Sometimes what people call depression is some cross between ‘an elephant never forgets’ or pike syndrome, and some laziness mangled with a nonchalance and extreme reverence and a fear. That is a gunpowder mix that could cause an implosion into nothingness—a voiding.
You may have heard that people could be infected while presenting no symptoms: the asymptomatics. But, what if it were the case that some, if not all, got a false positive from the test? That, in truth, they were negative, but tested positive in fact. A simple way to then explain the incongruence of the resulting non-presentation of symptoms, would be to tag the fortunate subjects asymptomatic—carriers. Double check? Take appropriate safety measures, should(n’t) they be again tested; perhaps at a different location and using a different make and brand of equipment and/or method. What are the relative costs and risks? Someone suggested that a significant proportion of the infections recorded for political office holders were of this kind. A ruse? Not improbable, at worst.
Reflecting on why a new variant of the infamous entity that caused the dis-ease, which marred social dancing in 2020, emerged towards the end of the year. It seems plausible—at least not entirely implausible—that, since, apparently, its emergence coincided with some period of vaccine trials …, that it was the product of virus/vaccine research gone awry, or the response of infected persons that had been ‘trially’ vaccinated, …. Because, apparently, the virus had lived without evolving a kin or dialect for most of 2020, until …. And, apparently, the new variant is localised. God knows how this dialectal continuum emerged.
Users and computers in an enterprise IT system are monitored for performance, (in)security and auditing purposes. And as we’ve seen and heard, users in social media platforms are similarly monitored.
A user, in sharing information—whether public or private—on the platform, has also shared information with an unseen ‘friend’. This friend, the platform’s self, mines and processes users’ information and generates ‘knowledge’ that may be used to monetise users’ use of the platform.
Users are provided facilities to do their jobs, and they get paid for doing so. But the users in the Facebook ecosystem, for instance, have no share of her profits. They should perhaps just be grateful that they have facilities to do their jobs or pass their time.
Imagine what might happen if the users go on strike for 6 months…? Or all resign at the same time?
When it seems like a science result is about providing proof for commonsense; this would be bad if it was that we needed proof of commonsense in order to regard or appreciate it. But then, it is good to get some scientifically originated affirmation of sense that should be common: to see the science of the sense.
When the results of a scientific investigation contradicts true commonsense, they may tell us that it is counterintuitive, trying to overlay our doubts with grammar—semantics. But commonsense ought not be conflated with intuition, even if their outcomes might be similar.
So, if a ‘scientific’ result contradicts true commonsense, then, the investigation probably got something wrong, somehow. But then we know that the scientific method, which is a very commonsensical process, is very much involved in the identification of sense that we can make common.
Scientific results and associated recommendations do not always align on the same issues. That’s part of the beauty of academia. In cases like these, some people take sides, assuming different opinions.
It is interesting to think of personal science: my science versus your science. This thought coming from arguments about the relativity of truth and morality: ideas that speak of truth as truths that may vary from person to person — that my truth about a certain issue could be different from yours.
For differing ideas on the same issue and in the same domain to be true at the same time, however contadictory, truth has to be personal. In the same vein, for contradictory scientific opinions to be valid at the same time, they have to be personal. But in the case of science, this sounds particularly funny — almost unscientific.
Some insanities come with this phrase: “the data says so.”
But data cannot speak
Human beings do
Maybe that’s not a fair analogy, but it is an interesting thought that Google apps would make fantastic viruses and spyware.
For one, you don’t need them to act like part of the operating system (Android) but they do anyway.
You can disable some of them though, but you do not get the option to uninstall them like regular programs. Not unless you root your phone, which voids your warranty. (Very convenient for phone manufacturers, I suppose.)
It’s interesting that Microsoft and Linux give you root privileges to your own computer. But for your ‘security,’ more likely the security of Google’s business, root privilege has to be wrestled from Android at potentially great expense. Google’s Android seems to give the user the ‘barest’ minimum of control. Like when task manager (on Windows) is disabled by a virus.
Then you notice that Google Play Services updated itself in the background without the option to give it the permission to do so. (Of course it is not the only culprit.) That’s classic virus/spyware behavior — doing interesting things under the hood.
You boot up the phone for the first time and you are asked to acknowledge (setup) the presence of Google. Then her apps encourage you to leave your door open in order to enable a better service experience for you. In real life, this is not smart.
