I really wrote this yesterday.
I spent some time today trying to comprehend the fourth dimension. It's something that heavily interests me, because it should be so easy, but it's completely impossible.
I started reading The Time Machine by H.G. Wells today, and I don't agree with the idea it presents: that we are already in the fourth dimension. It says that there are the three dimensions of "space" and the one "duration." I still think time is something else entirely. Time can not be a "dimension" because no other dimensions could exist without it. It is somewhat of a base of framework upon which other dimensions are allowed to exist. Under the idea that our dimension is the 4th dimension, than the third and second dimensions could still exist, but in a first dimension, there would either be no time or nothing existing in that time. Any kind of existence would be impossible without both. The whole theory seems flawed to me. While reading it, the way it was presented made it seem, at least, plausible, but upon thinking about it on my own, it just seems full of holes.
These thoughts, however, created a completely different string of thoughts on the subject of dimensions.
A couple of years ago, I asked a friend what he knew about the fourth dimension. At one point, he said that anyone in a dimension could comprehend each before their own, but none after; we can't comprehend the fourth dimension, but we can understand the first and second. This would also mean that any living beings in the second dimension couldn't comprehend the third, but they could understand their own and the first.
This does, however, bring up an issue. Would life even be possible in this theoretical second dimension? There is no proof that such life exists, but it would still be possible. We have created artificial life through animation. What are our own lives really, but programmed machines made of parts? Such a machine could still exist in a second dimension, though I imagine they would look quite different than we do. Even if you look at it religiously, why couldn't God create life in two dimensions? Any way you look at it, it seems wholly and completely possible.
Where we can comprehend all of the dimensions before our own, but none after, I believe we could exist in all of the dimensions after our own, but none before. We could not live in two dimensions, because our bodies were made to exist in three dimensions; they couldn't exist without depth. However, though I don't understand the fourth dimension, I don't think it would be completely impossible for us to exist there, or in the fifth or sixth. Our three dimensions still exist, but with a one, two, or three more dimensions tacked on. Under this theory, life in the second dimension would still be able to exist here in the third. Their dimensions -- length and width -- still exist here, there just happens to be another dimension -- depth.
So, if a two-dimensional being were to somehow gain entry into the third dimension, it could still exist, but it would have no depth, making it completely invisible.
Perhaps the second dimension even exists among us; all around us but completely invisible. Within that would be the first dimension. We would be within the fourth, un-mingling and unknowing.
Though that may be a bit of a stretch, I still think that it would be possible for life to live within the second dimension (maybe even all dimensions, for that matter) and for that life to live among us, invisibly. Even if that isn't where they always exist, these two-dimensional beings could be very technologically advanced, and they could find a way to access our dimension. I would like to visit the fourth dimension in such a way.
I do hope human technology will move in that direction someday; toward comprehending and/or viewing other dimensions. It seems to be something we barely ever think about. No matter how long I sit here, trying to comprehend the fourth dimension, I'll never understand it, but that doesn't mean I should forget all about it. If it could be possible for us to exist within the fourth dimension, it is worth thinking about how we can gain entry.
Note: While rewriting this, I had another thought. Basically, the higher dimensions probably think about this sort of thing more and more as the numbers get higher. Any life in the second dimension couldn't notice the pattern of adding perpendicular lines to create new dimensions, because you can't notice any patters between two things. I doubt they would even have any thoughts regarding "dimensions." How would they know? Indirectly, this would probably cause those in higher dimension to be significantly more intelligent than life in dimensions below them. We would probably look like ignorant fools to anyone in the fourth dimension.
I doubt we'll be getting any visits from anyone in the second dimension. They're probably not even as "technologically advanced" as we are. We also couldn't get visited from someone from any fourth dimension, though, because that's not possible. I guess we'll have to just sit here being ignorant, as always.
