of what he said but I’m sure it was something like “it’s 90% pork from organic pigs that have their trotters massaged daily and are fed on veal and fine wine…”. I quickly purchased 2 packs and ate sausages most of the week. They are absolutely perfect sausages, no coarsness, spicy but delicate seasoning and a feeling that you really have just eaten the banger at the beginning of Grange Hill, which, for me, sums up the character of the banger perfectly.

http://www.porkywhites.co.uk/

Null:Void and the Temporal Brain

I have for a while been pondering over the various philosophical, metaphysical and sociological questions that we all face about the actual substance of our life experience. I have a couple of theories that are personal conjecture and not academically qualified in any way, but which I think still require a certain degree of examination.

Introduction

Firstly I have been examining the nature of non-existence in both pre-life and post-life. There is a general assumption within most religious ideas, that once a person has existed this somehow qualifies them as already obtaining some kind of permanent immortality (soul). I have made an assumption in my theory that the pre-life (null) and post-life (void) are one of the same thing. They are states of non-consciousness, completely blank and devoid of any direct observation or measurement. This may seem like a sweeping assumption but one can suggest that if we have made no scientifically tested communication with both pre-lives (people yet to exist) or post-lives (people who are now dead) that these states are somehow separated from our conscious stream. There is no doubt that these pre- and post- lives have an effect which can be seen in our need to celebrate and study post-lives (history) and also the way we consider the future or pre-lives, however, this impact is formed by our own needs and perceptions and not by those consciences directly.

Null:Void

The null:void represents the non-existence of our consciousness. Before we were born we were not aware of anything; and I suggest that this is same state that occurs post-life. We did not experience the passing millennia that led to the events that created our awareness neither will we experience the infinity that will pass once we are dead. These states of non-consciousness the Null:Void are both exactly analogous and for the sake of my argument will be assumed to be so throughout this piece.

As we can never experience a non-conscious state or the Null:Void it would seem to make sense that we will never cease to be conscious.

Due to our inability to experience anything other than consciousness, we are, in effect, bound to our consciousness in such a way that the passing of infinity before and after our existence will be instantaneous to us. If this is true one can assume that we will never experience post-life as we did not experience pre-life. Both states only serve to create the infinity of probabilities until such time as we are conscious again. Does this sound like solipsism? Potentially to some, but yet there is a logical process in these assumptions and a fair argument to make for this interpretation of the Null:Void states.

I agree that none of us fully understand what realms our consciousness could potentially pervade and there is much discussion about the quantum relationship between our consciousness and its physical/quantum environment. However in practicable terms there is currently no evidence to suggest direct interference from pre-/-post lives, or in other terms from Null:Void states of consciousness.

So what does this mean?

My argument is simple, you have never been in a Null:Void state. Neither will you ever be in a Null:Void state and be aware of it. There is no cross over between Null:Void states and our own consciousness. This being so, I am not automatically suggesting that when you die you will suddenly open your eyes and exist again. There is the potential for you to be reconstructed but this starts entering the realms of science fiction. If we are to assume that this is effectively your ‘lot’ then what is the point of Null:Void theory if it offers nothing but the affirmation of non-existence.

I suggest that the Null:Void state confirms the perpetuation of our consciousness by our inability not to be conscious. In this I find a compelling argument, whether it is true is maybe not as important as the impact this has on our lives in ways, maybe, we had never realised. Maybe this simple assumption has been ingrained into us and forms a formative part of our psyche from which has spawned much of our social, mythological and religious narrative.

Maybe this idea drives us all in a subtle way. It may also actually embody our relationship with death and our dreams of immortality. Most if not all religion suggests eternal life, this may not be so stupid if you take into account the Null:Void argument. I am not in any way condoning the use of un-substantiated claims of ‘God’ or miracles and so forth, but I am examining the reason why in all of these religions that there is an assumption of life after death. If you take the Null:Void theory as a metaphysical conundrum, this could well be the premise by which we all consciously or sub-consciously find our own deaths incomprehensible.

The Temporal Brain

The brain has been interpreted as being an organ that either:

a) Encapsulates our consciousness and connects it with our external reality.

Or

b) Connects our consciousness with our external reality.

The first assumption is often purported by more scientific reasoning while the second is common in religious thinking.

We know that the world that surrounds us is certainly not as we ‘see’ it. It is a construction that our brain creates for us to relate and interact to external events. Our sight is not created by the eye itself but the visual stimulus the eye transmits through electrical activity to the brain which is then processed and our ‘sight’ is formed around very particular rules. (See more info). It is limited, can be fooled, and is certainly a representation of our surroundings.

I am not seeking to answer whether the brain is either argument a) or b) but it is fair to suggest that in both arguments the focus on the ‘location’ of consciousness seems to be the overriding difference.

