Life, the Universe & Everything

How To Get Along

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:45:00 +0000

You know that song: "Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." We can if we want. Something Jesus might have said, right? Don't worry, I'm not suggesting you should. Really, I just thought I'd tell you what I've been up to recently.

I've been trying to do things a bit differently, you see. Trying a different approach. Because I was kinda down in the dumps and got to thinking about life, the universe and... well... everything, really.

Humans - that's us (I presume you're human. If you're not, please say hi. I've never met a non-human who can read before) - live in societies. Societies have ideas of right and wrong. Those ideas of right and wrong vary between different societies (cultures, if you like). Not only that but they also vary with the progression of time. With all these ideas of right and wrong, it's not surprising we get a bit confused.

During the recent riots in England, a friend posted on facebook how furious she was, how these people were acting like thugs and didn't deserve any sympathy.

"Every person from childhood 'knows' in their gut what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is ok and what is not ok." She said.

We really feel strongly about this, don't we? Without right and wrong, the foundations of moral order crumble, we fear.

The problem is - here comes a big statement - every conflict in the world, big or small, is created by conflicting ideas of right and wrong. You cannot have a conflict unless you have two sides who believe in their own righteousness.

It's always the righteous who go to war.

So how about this: try, for a second or two... well, make it an hour... half an hour? For moment, then, imagine there is no right and wrong. In other words: take all your ideas of right and wrong and let them go.

It means there's no such thing as justice. And the concept of justice is pretty ridiculous, if you think about it. When I hear people reported on the news saying they just 'want justice to be done' I now find myself wondering 'what do they mean?'

Are you still imaging there's no right and wrong? Good. Have you suddenly turned into a serial killer? I thought not.

So how is this of use to you? Well, whilst you're in this no right or wrong zone, it makes it harder for you to get into conflicts. Even internal ones! Why? Because you have absolutely no justification to back you up.

"But that doesn't stop people from telling me I'm wrong." No, but you don't have to believe them. I think it makes a difference. A big difference.

We tend to get angry when we're hurt. And we get hurt when people criticise us. We get all self-righteous and try to defend ourselves. But what about if we don't believe in their 'wrong'. Their criticism is now meaningless. We've turned their attack into nothing more than an opinion.

Even those internal conflicts. The ones that make you flog yourself with relentless guilt. You can let those go too. You don't have to feel guilt any longer, because it's impossible for you to have done something 'wrong'.

I knew this idea wasn't going to be popular, but I thought I'd say it anyway. I know you're all seething with a need for justice. "You're giving people a license to act badly!" I hear you rage. Almost certainly in unison.

In a sense, I am. Giving people a license to act 'badly' (how is it possible to judge?) diffuses a whole lot of conflict. And it might just help people to get along.

A Mind-Bending Thriller...

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:39:00 +0000

Third Contact on Facebook

Finally

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:02:00 +0000

This is the kinda church for me: No afterlife, no god, no Jesus (possibly).

Third Contact - NEW Trailer!

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:53:00 +0000

What's the Deal with Religion?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:25:00 +0000

So, how does it work? Are we to take any nonsense seriously if enough people believe in it? Or should all nonsense be treated equally, regardless of the number of followers?

I have a bit of a problem with religious 'education'. Religions are myths. Should myths have their own subject at school? Are they not part of English and History? No, because politically religion has to be taken seriously. The problem is, it isn't taught as fiction. It has to be slanted, at the very least, in a way that suggests there's a real possibility it might be true.

I'm with people that say "If you can treat your nonsense as a serious subject, we should treat all nonsense seriously."

Morality in Society Without Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:55:00 +0000

I was sitting on the tube and I saw someone reading a newspaper with a headline which went something like "...Possible for Morality in Society Without Religion". I couldn't see the whole headline so I don't know if it was for or against the idea, but whichever way the article went it was an opinion held by Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks.

Is it possible to have morality in society without religion? I think this is a silly question. Can you name a society that doesn't have a set of moral principles? Nope. Society IS morality. In fact, the greater part of society is created by a common consensus on what is correct or incorrect behaviour within it.