Jul 19, 2008
Jul 15, 2008
Social Interaction
I've noticed that the more I reject social interaction, the more it seems to find me, and vise versa. I've seen it among other people, as well. It's like if you don't give people the attention they want, they try to get it. I have a feeling that, for me, the fact that I avoid saying anything about myself often give people grounds for making it up in their heads. They think what they want to think and create a person they want to talk to. The fact that I often don't want to talk to them somehow causes a sort of magnetic pull to me.
However, when I am the one wanting attention and social interaction, it flees like a child or a small animal. It's as if people just have these radars that can sense who does and doesn't want to be talked to, and they talk to the one's who don't want to be talked to.
I have a feeling confidence has quite a bit to do with it as well. People are drawn to confidence like mosquitos to bug-zappers, which is quite an accurate comparison, because confidence really doesn't tell that much about a person (Edit: And people can be quite stupid and blood-sucking, like mosquitos). Often, once you get to that bug-zapper of a person, you'll find that it's still very pretty, but it's killed all of your friends.
That last sentence strayed away from my point a bit. It would be an interesting starting point for a story, though. Gah! This post is horrible; it has no organization whatsoever. I didn't even think about it much before writing it. I'm still going to try to save it with a conclusion though! Here it comes:
With specific people, as opposed to groups, the less you show them attention, the more they seek it. This may be because they are used to receiving that attention, or it's just one of their needs as human beings. Either way, when they don't get that attention, they unintentionally try to start conversation. Conversation would be the usual, automatic reaction, though I'm sure there are plenty of other ways someone might act if they don't get that attention through talking -- like a child throwing a tantrum.
However, when you are on the side that is seeking attention -- trying to start conversations or throwing tantrums -- the more the person being shown that attention seems to unintentionally back off. They would rather have the attention of someone who isn't already giving it to them. This often happens with groups as well; if you want to be one of the "popular kids," (I'm not just talking about children, this sort of grouping occurs with all ages, they just refuse to call it such a thing) they're not going to want to have anything to do with you.
I'm sure neither of these types, the givers and receivers of attention, act this way intentionally. They probably don't even realize what's happening. It makes some kind of cycle though, one person giving attention to another who doesn't want that attention so they seek it from someone else entirely who is uninterested in their. . . interest. Wow, good luck with that sentence. My conclusion was going so well, too.
However, when I am the one wanting attention and social interaction, it flees like a child or a small animal. It's as if people just have these radars that can sense who does and doesn't want to be talked to, and they talk to the one's who don't want to be talked to.
I have a feeling confidence has quite a bit to do with it as well. People are drawn to confidence like mosquitos to bug-zappers, which is quite an accurate comparison, because confidence really doesn't tell that much about a person (Edit: And people can be quite stupid and blood-sucking, like mosquitos). Often, once you get to that bug-zapper of a person, you'll find that it's still very pretty, but it's killed all of your friends.
That last sentence strayed away from my point a bit. It would be an interesting starting point for a story, though. Gah! This post is horrible; it has no organization whatsoever. I didn't even think about it much before writing it. I'm still going to try to save it with a conclusion though! Here it comes:
With specific people, as opposed to groups, the less you show them attention, the more they seek it. This may be because they are used to receiving that attention, or it's just one of their needs as human beings. Either way, when they don't get that attention, they unintentionally try to start conversation. Conversation would be the usual, automatic reaction, though I'm sure there are plenty of other ways someone might act if they don't get that attention through talking -- like a child throwing a tantrum.
However, when you are on the side that is seeking attention -- trying to start conversations or throwing tantrums -- the more the person being shown that attention seems to unintentionally back off. They would rather have the attention of someone who isn't already giving it to them. This often happens with groups as well; if you want to be one of the "popular kids," (I'm not just talking about children, this sort of grouping occurs with all ages, they just refuse to call it such a thing) they're not going to want to have anything to do with you.
I'm sure neither of these types, the givers and receivers of attention, act this way intentionally. They probably don't even realize what's happening. It makes some kind of cycle though, one person giving attention to another who doesn't want that attention so they seek it from someone else entirely who is uninterested in their. . . interest. Wow, good luck with that sentence. My conclusion was going so well, too.