This ‘location’ is often a key debate for philosophical thought and theological writings as well as scientific experimentation (albeit limited). Let us assume it could be either, but also consider that the brain interprets time much in the same way as the eye interprets photonic activity. Key to the interpretation of every external stimulus is a metric to put experiences into some context. This temporal ‘experience’ is often wrongly or rightly interpreted as a stream. We know now that this may not be the case and in effect our entire life existence is in one ‘slice’ of reality which is a solid state or in other terms a complete unit of conscious experience. Much like representations the eye transmits to the brain, the interpretation of the temporal may very well be constructed by our brains as a constant stream with one moment moving to the next, but this may not be the true nature of our temporal existence.

If our interpretation of time then is not an irrefutable passing from one moment to another (or stream), if this interpretation is as synthetic as our brain reconstructing visual information, then the relationship between our consciousness, time and the null:void may, in fact, be far more complex than previously assumed.

The brain has the ability to model and predict. This is true in all of us. This is based on previous experience and due to complex genetic and chemical interactions with the body. The interpretation of time as a temporal flow, we will assume, is just that, an interpretation. This interpretation enables us to use specific points of reference to construct the probable outcome of actions. This construction of probable outcomes is such an an intrinsic part of our contextualisation of experience that it forms a fundamental aspect of our interpretation of reality.

These points of reference may not come necessarily from just our experience or chemical interactions, but may be formed by the nature of the experiences themselves. When we reduce down these points of reference to choices we could granulise them into an almost infinite amount of sub-atomic interactions/choices, yet we contextualise by simplifying the experience into an essential selection of choices. Either way it is the same process. The choices that we do not make or consider could be considered Null:Void outcomes. Choices that never existed as a reality; choices that have no impact on our situation once the choice is made. Yet this non-existent choice formed an essential part of the decision making process. Its un-experiencable reality that we modeled the outcomes from to justify our final choice. In a sense the brain creates outcomes, models realities, sifts through potentials and finalises an action. It is an incredible temporal machine, a multi-versal mechanism of probability reasoning. I might go so far as to say it creates ‘Time’ experience as a mechanism for choices that initially appear from a Null:Void state. It selects preferable realities, moulds our path through the temporal maze and may in some way connect with these Null:Void potentials albeit in a completely instinctual way to contextualise the usefulness of including an alternative choice.

The Null:Void may not be the absence of consciousness but the potential for its existence. Our consciousness changes from one moment to the next and the choices that form these changes are contextualised within the relationship between ourselves and the Null:Void.

I hope you have found my discussion at the very least entertaining. I believe that our social experience and our perceptions of reality are somehow connected to some kind of basic inherent awareness of the state of our existence. However mis-guided (religion and science) our conclusions are,  there are fundamental universal reasons why we have ideas, stories, imagination, creativity and the ability to attempt to apply them, whether as an individual or as an institution. The romantic side of me would suggest that every one of our thoughts are somewhere very real and their potential is realised in someway in the Null:Void then potentially they can effect our decisions. Every narrative, story, situation, thought, moment and person (dead/or not born/or ficticious) exists in the Null:Void and it is their very existence that enables us to make choices and to conceive them within our thoughts as a potential, however whimsical or illogical. The closer these Null:Void objects are to our everyday decisions/perceptions the more probably those outcomes can be manipulated to happen. It is like a proximity of mutli-verses and temporal places (probability) that we can interact with within out mind. It could be the underpinning cause and attribute of our consciousness.

Maybe the Null:Void is the other multiverses that surround our own or the various dimensions where these conscious models form and interact with our own Universe. Maybe not. Whatever the case, the brain could well have some special property that enables it to connect with the quantum and temporal levels of our reality in ways that we never realised possible.

I acknowledge this is by no means a scientific or referenced piece, although many of the ideas involved are discussed in:

David Deutch
ttp://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html

Philosophy of Physics
Kronz, Frederick M.

Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
Douglas R. Hofstadter

Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See
Donald David Hoffman

When you think of the Downs you often think of rolling hills, green expanses and chalky slopes. However from the many pictures we took on our walk from Devils Dike to Beading there were some unexpected visual treats. Many of which seemed distinctly un-downslike when you look back on the picture. Rusty barbed wire piled up, fir trees and booster poles made some interesting subjects. 

One thing I noticed was the amount of flooding around (Upper?) Beading, maybe a sign of things to come.     

The BBC has sold out to the U.S. market, simple as that. A prime example of the tripe the BBC is producing at the moment is Robin Hood. There has never been a take on Robin Hood that could cram such intense levels of vacuous, inaccurate, meaningless drivel into such a pointless exercise. The non-violent stance of Robin Hood is the stuff of the A-Team, this combined with truly stupid stunts and extremely poor fight choreography gets the BBC the award for the ‘most appalling Robin Hood ever conceived’. The clothes are often pseudo-modern in style with the most ridiculous excuse for Norman armour that I have ever seen. There is a Sarasin women wearing a combat jacket, Lord of the Rings style acrobatics such as death-slides on a bow and a sense of inflation in everything that only a dumbwitted American audience would suck up this shit. Maybe I am too harsh on the Amercians, TV in the UK is now almost the utter tripe it is in the US (but without the HBO), and Robin Hood has been getting the same old positive reviews pumped out as a standard for BBC trash programming (ie Torchwood and Dr Who). (Too many good BBC lunches for journos I think).

