Sunday, December 21, 2014

Self Programming Programmer of Programs -- Binary Code


METAPHORS AND MODELS: Why does Dawkins seat his metaphor of selfishness (or "behavioral tendencies") in genes, as opposed to organisms, niches, cosmos, or programmers? Dawkins wants to conceptualize genes as replicators, organisms as their vehicles, and cosmic environments as their niches. Yet, he recognizes that MEMES also can be replicators. Presumably, he recognizes that memes can lie dormant in books, until such time as they find suitable minds to serve as vehicles for propagating them. So, what about memes of memes, patterns of patterns, and contexts of contexts? Can an existentially fundamental and clear line really be drawn between a replicator and its vehicle, or between a programmer and its program?

MEASURABLE BEHAVIOR: Dawkins explains how GENES seem to behave mathematically in reinforcing kin selection, AS IF they were purposively selfish. He recognizes that genes are not in themselves conscious, yet they seem to function AS IF they were driven or pre-programmed to exhibit comparative selfishness, based on capacity to preserve survival-machined organisms for paying their genes forward, almost as immortals. He wants to call the language of purposefulness, selfishness, and drivenness as if they were mere metaphors, because he does not consider genes in themselves as "really" being conscious. However, this kicks the can down the road of regress.

SEAT OF CAUSATION: If the gene is unconscious, and the organism does not have free will, and the future is not predetermined, then what does "cause" mean, and where does causation come from? Where do purpose, direction, determination, drive, selfishness, indifference, and altruism come from?

WHY do genes behave in pre-programmed ways? How are the programs preset? How are the programs changed or mutated? If the environment or the context (encompassing and including the program of the gene) affects, programs, and changes the programs of the genes, then is it the environment that is purposive? Is energy emanating from a Big Bang purposive for programming patterns, which in turn program more complex patterns (notwithstanding entropy)?  However, if the quantifiable environment is entirely constrained to unconscious math and statistics, then how can it make sense to conceptualize the environmental context as the purposive programmer? Does originating energy plus entropic expansion necessarily, dumbly, and naturally select for more and more complex replicators of patterns?

METAPHYSICS: Insofar as patterns are manifestations of programs, may there abide some spiritual aspect behind the physical environment, which functions akin to purposively programming consciousness?  Is the Big Bang a physical reality, or a derivative of a spiritually emanating binary code that continuously programs itself in respect of feedback?  If the binary code system of programming is all there is, then how is it continuously programmed and re-programmed -- unless there abides a program self-programmer?

SELF PROGRAMMER OF BINARY CODE: May there abide a spiritual, immeasurable, qualitative, source-essence, i.e., a self programming pre-programmer of constantly-changing programs?  May the building block of the apparent cosmos best be conceptualized as a system of self-programming, that "meta-vibrates" and fluxes to exhibit variously relating, resonating, reinforcing, replacing, renormalizing, reconciling, conserving layers and levels of programs -- all based in binary code?

CAUSE OF BINARY CODE: What could be the "cause" of the binary code that propagates pre-programs, generally? Must the programming be that of a self-programmer? If such an existent is reasonable to intuit, its existentiality abides as a spiritual immeasurable. The self-programming programmer of the cosmic program would be like a spiritually conscious, resonating, guiding God.

CIVILIZING OUGHTS: Dawkins believes human organisms should exercise their capacity to overrule some of the diktat of their "selfish" genes. But why does he believe they SHOULD do so? In respect of what values does he believe they should do so? And to what, if not from pre-programmed diktat, does he believe they should look in order to derive or establish such values? Despite protestations, does not Dawkins, as surely as every other militant scientist, take a leap of spiritual faith, not into science, but scientism?

BUILDING BLOCK:  Ultimately, the building block for our apparent reality seems better conceptualized not as a material particle, but as an immaterial program.  A no-thing.  Not a nature-based gene-meme of natural selection. Rather, a participatory, feedback-based program of self-programming, artificial selection.  Like a mind that changes itself, a program that programs itself.