Jul 14, 2008
Human Desires
Now might be a good time to type up something I wrote in my notebook about a week ago. It's about level of human desire and how they relate to what I consider to be intelligence. I find myself constantly thinking about it and referring back to it.
So here it is:
The simplest of human beings are the ones with the simplest desires: the ones who only desire sleep, food, and sex. These are the three things that any species absolutely needs to keep in existence. At the next level is the emotions. Not all living things have emotions, but all have the "desires" (if you can call them that without emotion) on the first level. The desires caused by emotions, including the need to love/be loved and the need to protect family, are more advanced than the desires of the simplest humans -- or any creatures, for that matter-- but they still do nothing more than perpetuate a species, and create a multitude of bad movies.
It's those of us who don't sleep, don't enjoy eating, don't have sex and/or, in the very least, push our desires for love and family onto the back-burner, who have the ability to move the species forward. Instead of having the desires of most humans, we get our joy from knowledge, learning, and thinking. Needless to say, those basic desires are still there, they're just not important.
A possible explanation for the lack of interest in the middle desires -- the emotions -- would be how we are raised. If we don't learn how to love and be loved at an early age, perhaps we never will. It may seem like a bad thing, but maybe not. Without those distractions, we are able to think about more worthwhile things.
These are the types of people who I find truly intelligent: those who enjoy thinking and ignoring simple desires.
It's hard to trace exactly what brings us into existence, but we're few and far between. Due to suppressed, or complete lack of, interest in sex, we're surely not going to breed and make more of us. It's the stupid folk who will make millions of stupid offspring. Some things are better in small quantities, though.
Something related I wrote a couple days after:
Everyone seems to at least leak into the middle stage; the emotions. I don't think anyone can be completely in that third level without ending up in a mental home. I think that's the direction I'm headed in.
In retrospect, I think I may have been a tad bit over-opinionated in writing all this. I must have been depressed at the time.
So here it is:
The simplest of human beings are the ones with the simplest desires: the ones who only desire sleep, food, and sex. These are the three things that any species absolutely needs to keep in existence. At the next level is the emotions. Not all living things have emotions, but all have the "desires" (if you can call them that without emotion) on the first level. The desires caused by emotions, including the need to love/be loved and the need to protect family, are more advanced than the desires of the simplest humans -- or any creatures, for that matter-- but they still do nothing more than perpetuate a species, and create a multitude of bad movies.
It's those of us who don't sleep, don't enjoy eating, don't have sex and/or, in the very least, push our desires for love and family onto the back-burner, who have the ability to move the species forward. Instead of having the desires of most humans, we get our joy from knowledge, learning, and thinking. Needless to say, those basic desires are still there, they're just not important.
A possible explanation for the lack of interest in the middle desires -- the emotions -- would be how we are raised. If we don't learn how to love and be loved at an early age, perhaps we never will. It may seem like a bad thing, but maybe not. Without those distractions, we are able to think about more worthwhile things.
These are the types of people who I find truly intelligent: those who enjoy thinking and ignoring simple desires.
It's hard to trace exactly what brings us into existence, but we're few and far between. Due to suppressed, or complete lack of, interest in sex, we're surely not going to breed and make more of us. It's the stupid folk who will make millions of stupid offspring. Some things are better in small quantities, though.
Something related I wrote a couple days after:
Everyone seems to at least leak into the middle stage; the emotions. I don't think anyone can be completely in that third level without ending up in a mental home. I think that's the direction I'm headed in.
In retrospect, I think I may have been a tad bit over-opinionated in writing all this. I must have been depressed at the time.
Idols?
Forget anything I said about children being able to grow into more intelligent human beings because they had a sort of idol to move in the direction of. I forgot that a lot people's "idols," children included because of the way the world is nowadays, are the "popular kids," and the "pretty" people who can attract the most sought-after mate.
