ECHR, Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff, Peter Klevius, Jurgen Habermas - and the incompatibility of sharia with Human Rights

It was wrong and cowardice by the  European Court of Human Rights to (in practice) agitate* for more Human Rightsphobia among muslims. And the reason is what Klevius calls the "Mishal Husain-syndrome"**.

* ECHR hid behind "margin of appreciation" (see below) and utilized some less elegant patterns of speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, hence again blinking the clear connection between islamic teachings and muslim assaults on "infidels" and Human Rights. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff could have got away with calling Mohammad (not to be confused with Mohammad Salman) a pedophile by just saying it in a slightly different way (see ECHR verdict below). So in short, ECHR hid behind multiple barriers: 1) margin of appreciation 2) utilizing clumpsy wording by the accused 3) utilizing a diffuse "the rights of muslims (which muslims? not Mishal Husain I gather - Mohammad Salman?!) to have their religious feelings protected". Moreover, the fact that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Right is the very allure of true evil islam. because it paves the way for allowing open racism and sexism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to say: We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.

BBC's  presenter Mishal Husain says she's a muslim but doesn't follow sharia, i.e. she doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, nor does she use veils or similar muslim attires.  So when she also says "I don't feel any threats against my way of life" Klevius considers it deeply offensive against all those women who have their Human Rights crashed because of muslim sharia.

** "Michal Husain-syndrome" stands for presenting islam and muslims as a Potemkin village, i.e. painting muslims and islam as something true sharia muslims/islam is not. Also compare the evil Saudi "prince" and "custodian of islam" and war criminal etc. muslim terrorist Mohammad Salman who wants to "justify" his Western way of life while calling himself a muslim and utilizing the world's muslims and islam for his hegemonic efforts. No wonder he since many years back has been called the word's most dangerous muslim".

However:

Annual Report on 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, re. sharia incompatibilty with Human Rights:

    Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Three member countries of the Council of Europe have ratified both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration, which is a declaration of Human Rights compatible with the sharia. These countries are Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey. One must add that the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not signed the Cairo Declaration but are members observers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and they have signed the ECHR.

OIC's Cairo Declaration of 5th August 1990 stipulates inter alia that “islam is the religion of unspoiled nature”. It does not contain a right to freedom of religion, does not confirm the equality before the law of all humans regardless of their sex, religion or no-religion, and Article 25 stipulates that “The islamic shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”. In other words," Human Rights can go to Hell" as many muslims write on their posters.

Klevius answer: Only if it wants to be as close to Universal Human Rights as possible.

Dear reader, if you wonder why Klevius doesn't use capitals on muslims and islam - take a look at BBC which doesn't use capitals for Atheism, although the latter is way closer to Human Rights moral than sharia muslims/islam. There are also technical/grammatical reasons but Klevius has no time right now to also explain that. 

 Drawing called 'Human Rights rather than religion' by Peter Klevius 1979.

Many  of the principles stated in muslim sharia contravene the principles which are recognized as Human Rights, and first of all, freedom of/from religion, women's rights and the one way marriage system which leads to ever more muslims through birth (compare Obama who is technically an apostate).

According to muslim sharia, a muslim does not have the right to change his religion to another religion or to Atheism. If he does so, he is an apostate, which generates his civil death (opening of his succession) and deserves a death penalty or in some muslim "communities" just expulsion, condemnation etc. racist/sexist abuse. When it comes to women it really doesn't matter if she is muslim or not except that she under sharia always has to foster the kids to become muslims.

Saudi war criminal "prince" and Mohammad al Issa "reform" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights by demanding EU to condemn "islamophobia" i.e. Human Rights.

  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: On Thursday, 25 October 2018 the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

    I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

    The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

    In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

    This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

    I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

    I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

    Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

    The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

    I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

    It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

    This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.

European Court of Human Rights and its decision which neglects the (negative*) rights of non-muslims to have their feelings protected - or no protection on an equal basis, which still would leave muslims with a problematic (religious) tendency to actively imply supremacy in accordance to Koranic interpretations and acts by Maohammad.