It seems that philosophers and leaders have debated the need for belief in a higher authority or the consequence will be 'anything goes'. There's no confusion here. You cannot have society without there being a pressure exerted by that society on your behaviour.

I don't believe in gods. So why don't I behave without restriction? Obviously, because I have been conditioned by society to behave in an acceptable way.

Values change. 50 years ago in the UK it was unacceptable to have sex with someone of the same gender and so it was against the law. It was mostly heterosexual Christians who found it unacceptable and, as they formed the majority of British society, what they said went. We're also talking about a time when it was generally unacceptable to have 'mixed race' marriages. Those pressures are still in our society now, just less strong. There's also pressures in the other direction - there's political and social pressure to accept these old taboos.

If you're looking for some kind of set of unshakeable set of 'commandments', well they don't exist. Not even for religious people. I know the 10 Commandments are set in stone, but only the words, not the way they're interpreted.

I found an old article by Lord Sacks on the subject. He says "You don’t have to be religious to fight for justice, practise compassion, care about the poor and homeless or jump into the sea to save a drowning child." He's already making assumptions on what is morally acceptable behaviour for our society. It's an 'everybody knows' moral code. I agree that 'morality... is the result of social practice, honed and refined over many centuries' but 'The West was shaped by what today we call the Judaeo-Christian tradition' is another folklore assumption.

How much did society change after pagan Europeans were converted to Christianity? Roman historians will tell you about the savage barbarians who were 'civilised' by Roman influence. But we have to remember those 'civilised' Romans used to watch people hack lumps out of each other for Saturday afternoon entertainment.

Would pagan Europeans have converted to Christianity if their moral code was not already fairly close? Clearly, you cannot create a society based on selfish behaviour. The basis of any society is harmony. The best way to create harmony is compromise and sacrifice of the self in service of the group as a whole. The Christianity myth is based on this premise - one man/god sacrifices himself for the sake of the community.

It seems obvious to me, religions are chosen by a society if they reflect the moral behaviour they approve of. Religion is like a moral behaviour package with a big daddy figure to act as the eternal parent/enforcer. Religion doesn't provide morality, it just helps to increase the pressure on your society to behave in the way you wish.

I'm Determined to Tell You About Determinism

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sat, 28 May 2011 09:50:00 +0000

I have these moments where I think I've discovered something new. Its usually something philosophical.

It was some time ago on this blog that I put forward the idea we are not in any way responsible for our actions (I can't remember which post it was and I can't be bothered to find it - I'm lazy like that). At the time, someone commented this was not a new idea as a lawyer had successfully argued this in a court in Chicago in 1924.

So it wasn't new. But why did nobody tell me about it? Isn't this rather important? That none of us are ultimately responsible for what we do. That the system of punishment and the habit of blame are based on an illogical premise. Isn't this the first thing you should be taught at school?

But wait. If this idea is old news - we've been there, done it and bought the bus ticket to predetermined liberation - why is just about everyone still acting as if blame and guilt are very much alive and well (and living in Chicago, most likely)?

I had to come up with the idea on my own because it seems to be out of favour and not talked about at all in polite circles (I avoid rude circles). And as it happens, it helped me out of deep deep depression (yeah, I realised the illogicality of beating myself up for doing 'bad' things - what else could I have done but act as me?), so it would have been nice if the idea had at least been run past me at some point in the previous 40 years of my life.

I've recently been chatting to a few friends about the idea. People are curious. "What is it?" they inquire.

OK. This idea questions what choice really is. Imagine you don't like strawberries (those of you who actually don't like strawberries, just relax). Imagine I now offer you a choice of ice cream flavours: vanilla and strawberry. Which one will you 'choose'? Most people happily answer 'vanilla'. No choice.

But I still had a choice, most people insist. You didn't choose not to like strawberries and that's what made you pick vanilla. For some reason - maybe you ate a bad one as a child, maybe you gorged on strawberries once and made yourself sick or maybe you have no idea why you don't like strawberries - the desire not to eat strawberries was created back somewhere in your history.

"But I still made a choice (you people are very stubborn) I could have chosen the strawberry ice-cream if I'd wanted to."