- GOD: God, as the meta source-essence whose meta-vibrations resonate to define, delimit, and drive us, continues to guide us (has not left the building).
- BUILDING BLOCKS: The ultimate building blocks for all that we experience are programs derivative of binary code --- not any system of material particles-in-themselves.
- SELF WILL: We express localized functions of participatory self-programming (participatory will).
- CIVILIZATION: We carry innate capacity to phase into civilized, empathetic, moral beings that can become aware of self and service to God.
- TRINITY: The upshot of the system of self-programming of programs is to avail expression of self-aware purposefulness (consciousness), measurably physical relations (substance), and rules and equations and sequences for limiting and programming the ranges of their interfunctionings (information).  The trinitarian upshot is Consciousness, Substance, and Information.
- CHRISTIANITY AND RECONCILIATION: In spiritual and moral effect, the consequences seem to mirror most of those of Christianity. The potential worth of the human form, in terms of its participatory freedom and dignity, is respected.  Thus, spirituality and science are reconcilable.
- PROPHECY:  Feedback will continue to be reconciled in the binary code.  The new stabilizing shapes of things to come and when they are to come are beyond the clear knowledge or foresight of any mortal.  At best, we can continue in good faith to try to be receptive to intuitionally available guidance from the Reconciler.  We can temper good faith in good will among ourselves, i.e., empathy grounded in service to the Lord.  In that way, we can seek to continue to establish, communicate, and preserve decent civilization.


Regardless of whatever flux may crystalize out of chaos and into a system of stable complexity, anti-God people would rationalize that such temporal stability was a consequence of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS), i.e., an "unconscious strategy" that just happened to happen "because" of the "selfish behavior" of unconscious building blocks.

The accessibility of math to easy rationalization is a wonder.  Indeed, if all that we experience is derivative of vibrations of a source-essence, then such vibratons would by definition broadcast binary code, such that the expression of every program would conform to a kind of inherent math.  Thus, an anti-God person may ratonalize that "dumb math" is the father of the cosmos.  However, such a rationalization would ignore that the math is mysteriously self-reflective, self-responsive, and self-programming.

Since physical matter does not really exist in itself, space, time, matter, and energy do not really exist in themselves.  What seems to exist in itself is a paradoxically changeless-changer, i.e., a self-programming programmer, i.e., a source-essence that vibrates.  All that appears and seems to be material is ultimately no-thing really physical, nothing more than binary code, programmed to express simulations that are normalized to local interpretations.  Such a self -programming, ongoing, unfolding system of programs seems inherently and qualitatively godlike, rather than "dumb."

POLYTHEISM: What if there happened to abide more than one vibrating source-essence?  If so, to be relevant to one another, they would have to share a potentially commonizing context.  Suppose there are two. That would implicate that a unifying programmer-program were the Author of both.  In other words, that the two subservient source-essences were, from another perspective,  the programs of an encompassing programmer.  Thus, the implication remains:  A singular unifying reconciling source-essence.  Moreover, binary code is binary code.  If the singular Author split into several sub-authors, each would still express itself in code that was ultimately reducible to binary code.  Such code would still give expression to C, S, and I.  The expression of C, S, and I is still the expression of C, S, and I.  Consciousness is Consciousness.  Identity is Identity.  Perspective is Perspective.

REPRESENTATION:  The meta vibrations that inherently express the binary code from which all experience is derived are connected to their source-essence in a self-referential, self-normalizing, self-reconciling, self-programming way.  A binary code of vibrations can represent a form for representing an original idealization of an apparent and measurable thing, but it cannot by itself be the original thing, nor can it by itself be the originating idealizer of the idealized thing.  Math does not exist by itself, apart from a source-essence of beingness.  Indeed, there is no representative conception that can, by and in itself, be a measurable thing.  It can only be a representation that can be conceptually attributed to an idealizer.  The Idealizer itself is a singularity: a self programming programmer; a self-reconciling reconciler of its perspectives of idealization; a source-essence of meta vibrations.  It may be intuited or implicated, as the implicated orderer.  Its purposes may be empathetically interpreted.  But it cannot beyond itself be objectively known or measured.