* see Klevius tutorial on Negative Human Rights.

Background: ECHR judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term. The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. Judges cannot hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional relationship with a party. So what about religion?

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.


Decision of the Court

Article 10 ((freedom of expression)

The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.

Klevius analysis of ECHR's ambiguous decision: 

As Klevius has written since the early 1990s, ECHR's main jurisprudential fuse* is the problematic 'margin of appreciation' - see e.g. Angels of Antichrist (1996), several judgements were Klevius has represented the claimant, as well as many of Klevius articles on the subject. And perhaps most importantly, do read Klevius analysis in Demand for Resources (1992:50-51). Here's a short example where Peter Klevius sides with Jurgen Habermas in a match against misdirected state power:

* In Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:43, ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter dealing with science and citations, jurisprudence is pointed out as "the perfect scientific project" due to the fact that it, instead of searching for answers, starts with an already existing answer, i.e. the law. And in difficulties interpreting the legislator most nations ask their Supreme Court which can either correct or send it back to the legislator for a better distinction. However, ECHR's fuse is "the margin of appreciation", i.e. to excuse themselves by referring to national law.

Original Swedish text from Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411):

Jag tar mig friheten att citera några lösryckta men i sammanhanget intressanta citat av Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "Det lidande som orsakas av kontingenserna i ett okontrollerat förlopp får en ny kvalitet i den mån vi tilltror oss förmågan att kunna ingripa förnuftigt i det. Detta lidande är då negativet till ett nytt behov."

Klevius: Denna process, d.v.s. följden av den till synes goda tanken att lägga tillrätta sociala fenomen som betraktas som oönskade, leder till nya, okontrollerade "motsvängningar" som i sin tur kräver nya insatser i en kumulerande, aldrig sinande ström.

Habermas: "Då eftersträvas nämligen överhuvudtaget inte längre en förnuftig konsensus medborgarna emellan om hur de praktiskt skall behärska sina livsvillkor. I dess ställe kommer försöket att på teknisk väg uppnå kontroll över historien i form av en fulländad förvaltning av samhället."

Klevius: Till detta ändamål styckas verkligheten upp i mer och mer sofistikerade utbildningslinjer i vars slutända tjänsteprofilen mejslas fram i symbios och växelverkan med lagstiftning.

Habermas: "Det ena värdets företräde framför det andra, alltså värdets anspråkpå att vara bindande för handling, kan helt enkelt inte berättigas. Ideologikritik på denna nivå bevisar ofrivilligt att en fortskridande erfarenhetsvetenskaplig rationalisering, som är begränsad till teknisk kontroll, betalas med en proportionell tillväxt av irrationalitet inom själva området för praxis."

Klevius: Irrationaliteten yttrar sig rent konkret i att verksamhetens nettoresultat blir negativt (vägt efter de värderingar som initierade processen).

Habermas: "Men eftersom fördomen hämtar sin egenartade objektivitet ur denna sammanbindning av undanhållen autonomi, förnekad frihet och förhindrad tillfredsställelse, kräver en kritisk upplösning av den existerande osanningen, av villfarelsen som substans, i sin tur något som går utöver den förnuftiga insikten. Framför allt krävs kardinaldygden mod."

Klevius: Verksamhetens negativa nettoresultat förnekas med hänvisningen till att verksamheten växt fram som en produkt av dess inneboende välvilja. Att kritiskt granska denna verksamhet blir följaktligen inopportunt (Klevius 1992:50-51).Google translation with just some minor corrections of the worst - Klevius is a lazy (or healthy, as he himself prefers to call it) guy. Btw, who will support a good English (and perhaps other languages as well) translation of the whole tiny book?:
I take the liberty of quoting some loose but in the context, interesting quotes by Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "The suffering caused by contingencies in an uncontrolled process is given a new quality to the extent that we think we have the ability to intervene sensibly in it. This suffering is then the negative for a new need."