If you'd wanted to. Who determines what you want?

"I do. I decide what I want in life. It was me who decided to become a lawyer and it was me who decided to study hard until I eventually became one. Nobody forced me to do this."

Now I'm like an annoying child: Why did you want to be a lawyer and not, say, a doctor or a plumber?

"I find law more interesting. I was also crap at biology. And I'd rather do law than deal with peoples' sewage all day."

Why? I know this is irritating, but it has a point.

The point is, keep asking why you did the things you did and at the root of it is something predetermined. Upbringing, culture, society, genetics, emotions and desires (pre-programmed chemical reactions which provide an advantage to our survival as primates), chance events or meetings.

"I wanted to be a lawyer. I could have been a doctor or a plumber but I chose law. It was my choice."

Let's try a different angle. We are, essentially, choice-making machines. Like your computer, for example. It makes choices too. If you have anti-virus software installed, it chooses which programs are viruses and which aren't. Most peoples' anti-virus software doesn't like viruses and so rejects them. How does it choose? Well, it chooses based on what it is programmed to recognise as a virus. If it chooses to reject something incorrectly, is it to blame? No - the programmer is at fault.

"We're not machines. Otherwise we'd all do the same thing."

My phone acts differently to my TV set, but they're both machines. Every human is an individual. I'm not disputing that. But every time you make a choice, what determines how you make that choice is something created by an external 'hand'. The point is: what part of your personality are you ultimately responsible for? The irrefutable answer is: none.

Remember all those times you've been criticised or scolded? As children, this is how we're knocked into shape by adults. It's called discipline. We're taught to feel bad for doing 'bad' things.

"Simon, don't be so bloody arrogant, you think you know everything. Why don't you try being a bit more humble and listen to other peoples' opinions?"

I don't know, why don't I? I guess I just wasn't built that way.

"Don't be so cheeky. Go to your room!"

Why does someone break the law?

You know what, before I explore this, let me just say, every one of you reading this has broken many laws in your life. Maybe simply through ignorance of the law or because you decided the law was ok for you to break. How many of you have used pirated software, illegally downloaded music, even (in the old days) taped a LP and given it to your friend or knowingly accepted too much change at a store etc etc etc... the list is endless. We all have. We're all law breakers.

So I was having this discussion with a manager at work in the cash office. "If you're not responsible, it's ok for you to take the cash and walk off". I wouldn't do that, it's not in my character. But if someone did it, I couldn't say it was 'wrong' or that they were to blame. They just so happen to have been created a thief (laws create criminals, by the way).

This is the point most people walk away from this philosophy. Most of us cannot accept that someone who breaks the law (even though we are all law breakers) is not responsible for his or her actions. We - in general - hate this concept (it's ok, you were predetermined to hate it, so relax). "So," said the manager "you want to live in a world where anyone can do what they want?" No I don't. I prefer to live in a world where people aren't allowed to kill me or take my things (although, whether we live in that world right now is debatable).

Judges in courts still talk about "acts of evil" as they sum up a finding of guilty for some act of multiple murder, torture or rape. Evil? Really? My God, we're still burning witches. You see we were brought up - disciplined - with an idea of fair play through punishment. We're addicted to the idea of justice being done, even though we all break the law. We justify our own indiscretions - "so I parked in a disabled bay, it was just five minutes!" Maybe we even feel guilty about it.

"How can you compare parking offences to serious crimes like murder?!"

A British politician recently got hammered for saying there were more serious rapes than others. The point is, we all draw our own lines. The Law is not omnipotent to you, is it? Clearly not, because you've broken it many times. Where do you draw your line?

If someone told you he received a speeding fine, you wouldn't shun him as you would if he told you he had attempted to murder someone. Yet, the reason we have speed limits for cars is to reduce the amount of deaths and injuries caused by accidents. By increasing your speed, you are increasing your chances of killing someone. Like a child, or a father of three, or a beloved granny. But you don't give a shit. Because in your mind you're not bad.

In your mind. Why is it you think its ok? Hmm? I guess you were just made that way.