(It’s okay that we have nothing to hide, but our private parts are still private parts. We might choose to bare almost all on the beach, but we leave the beach where it is when we leave it. It seems like several app builders just want us to live life fully as on the beach — for the convenience that that would provide them.)
Then, was there ever a sudden realisation that your phonebook was backed up to your Google profile for your convenience. That’s okay if you don’t mind. But was this feature on by default? You probably told it to. There are settings choices that the make easy to make, and may be useful. There are also menacing default settings, particularly those you cannot change (like the compulsory background updates using your data), or the option to change is blurred or discouraged (placed at the bottom of a scrollable menu, or ‘dehighlighted’).
In summary, it is possible, perhaps easy, to view Google’s Android as a hijacked opensource operating system. It’s just about their business though; nothing personal. (The article in the following link highlights the business: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/). It doesn’t seem like things have changed.
So I’m beginning to think that it is in the interest of the public, national security, and basic human rights, that Google’s Android come with root access provided, and better, easily accessible user control of access to the private. And if Microsoft lost an antitrust case, should Google not lose one too.
From information theory, we might want to say these things relating to life, nature, and society. Each thought has significant consequences.
Wherever there is change, information has been generated or effected. This is the establishment of purpose and meaning, since a destination becomes implied by change, or because of it.
E.g. Movement (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual …).
Every change is a cause. And we change as we move, exercise, take action, make action….
Change, or information, does not have to be perceived for it to exist. However, that it exists should mean that it is perceivable.
E.g. The cycle of cell replacement in the body. Healing and repentance. Impression of righteousness, faith, hope, love….
A state of constancy (like a change with difference only in time) is itself information: speaking either of a powerful inertia, or of a balance of influences. Constancy tells one that another can be trusted to be/do ….
E.g. Attitudes and character. God. Commonsense. Physics. Satan. Chemistry. Fidelity. Biology.
If an apparently random system, or system far from equilibrium, continuously produces information, then over time, that system will arrive at an equilibrium position or system (even if complex).
E.g. The development of the United States. Origin of the world. Rockefeller’s increase in wealth. Socialism. Scientology. Increase in people giving away their virginity during their teenage years. Gluttony in food, drink etc. Divorce. Social organisation ….
The big bang was said to have launched our reality about 14 billion years ago. At its start, the universe was far from equilibrium and there was a lot of uncertainty. Over the years, patterns towards balance (equilibrium) developed and resulted in what we perceive today: interconnected spots of certainty.
From seeming randomness to seeming organisation, that is the story of the evolution of human society.
If we describe information as a reduction in uncertainty, we can say that the ‘big bang’ and its evolution to our current reality was, and produced, a massive stream of information.
We may indeed read some things from our considerations of it.
If in some way we can feed a system information, so that it produces information in a way that we would like, then we have determined a hopeful end.
And if we perceive correctly, the information we are producing as a society, we would better be able to tell where we might end, and perhaps also, what information to imbibe in order to modify the pattern of change that trails our information generation.
Gregory Bateson would say that information is the ‘difference that makes a difference.’ So we could say/see that judges in shows like Xfactor, Project fame, et al, receive information from the differences created by the contestants’ performances and some reference points. And there are differences between the differences so that they have information to receive and judge.
You have received something from every difference that makes a difference to you: information.
Practically, judgement is information processing information to produce information. And a lot (if not all) of the manifestations of self (behaviour) come from previous judgements. So that change is possible with the right information processed correctly.
A bit more technically, information is the reduction in uncertainty. This is easy to picture: how certain are you that what he meant to say by what he said, was what you interpreted from what you heard. The larger the reduction in uncertainty, the more information you received (as opposed to noise, or confusion), and the more correctly certain you (think you) are.
To have information is thus to have accepted certainty about a particular reality or perception.
There is a mantra that says something like, ‘get feedback to get clarity.’ Indeed, the main reason for feedback is to ensure the correctness of our eventual perception cum certainty. Fundamentally, we seek feedback for certainty. This is important because certainties are at the core of our psychology, hence, of our experience of reality, and behaviour.
To summarise: information gets transformed into our certainties, and our certainties result in our behaviour. Every movement is motivated by information, and produces information. And every action, tangible or otherwise, is a statement of certainties.