Klevius: This process, i.e. the consequence of the seemingly good idea of ​​correcting social phenomena considered unwanted leads to new, uncontrolled reactions which in turn require new efforts in a cumulative, never-ending stream.

Habermas: "At the very least, there is no longer a sensible consensus between the citizens as to how they will practically master their living conditions. Instead there's the attempt to technically gain control over history in the form of a total management of society."

Klevius: To this end, reality is split up into more and more sophisticated lines of education in which the final bureaucratic profile is hammered out in symbiosis and interaction with legislation.

Habermas: "The privilege of one value over an other, i.e. the claim about a value to necessitate action, simply can not be justified. Ideological criticism at this level will inevitably prove that progressive experiential rationalization, limited to technical control, leads to a proportional increase in irrationality in the very field of practice itself."

Klevius: This irrationality reveals itself in terms of a negative net result (weighted by and against the values ​​that initiated the process).

Habermas: "But because the prejudice retrieves its peculiar objectivity from this interlink of retarded autonomy, denied freedom and prevented satisfaction, a critical dissolution of the existing misunderstanding, of the error as substance, in turn requires something beyond reasonable insight - it requires courage (here Google suggested that 'cardiovascular wear is required' - which is indeed an interesting point of view)."

Klevius: The negative net result of the activity is blinked by referring to the fact that the activity emerged as a product of inherent goodwill. Critically reviewing this activity therefore becomes inevitably unwelcomed (Klevius 1992: 50-51).

John Hawks again missed (since 1992 in a book and since 2003 on the web) Klevius' original science contribution re. social evolution of human societies.

Among serious anthropologists John Hawks' blog is the most read while Peter Klevius' blog is the least* read. Why? Is it because of Klevius' "Saudiphobia"/"islamo(fascism)phobia"?

 * So have patience with Klevius self-citations (and do read the chapter Science and References in Demand for Resources) which clearly are more important for general science than for Klevius own satisfaction.

 See Klevius 1992:40-44.

Richard Lee's The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society came 1979 and was the main trigger of Klevius first letter to Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) on the topic and Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources and 1992 book with the same title.

Out of respect and as support for Lee's work Klevius also bought the expensive  Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers (1999), which, of course, was of no practical use for Klevius.

Here's John Hawks recent blog-post:

Hawks writes:

He (Lee) has written an article in this year’s Annual Review of Anthropology that examines both uses and misuses of hunter-gatherer ethnography in theory-building about human nature: “Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old Debates.”

In the introduction to the article, he recounts a story involving his “Man the Hunter” co-editor, the late Irven DeVore:

    Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, a brilliant US legislator in the 1960s and the founder of the scholarship program that bears his name, was just one public figure struggling to come to grips with the import of Lorenz’s theses. I vividly remember the late Irven DeVore coming into my office at Harvard University. “I just got off the phone with Senator William Fulbright calling from Washington,” Devore said. “He asked me ‘Professor DeVore, if Konrad Lorenz is right, how are we ever to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union?’”

    DeVore reassured Fulbright that Lorenz’s views were far from universally accepted among anthropologists, that violence in human history was a variable not a constant, and that its causes and expressions were far more complex than could be explained simply by pure animal instinct.

    DeVore’s disclaimers appeared to calm Senator Fulbright’s nerves, and in fact the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) went on to successfully negotiate a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties over the years. Nevertheless, the question of violence in human history continued to animate the debate within anthropology, fueled by Robert Ardrey’s “killer ape” hypothesis in his books African Genesis (Ardrey 1961) and The Territorial Imperative (Ardrey 1966). Interest was sustained by Napoleon Chagnon’s (1968) influential ethnography of the “fierce” Yanomamo and more recently by the writings of Wrangham & Peterson (1996), such as Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. I have labeled this persistent thread within anthropology and related disciplines as the “Bellicose School” (Lee 2014).