On that note, I hate kids' shows nowadays. All of them seem to play off of childrens' admiration of older kids -- teenagers, specifically. Why else are there shows with fanbases in the 6-10 range with characters in highschool? "Highschool Musical" and "Hannah Montana" are great examples. Shows like this don't really teach children anything, they just make children grow up too fast into stupid adults. It's the typical television brainwashing; you need to be beautiful on the outside (Skinny and overly-made up for women, "buff" for men) or no one will love you, and you need to have a mate or your existence is meaningless and full of unhappiness. Children are the easiest to brainwash, since they are still developing and probably haven't learned right from wrong yet.
The sickening part is that parent's don't care because it keeps their kids occupied and "happy," and people making the shows don't care because they're making tons of money. Thus begins the next generation of ignorant masses.
People who grow up watching shows like this and thinking like this never seem to grow out of it. I had a friend tell me, yesterday, that she will always be a little kid because she watches similar shows to the ones above (though they're on Nickelodeon instead of Disney, which I imagine doesn't make much of a difference) and she likes the Jonas Brothers. Ugh. Such "shows" and such "bands" appeal only to the simple desires of human beings.
Now that I think about it, I imagine that Disney movies often had the same effect in the past. There are ones that I like purely because of the wonder and fascination that comes with the animation, or because of some moral involved, but there are some that I hate because they only appeal to the strong human emotion of "love."
"The Little Mermaid" is my least favorite Disney movie. The heroine is stupid and easily manipulated and her "prince charming" is extremely generic. They fall in love in about a day without even speaking to each other. How on Earth does something like that generate a fanbase?
Probably because many women wish they could find love that easily, and these women will never grow out of wanting to be a Disney Princess and find "true love." You never grow out of wanting to be like your idols, and you always have those strong emotions and desires.
I refuse to be lead around by my emotions and desires, and my idols have always been people who I considered to be smarter than me. I hate "pretty" or "popular" popular people. I didn't watch a lot of TV as a child.
On that note, I hate kids' shows nowadays. All of them seem to play off of childrens' admiration of older kids -- teenagers, specifically. Why else are there shows with fanbases in the 6-10 range with characters in highschool? "Highschool Musical" and "Hannah Montana" are great examples. Shows like this don't really teach children anything, they just make children grow up too fast into stupid adults. It's the typical television brainwashing; you need to be beautiful on the outside (Skinny and overly-made up for women, "buff" for men) or no one will love you, and you need to have a mate or your existence is meaningless and full of unhappiness. Children are the easiest to brainwash, since they are still developing and probably haven't learned right from wrong yet.
The sickening part is that parent's don't care because it keeps their kids occupied and "happy," and people making the shows don't care because they're making tons of money. Thus begins the next generation of ignorant masses.
People who grow up watching shows like this and thinking like this never seem to grow out of it. I had a friend tell me, yesterday, that she will always be a little kid because she watches similar shows to the ones above (though they're on Nickelodeon instead of Disney, which I imagine doesn't make much of a difference) and she likes the Jonas Brothers. Ugh. Such "shows" and such "bands" appeal only to the simple desires of human beings.
Now that I think about it, I imagine that Disney movies often had the same effect in the past. There are ones that I like purely because of the wonder and fascination that comes with the animation, or because of some moral involved, but there are some that I hate because they only appeal to the strong human emotion of "love."
"The Little Mermaid" is my least favorite Disney movie. The heroine is stupid and easily manipulated and her "prince charming" is extremely generic. They fall in love in about a day without even speaking to each other. How on Earth does something like that generate a fanbase?
Probably because many women wish they could find love that easily, and these women will never grow out of wanting to be a Disney Princess and find "true love." You never grow out of wanting to be like your idols, and you always have those strong emotions and desires.
I refuse to be lead around by my emotions and desires, and my idols have always been people who I considered to be smarter than me. I hate "pretty" or "popular" popular people. I didn't watch a lot of TV as a child.