A very intelligent friend of mine ended our determinism discussion by saying "it's just nonsense". I'm presuming most of you reading this are probably thinking the same. It's difficult to break free from the idea of being ultimately responsible for our actions. Where does it leave us? It's the idea of choices which gives us the feeling of freedom and liberty. So I guess it's ironic that I'm suggesting you break free from that. I guess it's ironic that I'm suggesting some kind of freedom comes from realising how you are about to act at this point has been predetermined (those of you who've had enough and are about to stop reading: well, you were always going to do that at this point).

Actually, I'm not suggesting you do anything. What would be the point? You're only going to accept this idea if you're mind hasn't been programmed to see it as a virus.

Now I see why no-one told me about it before. There's a very strong human resistance to determinism. I guess it goes against everything we think we understand about ourselves and about others and about existence and the reason for getting up and doing stuff.

"So, what if I buy your idea that I'm just a mass of pre-determined ways of choosing things? What am I going to do with it? Do you know how much I've invested in the heroes and villains in my life? Tony Blair is a criminal who should stand trial for war crimes and I will shout loudly until he is brought to justice. My boss is a selfish, obnoxious arsehole who just can't accept I'd be better at his job than he is and I'm determined to prove it. My neighbour is a crazy bitch who needs to be taught some basic manners. My daughter has worked so hard all her life she deserves all the financial rewards she's now reaping...."

I've looked for philosophical arguments against it, but there's none. I've tried to think of an argument against it too (because I hate one-sided arguments) but I can't. The only angle against it has been "well, there's lots of things we don't understand". That's not an argument. It's dangerously close to the old 'God of the Gaps' device.

Third Contact Teaser

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 12 May 2011 08:33:00 +0000

Hard Yolks

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:37:00 +0000

Me and G decided to go and have breakfast somewhere. We spent a few minutes deciding which place - 'How about the Turkish place?' 'Nah, last time the bacon was like cardboard' etc. Finally we decided on the cafe in the garden centre - its a nice day, you can sit outside, last time the brek was decent. So I order the traditional brek, G has poached eggs on toast. Its a bit slow but, hey, the weather is nice so we don't mind.

The brek finally arrives. All the eggs have solid yolks. Shall we complain? No it doesn't matter. But poached egg on toast with hard yolk - its dry. Pointless. I call the waitress - sorry but the eggs have solid yolks - what? - look, all the eggs have solid yolks (I tap my yolk with a fork to demonstrate) - what's the problem? (I start to get irritated) - the yolks of the eggs are hard, they're supposed to be runny - ok I'll change them.

A guy appears (he looks Albanian or something) - is there a problem? - yes, the eggs, the yolks were hard - ah. Did you ask for the yolks to be soft? - what do you mean? - when you ordered, did you tell the waitress you wanted your egg yolks to be soft (if this guy is going to make out it was our fault I'm gonna...) is there a manager here - I am the manager. I own the place - ok, well, you should know, when you make a poached egg, the yolk is always runny - just answer the question. I want to know if it was our mistake or... - That's what a poached egg is: runny yolk. There is no other type of poached egg - don't tell me how to do my job - but you don't know how to cook a poached egg - I've been doing this for 11 years. Answer the question, did you ask for your egg yolk to be hard or soft?

I can't believe it. Now I'm shouting - don't talk to me like an idiot! Why would I ask for the egg yolk to be runny? A poached egg yolk is always runny. Never in my life have I had to ask. You don't have to ask. In this country, poached eggs are made with a runny yolk. If you don't know how to cook a poached egg, that's your problem - (he's leaning over us now, a bit threatening) just tell me, did you ask for the egg to be cooked runny?

I stand up - forget it, we're not eating here. And I want my money back - I'm not giving your money back - I want a refund, I don't want to eat here now - The guy runs off. I follow him back to the kitchen where he disappears inside. I wait until he reappears. He says he has to have everything cooked again as he can't just cook the eggs as the rest of the food will be cold - now go back and sit (like we're dogs). We head back to the table - ok lets wait and eat the food. I'm hungry and we paid for it - I don't want to eat here now. They'll probably spit in the food - ok lets go.