I am spending some time reading this review and taking notes, and it bears close reading. Lee’s theme is that many people who use “hunter-gatherers” as a category are actually lumping things that are quite different from each other. If you want to use ethnographic studies of today’s people to say anything about prehistoric people, you need to understand that any living group may be like ancient people in some ways, and very different from ancient people in other ways.

Klevius writes: When it comes to Konrad Lorentz I share Lee's view - as clearly stated on page 20 in Demand for Resources (1992):

Det finns ett flertal delikata kulturantropologiska fördomar som fått starka grepp på allmänheten. En sådan gäller föreställningen om människans aggressivitet som en oemotståndlig negativ biologisk kraft som måste få utlopp. Att hävda detta och samtidigt förorda kanaliserad aggressivitet i syfte att förmildra verkningarna av densamma innebär i själva verket att man kulturellt skapar och stimulerar beteendemönster av negativ karaktär. Fysiskt våld mot artfränder är liksom utvidgat resursbegär en inlärd egenskap. Den organiserade form av fysiskt våld mot artfränder som krig innebär verkar inte vara äldre än det utvidgade resursbegäret. Troligen hänger de intimt samman.

And translated from original English, i.e. Swedish, to modern English:

There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistible negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channeled aggressiveness for the purpose of mitigating its effects, in fact, means that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely intimately connected.

Demand for Resources by Peter Klevius (1992).

The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
and glorified
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hovering over the future,
are greater (P. Klevius 1992, title page).

"The archeologist of knowledge finds
in his/her digging
often him/herself"
(P. Klevius 1992:7)

The concept of freedom is created,
like diamonds,
only under pressure
(P. Klevius 1992:33)


More from Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411):


So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.

A re-classification of human societies departing from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):

A  Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B  Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C  Civilized with EDFR

These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:

1  The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2  Nomads (A, B, C).
3  Farmers (B, C).
4  Civilized (C).

As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as (wrongly) exemplified by C. Popper's scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development.

 (Implications of this view can be seen in Klevius theory of mind EMAH, The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body "problem" and the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but also betweenhumans and machines).

Here's the last part of the chapter Khoe, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992). 

For those who don't master original English there are some modern English words as well in the text:

I begreppet San inryms de tre grupperna !Kung, !Xu och G!wi vilka alla har egna närbesläktade men självständiga språk. Av dessa grupper är det G!wi som kan antas stå närmast det klassiska samlar/jägarsamhället även om egentligen inga grupper i dag återfinns i de kulturmönster som förekom ännu på 50-60-talet.

En uppskattning av de traditionella egenskaperna i kulturmönstret hos San (konventionellt grupp 1, URB-grupp A) inkluderar frånvaro av domesticering, lös sammanhållning, ofixerad, icke hierarkisk beslutsordning samt i det närmaste obefintlig materiell status (undantag utgör t.ex. jaktvapen och byten före den oundvikliga fördelningen).

Patricia Draper har i anslutning till "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" gjort en undersökning om skillnader i könsroller hos kringvandrande klassiska samlar/jägargrupper och stationära "mångsysslande" !Kung grupper. Hon fann då bl.a. "that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" samt att detta märks genom "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." Hon noterar vidare att "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." Alla dessa egenskaper naggades enligt Draper i kanten hos de stationära grupperna.

En pionjär då det gällde att påvisa hur lite arbete som San samlar/jägarna lade ner på födoanskaffning och boende var Richard Lee som 1963 studerade den bland antropologer numera välkända Dobe Base Camp 12. Han levde med dem, noterade metodiskt allt han såg, mätte och vägde såväl mat som människor, tog tid på allt de gjorde och resultatet av hans, och senare även andras arbeten kan sammanfattas i Marshal Sahlins ord: "If the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." Han fortsatte: "The human condition must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " och vidare "There is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."