Jul 12, 2008
I think most people shut off certain sections of their minds; certain thoughts. More specifically, the thoughts they don't want to think. I prefer to be aware of every side of my brain; every thought and every feeling. I like to let them argue amongst themselves and decide who is right and who's wrong. I'm making this sound like I have multiple personalities.
Childlike Innocence
There is something absolutely liberating about being around innocent people. Whether they're young and stupid, or just stupid, they're ignorant and blissful, and for that, I'm jealous. They can do and say things -- ones that I'd hate myself for saying -- with no problem. Where I'd think I was wasting my time and I should be doing something productive and progressive, they have no problem just having fun and enjoying life while they still can.
It's a completely different lifestyle than my own, at the very least, but I can't say who is right and who is wrong. However, I often get sickened by people's ignorance, and I can't help but think they are the young, stupid child that I once was. Not physically or age-wise of course, but in the mind. I can't help but want people to grow and mature as I have, and I'll always be maturing as well.
There seems to be a point where people stop maturing, however. I don't know for sure whether age plays a part, but I believe this "point of no return," so to speak, is caused by simple lack of motivation. There could be two possible reasons: One, they feel they are old enough to stop growing and have matured as much as they'll ever be capable of (and it probably is, if that's how they choose to look at life), or two, they don't have anything or anyone to grow in the direction of.
If put in either of these circumstances it would still be possible to grow into a more intelligent and maybe even more "useful" human being, but they choose not to in their quest for happiness. I doubt any stop in someone's maturing has to do with thinking they're perfect; we all know we have flaws, but a lot of people, if not most, choose to ignore them. We can pretend that our flaws are unimportant -- something like "If you ignore them, they will go away" -- but they'll always be there if we don't face them. If we acknowledge them, we can figure out how to change them. That philosophy can be applied to a great number of things. Anyway, I've learned that most people, particularly the ones that have hit their "point of no return," don't take it too well when you point out their flaws. Naturally, it's not exactly a nice thing to hear, but if you listen to them, you can use them as a framework with which to improve.
Sometimes it's great to be around people of any age with childlike innocence, and I can't say I'd want them to "grow" out of it. It's nice having people around that can contribute to an overall "happy" feeling in the world. "Childlike innocence" isn't synonymous with "immaturity" in my mind. In fact, I think most people try to "mature" by denying the child in them. I could only see this as a method for becoming unhappy and losing track of what's really important. If the end of maturing is brought on by telling yourself you're done, or not having something or someone to work towards, then those of us who are still children will always mature. Children are always dreaming and imagining who or what they'll be; they allow themselves to learn and (here it is again) grow. When we deny that childlike side, we get stuck in some hideous loop of depression. I, for one, never want to be a part of such a loop. I want to keep being a child. I want to dream, use my imagination, be happy, and grow in all the ways that matter.
Note from the author: I apologize for the horrific redundancy with the words "grow" and "mature."
It's a completely different lifestyle than my own, at the very least, but I can't say who is right and who is wrong. However, I often get sickened by people's ignorance, and I can't help but think they are the young, stupid child that I once was. Not physically or age-wise of course, but in the mind. I can't help but want people to grow and mature as I have, and I'll always be maturing as well.
There seems to be a point where people stop maturing, however. I don't know for sure whether age plays a part, but I believe this "point of no return," so to speak, is caused by simple lack of motivation. There could be two possible reasons: One, they feel they are old enough to stop growing and have matured as much as they'll ever be capable of (and it probably is, if that's how they choose to look at life), or two, they don't have anything or anyone to grow in the direction of.
If put in either of these circumstances it would still be possible to grow into a more intelligent and maybe even more "useful" human being, but they choose not to in their quest for happiness. I doubt any stop in someone's maturing has to do with thinking they're perfect; we all know we have flaws, but a lot of people, if not most, choose to ignore them. We can pretend that our flaws are unimportant -- something like "If you ignore them, they will go away" -- but they'll always be there if we don't face them. If we acknowledge them, we can figure out how to change them. That philosophy can be applied to a great number of things. Anyway, I've learned that most people, particularly the ones that have hit their "point of no return," don't take it too well when you point out their flaws. Naturally, it's not exactly a nice thing to hear, but if you listen to them, you can use them as a framework with which to improve.