Did the makers of this program do any research? Did they just think ‘The yanks are already stupid we can make any drivel and it’ll sell’. I’m not saying that Robin Hood should be some serious look at the gritty reality of being a bandit in the 12th century (approx). Robin Hood is a romance that has changed over the years. Michael Praed arguably the best Robin Hood in ‘Robin of Sherwood‘ which is definitely the finest series about the ‘hooded man’ ever made, conveys a far deeper and interesting take on Robin. Exploring his pagan links with Hern the Hunter and as such draws a far more accurate version of Feudal England than has ever been portrayed in a Robin Hood themed series/film. Of course it was romanticised but it WAS NOT AMERICANISED.

The new Robin Hood series is an absolute disgrace pumping the viewing expectations of an American audience into our heritage, twisting a fine story into a non-violent pantomime, making a laughable tragedy of one of our most treasured heroes. Now he is some ‘emo‘ pacifist wimp that makes me want to vomit. (why couldn’t they do a story about Robin coming back from the Crusades?!!) Jonas Armstrong looks far too much like Steven Hendry for me to take him seriously as an actor, let alone as Robin Hood for gods sake.

THE BBC,  YOU HAVE SOLD OUT. YOU PANDER TO THE AMERICAN MARKET AND CHARGE ME FOR THE PLEASURE OF WATCHING YOU BUTCHER OUR HERITAGE.

p.s. Keith Allen has always been crap.

Over the last 3 years I have seen the emergence of a new type of fashion disgrace. Yes, these flat vulgar shoes often accompanied with 80′s charity shop clothes and pastel shaded makeup are combined to create some kind of 50′s/80′s mutant. I detest this current trend and find these ‘ballet flats’ extremely offensive. Firstly the colours are generally silver or gold. That in itself is grotesque. Secondly they are a ballet shoe, looking completely impractical and extremely flimsy. This pathetic excuse for a shoe rises to the very heights of the shoe obscenity top ten that includes Espadrille’s and Cork Platforms.

Then there is the fashion style that goes along with these shoes. Often with the ‘common’ wearer they are just in jeans (often ankle length) and other than that a casual top of sorts. However the ‘hardcore’ go for ‘ra ra’ skirts, or 80′s charity wear and for the life of me they look like such sad try hards I can only weep for their lack of originality. These shoes make women look like the fake ‘beatniks’ or 50′s ‘jazz’ girls, an image that lacked any substance or conveyed any articulation at the time, let alone now. Unless you perversely like the overt pretentiousness of these ethnic mixing ‘cool cats’ and the posturing egos that beat poetry drivel shat out of the early sixties I advise you to ‘ditch this kit’ before you become more shit that kitsch. 

 Astronomy Picture of the Day is a fantastic place for finding the latest astronomical images and is updated daily. This particular image is a great example of the weird and wonderful interpretations of cosmic images the mind can make. This looks possibly like two people running away from a monster.

Im sure somewhere out there is a naked Gemma Humphries but I think it might take an eternity for me to find her.

Link to APOD: 2006 October 31 – SH2 136: A Spooky Nebula

While tapping my way through the usual interpipe sludge I come accross something fresh.. even if it looks old. Well it is old, but it has some extremely fun suggestions and there were a few things I had never seen before which I could do sitting at my desk such as:

Make ‘smoke’ with your mouth
Compress the air in your mouth, then let off the pressure, then let the air out slowly. You’ll see fog!

This works! Apparently the site is about discovering your inner child by doing funny and different things that you often just dont bother with as you cruise through life.

Longer Seeing
Modify your perceptions with physics rather than psychopharmacology: put an infrared filter in some welding goggles, then wear them outdoors on a bright, sunny day. (Choose a filter that is in the near-IR, so a bit of light is visible still. Or try theatrical gels, congo blue combined with primary red, several of each.) The world will become EXTREMELY BIZARRE. Wait a couple of minutes until your eyes grow accustomed to the darkness. Then the bright pink clouds drift in the dark sky above the frosty white trees. The world is dusk, yet the sun still shines. Car tail-lights blaze brightly. The houses and roads are dark. But the grass! The trees! They are frosty blazing red, like snow which has been sprayed with cherry Kool-aid powder. Everyone’s clothes are altered. Blue-jeans are almost white. Some black clothing turns light grey. The artwork of T-shirts is almost invisible, and everyone’s hair is grey. (New: see the article.)

I’ve heard that some types of clothing are transparent to the infrared, so stagger on down to the beach and verify if this is so. “Mister, why are you wearing those goggles?”

I think this site has some superb ideas and some rather childish ones but then again I suppose thats the point.

http://amasci.com/~billb/cgi-bin/instr/instr.html