I mitten av 70-talet kunde bl.a. Diane Gelburd konstatera att bushmännens liv i Dobe hade ändrat karaktär sedan Richard Lee's fältstudier. Hyddorna var byggda av lera istället för av gräs och stod längre ifrån varandra. En del fick dörrar i takt med att de fylldes med personliga ägodelar. Man byggde stängsel för djuren som man nu införskaffat. Likadant var det med benresterna som tidigare enbart bestått av lämningar från vilda djur men 1976 till 80% bestod av benrester från domesticerade djur.

Samtidigt skedde förändringar i de interna sociala relationerna. Fördelning av tillgångar minskade och formerna för t.ex. äktenskap komplicerades p.g.a. nya, förut okända problem kring egendomsfrågor.

"What explains the shattering of this society"? frågade sig John Yellen från The National Science Foundation anthropology program. Han fortsätter: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." och svarar slutligen: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world."

Till detta kan tilläggas att Khoi och San har levt i flera tusen år sida vid sida utan att de samlande/jagande San blivit boskapshållare. Dessutom har de jordbrukande ochboskapsskötande Bantufolken för åtminstone 500 år sedan invaderat Khoisan?folkens traditionella marker.

Det är alltså något mer som skall till för att knäcka ryggraden på ett typiskt San-samhälle. Handlar det om en kritisk punkt för försörjningsunderlag/befolkningsstorlek? Finns det en nedre gräns för antalet individer i en fungerande samlar/jägarkultur? I vilket skede exakt bryts det sociala immunförsvaret gentemot utvidgade resursbegär ner?

Oavsett om det finns en kritisk punkt eller om det är fråga om en långsamt ökande spänning som efter hand får det ena fästet efter det andra att ge efter så ser vi här uppkomsten av den spricka mellan kulturformer där det utvidgande resursbegäret med varierande framgång slagit rot.

Klevius nominates UK's new £50 note

UK cheat on a note that is doomed to extinction 

The Bank of England is seeking nominations from the public for figures to feature on the £50 note. BBC suggests an upper class French-English Indian muslim. Why? However, Klevius nominates England's football cheater Harry Maguire. It's more in line with the new Brexit UK trying to cheat about keeping UK borders while skipping EU borders.

 English cheating in the World Cup - and in security. Watch up EU! UK's "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, is allied with muslim terrorists and considers basic Human Rights a "terrorist crime".

 UK PM Theresa May shares with the world's most dangerous man the dislike of Human Rights and love for sharia.

Klevius wrote:

From Samba football to flesh football - and from disarmament to a PM that wouldn't hesitate to nuke civilians and whose cabinet is unsure about what's going on in UK chemical weapons plants.

100 kg of England's No. 6 Harry Maguire throws himself pathetically down BEFORE what he thought could have become a touch - but never did!

Football ("soccer" for you handball suckers) is called the beautiful game precisely because it's the most difficult of sports and because it fits every size and form - just like Human Rights equality.

The tendency to use bigger players for the purpose of pushing down technical "samba football" is paired with extreme lenience against "divers". It's destroying football and the cure lies in the hands of the referees and those who educate/program them.

Is Porton Down the center of chemical weapons production in the world? According to UK Government's* own website it possesses more than 1,000 chemical weapons munitions at every single time.

* Do note how the UK Government tries to downplay it by telling "the truth about Porton Down" and that "there are  no aliens at Porton Down".

Porton Down near Salisbury where Novichok has been found among civilians on several locations, occupies 2,800 ha identified as a "Danger Area" .

Humans have died inside Portom Down after experiments with nerve agents. Huge areas of Southern England has been repeatedly showered with dangerous bacteria without people been told. Etc. etc. Look it up!

Animal experiments are generally kept secret. Media reports have suggested they include exposing monkeys to anthrax, draining the blood of pigs and injecting them with E. coli bacteria, and exposing animals to a variety of lethal, toxic nerve agents.

Bruce George, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, told BBC News on 20 August 1999 that:

    "I would not say that the Defence Committee is micro-managing either DERA or Porton Down. We visit it, but, with eleven members of Parliament and five staff covering a labyrinthine department like the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, it would be quite erroneous of me and misleading for me to say that we know everything that’s going on in Porton Down. It’s too big for us to know, and secondly, there are many things happening there that I’m not even certain Ministers are fully aware of, let alone Parliamentarians."