As we're walking away from the place, the guy comes running after us - where are you going? - we don't want to eat here now - but I'm cooking your food again - you're a twat - look, we're both human. I appologise to you, you appologise to me... - no. you've blown it. I'm never coming back here again... the guy opens the till and hands me 15 quid - take care - take care.

The Story Behind the Story - I

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:24:00 +0000

The following is how Third Contact came to be made – how I wrote, directed and produced my first feature film. I’ll explain why I decided to shoot the whole thing with nothing more than a camcorder, one light and a tiny crew. I’ll tell you why I ended up holding the camera myself, even though I’d never shot anything before. You’ll find out how the make-up artist ended up playing one of the main characters. I will also tell you how disaster was turned to success on more than one occasion.

If All Men Were Alike

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:21:00 +0000

If all men were alike, all the world would worship the same God - Aldous Huxley

There would not be a problem if most of the world did not find it so impossible to see the possibilities. It seems that those who would be religious cling on to a rigid set of ideas. Their hope is in driftwood. It at least seems solid, where science is uncertain. There's even a principle named so. The argument between the religious is simply over whose bit of driftwood is most likely to float to paradise.

Because you can't bring up your children using Heisenberg's understanding of the universe.

"Don't set fire to your sister."

"Why?"

"Because she'll be both burning and not burning depending on whether we are observing her or not."

"Aw, but Dad said I could play with her locally changing deterministic qualities."

"If you don't put down that lithium and find something better to do, I'll invalidate you by falsification-experiment and no X-Box for a week!"

"Its so unfair... I hate you!"

Third Contact

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:37:00 +0000

www.thirdcontactmovie.com

Self Help

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:03:00 +0000

In my screenplay for Third Contact the opening scene is between the main character, a therapist, and his awkward patient, Karl. The therapist is goaded into an outburst:

"With everything that's going on in the world, happiness is an irrational state of mind... My job, essentially, is to encourage people to go around acting irrationally by being happy."

This is an idea that came to me a couple of years ago, as I was struggling with what a doctor diagnosed as depression. I came to realise, a major part of my misery was induced by a perceived societal pressure to be happy.

So I had a revelation: allow yourself to be miserable.

Why not? There's plenty to be miserable about.

Society, particularly capitalist society, says we should be happy. If we're not happy, we should endeavour to be happy; we should be striving constantly for it. If we don't, we're letting ourselves and everyone connected to us down.

So we go out and buy self help books which tell us how to be a better person.

I'm going to suggest you don't bother. Because you're never going to change. You're always going to be you, with the same strengths and weaknesses. Stop trying to improve yourself.

Did Einstein come up with his Theory of General Relativity (or whatever its called - I'm not smart enough to remember) after reading a self help book? No. He was a genius probably because of his human flaws.

Forget what everyone else wants you to be, or says you should be. Accept who you are. Allow yourself to be yourself. Even if you are a miserable old git like me.

The Common Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:09:00 +0000

Here's a story for you. I've been told there is evidence for the actual happening of the Jesus that is Christ - that there were multiple witnesses to the Jesus events, whose minor contradictions in their testaments only enhance the idea they were independent-minded individuals.

As Mr A Hitler worked out pretty quickly, people believe what they want to believe. And they are even more likely to do it in groups.

I work in a cinema. A very big cinema. I do mundane crap like sweep up your popcorn and fill your coke cup with coke. When I first started working there, I was surprised to find such a lack of hygiene standards. Actually, nobody had a clue.

Added to this we had a mouse infestation. No big news - any large commercial building in a major city is going to have its share of rodents. But it became a running joke amongst the staff. At one point we had mice eating the chocolates on the shelf behind us, in full view of the customers we were serving.

After a few years I, like the rest, gave up caring. Then one day I get a text from a friend at work - we just served a dead mouse to a customer, in a frozen drink. He'd slurped his way joyfully to the bottom before finding it.

To me, this was no surprise. This was a probability.

The customer complained to the authorities. We were given about 5 days before the health and safety folk would visit. I and others were set to clean the concessions area (for some reason, the place where you sell popcorn and drinks is called concessions) from top to bottom, including the surface covered in mouse shit where the frozen drink cups where stacked. By the time the authorities arrived, whole new hygiene systems were in place.