Sometimes it's great to be around people of any age with childlike innocence, and I can't say I'd want them to "grow" out of it. It's nice having people around that can contribute to an overall "happy" feeling in the world. "Childlike innocence" isn't synonymous with "immaturity" in my mind. In fact, I think most people try to "mature" by denying the child in them. I could only see this as a method for becoming unhappy and losing track of what's really important. If the end of maturing is brought on by telling yourself you're done, or not having something or someone to work towards, then those of us who are still children will always mature. Children are always dreaming and imagining who or what they'll be; they allow themselves to learn and (here it is again) grow. When we deny that childlike side, we get stuck in some hideous loop of depression. I, for one, never want to be a part of such a loop. I want to keep being a child. I want to dream, use my imagination, be happy, and grow in all the ways that matter.
Note from the author: I apologize for the horrific redundancy with the words "grow" and "mature."
Jul 11, 2008
Introduction
Every good story needs an introduction. If done correctly, this would include a "hook" to draw your attention, a little bit of action to keep that attention, and some information about the setting and characters. I'm not quite sure that suits me, so I think my introduction is going to be a bit different.
Nothing I could possibly say about myself would give any indication of who I am. Vague as that is, perhaps it would make a bit more sense if I said that age, gender, race, species, and any kind of physical appearance whatsoever is irrelevant to me. It is what's inside one's head that truly matters. One's mind, more accurately, since I do not mean the physical parts that make up one's head, but instead the unseen thoughts that we all have, but most seldom use. Telling someone who you are is like smiling for a picture and saying that you were happy when it was taken: you may have been, or you may not have been, but it doesn't really matter. Just show the picture and let it speak for itself, it knows better than you do -- you could say "I was happy," but a picture can say one-thousand words.
My point is, I will not introduce myself; I will introduce my mind. Instead of writing everything I think or believe here in this post, I'll write one line:
"Humanity is a blessing and a curse; the cure and the plague."
It's sitting in a notebook off to my right, all alone on the page. An abstract thought, at best. I'm not even sure what I meant by it. So, I'll leave you to ponder it, and I'll do the same.
All good books have conclusions; ones that refer back to the introduction. My life doesn't have a conclusion just yet, and my introduction deviated from any formal mold. If I've introduced my mind, how do I conclude it? I don't think I'm ready to do that just yet, so I'm going to take out my notebook and let some thoughts take form on it's pages.
Nothing I could possibly say about myself would give any indication of who I am. Vague as that is, perhaps it would make a bit more sense if I said that age, gender, race, species, and any kind of physical appearance whatsoever is irrelevant to me. It is what's inside one's head that truly matters. One's mind, more accurately, since I do not mean the physical parts that make up one's head, but instead the unseen thoughts that we all have, but most seldom use. Telling someone who you are is like smiling for a picture and saying that you were happy when it was taken: you may have been, or you may not have been, but it doesn't really matter. Just show the picture and let it speak for itself, it knows better than you do -- you could say "I was happy," but a picture can say one-thousand words.
My point is, I will not introduce myself; I will introduce my mind. Instead of writing everything I think or believe here in this post, I'll write one line:
"Humanity is a blessing and a curse; the cure and the plague."
It's sitting in a notebook off to my right, all alone on the page. An abstract thought, at best. I'm not even sure what I meant by it. So, I'll leave you to ponder it, and I'll do the same.
All good books have conclusions; ones that refer back to the introduction. My life doesn't have a conclusion just yet, and my introduction deviated from any formal mold. If I've introduced my mind, how do I conclude it? I don't think I'm ready to do that just yet, so I'm going to take out my notebook and let some thoughts take form on it's pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