The management told staff to keep quiet. Our jobs were at risk. The idea that the customer planted the mouse himself was circulated. This idea was so successful that pretty much every staff member became convinced this was the only logical possibility.

Against everything we knew about the place, the story we wanted to believe became virtual fact.

Would Jesus Execute People?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:27:00 +0000

Let's just imagine for a moment that Jesus the Christ actually existed in physical form. I'm no expert in his sayings and belief practices, but I'm pretty sure he was against people taking retribution into their own hands. I'm pretty sure he said something like 'leave revenge to Dad, you worry about your own sinning.'

Now, I was also under the impression the population of the United States was made up mostly of Jesus fans. A country which yesterday killed a woman, Teresa Lewis, for being involved in killing her family. My guess is the most fervently Christian states are the ones which are most for official revenge-killing.

But apparently I'm wrong. The Jesus story can be interpreted different ways, so it's up to the individual Christian to decide for themselves. And we're told we need to religion to provide us with a system of morality? How so, if we're ultimately left to decide for ourselves?

Aside from the religious angle, capital punishment is childish. You know when you were 6 years old and you scribbled on your sister's drawing, so she punched you, so you kicked her in the leg, then... etc etc until your mum had to pull you apart, followed by a lecture on how to behave in a civilised manner?

An 'eye for an eye' is not civilised behaviour. I learned that when I was 6. But it seems in some countries, they never learn it.

Pope Sparks Row

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:00 +0000

The Pope has come to show his very old and ugly mug in the UK. Look how old and ugly he is, here wearing his Santa hat. He says hi, sorry about the child abuse and hopes all evil people get their due punishment. Oh, and by the way, atheists are Nazis (he should know, he used to be one himself).

I'm glad the biggest hobnob of the Christian movement has brought his words of enlightenment to my nation. Things were starting to get a little too clearly thought out, so nice one mate. Glad you could make it.

I'm jealous because life is so simple for the religiously minded...

"Will all the evil people stand to the left, please?! Thanks. Right, that's that sorted. Bring me the anus of a small child..."

Gravity or God?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:48:00 +0000

Stephen Hawking says the existence of gravity means a god is not required to create the universe.

And here is a collection of quotes from those who have reacted to this astonishing revelation (not).

I quite like Lord Sacks "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They are different intellectual enterprises."

It sounds clever, doesn't it?

I had this discussion-argument with a friend a couple of days back. You know the one where the once-religious-now-feeling-enlightened present you with the unoriginal thought, "Science can only take you so far. It doesn't have the answer to everything."

See, it's the recently enlightened who can be the most stupid. What the religious (or even the once-religious) like to do is put science in a box. Preferably, for them, a quadruple-bonded titanium alloy box, buried 2 miles underground and encased in concrete and lead, in case any dangerous ideas seep out and corrupt the old natural order of things (ignorance).

Sorry, you cannot put science in a box (unless you want to re-define the meaning of the word).

Science is everything, I tried and failed to persuade my friend. Certainly, everything that makes us human.

Here is the scene: Hairy human ancestor stubs big toe on rock. Hairy human ancestor is furious. Hairy human ancestor feels the pain slowly subside. Hairy human ancestor looks at rock and wonders. Later... Hairy human ancestor arrives home to find his hairy human ancestor neighbour screwing his hairy human ancestor wife. Our recently-enlightened hairy human ancestor picks up a rock and... thump.

Science.

Fast forward a million years or so. Dirty human peasant screws his dirty human peasant neighbour's wife. On his way back to his mud hut, feeling guilty, a snake bites him on the arse. Remembering what the dirty human peasant with the far-away look in his eyes said about gods seeking retribution in the form of snakes, the dirty human peasant starts believing in omnipotent beings.

Science.

Science is "If I do this then this seems to happen".

Science is also...

"The crops are very dry. We need rain."

"Why does one year it rain every day and then another just sun, sun, sun?"

"There must be something controlling it."

"Like what?"

"When you throw water over the ants nest, who is controlling that?"

"Me."

"When you bring the hot rock from the fire into the hut to warm it, who is controlling that?"

"Me."

"So..."

"There is someone controlling the rain and the sun?"

"Exactly. But who?"

"They must be big to control that much water and that much heat."

"Very big."

"Very very big..."

"What can we do to persuade this very big person to make it rain."

"Remember when Ungu wanted your hot rock for his hut?"

"Yes. My hut was cold that night."

"What did he do to persuade you to give up your hot rock?"

"He let me screw his wife for 2 nights."

"So..."

"We send the very very big person a wife?"

"Exactly."

"I'm happy to send mine."

"I thought you might."

"But how do we get my wife to the very very big person? He must be so far in the sky, even Fumbumbu couldn't jump that high."

"What happens when you burn something?"

"It turns to cloud and goes to the sky. You think that will work?"

"Nah, forget it, I'm just guessing."

"Well, it's worth a try..."

Science. It's just human nature.

If anyone is still reading...

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:56:00 +0000

I happened upon this world clock page. Pretty cool and seems to get people excited when I show it to them. It has a normal clock. But more 'fun' are the ticking stats for things like death by poisoning or the world temperature slowly but steadily rising. For added drama, I recommend you hail nearby friends, family or work colleagues then hit the "now" button. Then cry with excitment, "Look at that - 28 people have been killed in road traffic accidents since I pressed the button!"

It gives you a mild God-like sense of power.

Inner Peace on empty...

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:56:00 +0000

...tried putting Christmas Spirit in the tank but it messed up the engine.

Consider Yourself Re-mortgaged

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:43:00 +0000

As Chancellor Darling, having re-mortgaged the country, sets out his plan for how we're all going to pay it off I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my good friend, the other day.

The poor, naive fella has never had a mortgage and, having also been brought up in a state of Communism, had found himself at the latter part of his fourth decade without experience in the sober business of financing the ownership of a house.

He had heard the term 're-mortgage' bandied about, he told me, by his home-owning friends and presumed it to be sensible management of one's domestic affairs. Namely: find a cheaper mortgage and swap to the better deal. Save yourself a few quid on repayments.

I smiled wryly.

In fact 're-mortgaging', I explained, was the common practice of taking advantage of the bountiful increase in value of the gold mine in which you happen to be living. You buy your 2 bedroom abode for £80k in 1999 and by 2004 it's worth double that. This means you potentially have an extra £80k worth of disposable income. Simply go online, fill in the appropriate forms and await the fat cheque.

Armed with this money, you can act like the stupidly rich for a couple of months - inflating the economy with your purchases of widescreen TVs and 4X4s. When the magic money runs out, you simply wait another few years until your house has added a few more £££s and repeat the process. This is a very reliable system, as the money you pump into the economy creates more jobs and higher wages which inflates the value of your house further.

And now for some post-modern irony: The Western world is populated by people with an unquenchable appetite for things. But those people are too busy playing with their things to actually do anything of value - like, for example, make things.

"But how is this state of affairs sustainable?!" I hear you cry, "if we don't do anything of value, how can we buy the things?"

It's simple - we borrow the money.

"But who will be so stupid as to lend money to a bunch of good-for-nothing-folk who aren't prepared to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay?"

Why, the same people who are making the things. They are obliged to lend us the money to buy their things otherwise there will be no reason to make them.

"That is absurd."

True.

"Who could possibly benefit from such a financial system?"

The people that run the system.

IQ2 Debate- "Atheism is the new fundamentalism"

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:20:00 +0000

I'm A Celebrity's D'Acampo and Manning face Cannibalism charges

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:31:00 +0000

I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here! winner Gino D'Acampo and Stuart Manning face charges of inhuman cruelty after cooking and eating a production assistant in the show.

An SPPA (Society for Protection of Production Assistants) spokesman delivered a written statement claiming it is "not acceptable" that a production assistant was killed and eaten as part of a performance.

The New South Wales Police Department confirmed they had issued court attendance notices for 3rd October 2010.

The Italian chef and actor ate the production assistant after they were "exiled" and reduced to rations of rice and beans on the show.

D'Acampo, 33, told the show's video diary room, the Dingo & Fosters Telegraph: "I saw one of these 'rats' running around. I got a knife, I got its throat, I picked it up."

The "exiled" group, including 30-year-old Manning, ate the production assistant as part of a meal.

Ch Insp Margaret Smithonly, from the SPPA in New South Wales, told BBC Radio 5 live there was a "code of practice" which dictated how production assistants could be used in theatrical productions and films.

"The killing of a production assistant for a performance is not acceptable. The concern is this was done purely for the cameras," he said.

The charity sends staff whenever production assistants are used for filmed or live performances, he said, and so had been in contact with the programme's producers before the P.A. was killed.

"Production staff have to submit a notification form to the SPPA or Assistant Producers Welfare League - both are charged with responsibilities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Production Assistants Act.

"But we received no pre-notice or advice this segment was going to occur, it happened on a day no production assistants were featuring in production, so we didn't have an officer there," he said.

Inquiries were "very much ongoing" and the SPPA was not "ruling out" further charges against the production company ITV, he added.

A spokesman added: "Police from Coughhurumphallgwah yesterday issued field court attendance notices to two men aged 30 and 33 for the offence of production staff cruelty.

"They are due to attend court at Coughhurumphallgwah local court on 3 October 2010."

ITV was unavailable for comment.

No Acting Please

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:52:00 +0000

My friend lent me No Acting Please by Eric Morris and Joan Hotchkis. An interesting read, so far. I think this bit of wisdom might refer to me:

Once upon a time in Japan, a young man desirous of learning the art of the Samurai consulted with the oldest and greatest master of Samurai in the world. He said, "Honorable Master, I wish to become the greatest Samurai in the world. I will study diligently. How long will it take me?" The master replied, "Ten years." The student was shocked. "No, no, Honorable Master, you don't understand. I will live, eat, sleep and breathe the Samurai. I will think of nothing else! You see, I must be great. If I live, eat, sleep and breathe the Samurai and think of nothing else, then how long will it take me?" The Master's answer was, "In that case, twenty years."

Are You Worried About the Large Hadron Collider Creating a Black Hole in the Centre of Europe and Swallowing Us All Into Singularity Style Oblivion?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:06:00 +0000

Relax.

If you watched my Quantum Suicide video which I posted earlier, you'll now have complete, unbaffled understanding of the 'multi-verse' theory of quantum mechanics.

'Hey', I hear you cry, 'how am I supposed to digest my crunchy nut cornflakes in the morning, whilst containing the knowledge that at any nano-second I could squished into much less than the size of an atom (and I'm guessing that has to hurt) because some folks with nothing better to do are meddling with the very fabric of the universe, without even asking us if we minded?!'

I see you're all stressed out. You're muscles are tenses. There's a knot right there in the apex of your neck and your right shoulder. Well, let me give you an Uncertainty Principle massage.

Chill out, man - the universe will just split into two: one where there's a black hole which swallows us and everything else in the vicinity, and one where no black hole was created. Of course, we will only be aware of the non-black hole version of history.

This is why we're never going to be made extinct by a large objects from space crashing into our planet. Because we won't be aware of the universe where we all got wiped out. In fact, there must be a universe where highly evolved, brainy Tyrannosaurus Rexes are stomping around earth worrying about the possibility of impending meteor strikes.

Enjoy your immortality... while it lasts.

Is God Simple?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:23:00 +0000

"Evolution is ruled by a beautifully simple and elegant idea called natural selection; those genes that cause their phenotypes to be passed on get replicated and those that don't don't. The variation in genes is caused by random mutation but the environment determines which set of random variants survives in a non-random way. That's basically it.

God is a supernatural being who lives everywhere and nowhere, who created the universe from nothing, who makes man write contradictory books, causes miracles thus defying the laws of physics, can see into our heads, has created heaven and hell, speaks to special people who pass on his message, makes sure there is absolutely no evidence of his existence and after creating man also created evidence of evolution to trick him into believing that He does not exist.

Is evolution more simple than the God idea?

Yes. I'll take the science over the fairy story any day."

A nice clear statement of disbelief in Gods I found here.