Today with jihad islamic hatred spread by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, the risks are manyfold and growing.

There are thousands and thousands of hateful muslims in England. However, simultaneously there's an alarmingly expanding Human Rightsphobia (because of sharia finance) among politicians which paves the way for even mor muslim extremism.

BBC continues its faking about the islamofascist Saudi "guardians of islam" while simultaneously being complicit to keeping all muslims hostage to the Saudis by lumping them all together in the Saudi anti-"islamophobia" smear campaign..

 Today'smost dangerous  fascism comes from Saudi Arabia - not from Bavaria or Birmingham.

BBC talks long about "islamophobia" and AFD just after having in a couple of seconds reported about the murderous Saudi custodians of islam. How is this not fake news and fascist propaganda. Moreover, BBC has the nerve to call criticism of islamofascism "hate of muslims". Same BBC which NEVER mentions Saudi based and steered OIC's Human Rights violating world sharia. Nor does BBC tell its compulsory fee paying listeners about the selfevident possibility to distinguish between islamofascist muslims and Human Rights respecting muslims. Why?! Simply because that would weaken the Saudi jihad sword - and make it harder to accuse islam critics for "hate speech".

No one accuses "all muslims" for what the evil custodians of islam have been up to. It's just an incidious and sinister lie by BBC to constantly imply so while neglecting the wider context.

And who dug themselves into this Saudi islamofascist mess in the first place? Colonial and imperialist Britain of course.

In 1916, with the encouragement and support of Britain (which was fighting the Ottomans in World War I), the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, led a pan-Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire to create a united Arab state. Although the Arab Revolt of 1916 to 1918 failed in its objective, the Allied victory in World War I resulted in the end of Ottoman suzerainty and control in Arabia.

Ibn Saud (see below) avoided involvement in the Arab Revolt, and instead continued his struggle with the Al Rashid. Following the latter's final defeat, he took the title Sultan of Nejd in 1921. With the help of the Ikhwan, the Hejaz was conquered in 1924–25 and on 10 January 1926, Ibn Saud declared himself "king" of the Hejaz. A year later, he added the title of "king" of Nejd. For the next five years, he administered the two parts of his dual kingdom as separate units.

After the conquest of the Hejaz, the Ikhwan leadership's objective switched to expansion of the Wahhabist realm into the British protectorates of Transjordan, Iraq and Kuwait, and began raiding those territories. This met with Ibn Saud's opposition, as he recognized the danger of a direct conflict with the British. At the same time, the Ikhwan became disenchanted with Ibn Saud's immigration policies and increase in the number of non-muslim foreigners. As a result, they turned against Ibn Saud and, after a two-year struggle, were defeated in 1929 at the Battle of Sabilla, where their leaders were massacred. On 23 September 1932 the Hejaz and Nejd were united as the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (see below).

This development happenedalmost simultaneously with the birth of the British empire propaganda broadcaster BBC. Later on the BBC World Service began in 1932 as the BBC Empire Service.

The old religious "British" repeats itself in the Brexit problem. Religion is a power tool. It's completely irrelevant to talk about individual "believers" "faith" and "prayers", when both the origin of islam as well as islam today is totally in the hands of dictators and politicians hunting for booty with the help of the jihad sword.

British political "logic":

Sharia islam(ofascism) is good for the Brits, as long as it doesn't threatens PM/government/parliament - as it did.

The border between EU and UK should be left open because otherwise it reignites the religious problem that caused it in the first place when the British empire colonized Ireland. What? Did Klevius hear someone repeating BBC's false mantra "it's not about religion"? Of course it is. What else could fuel religion? Individuals praying by themselves?!

 England chose to leave EU while leaving EU's gate open on Ireland. Wasn't the very reason that English voters voted Brexit that they were worried about Merkel's stupid idea to open up for islamofascist immigrants via Turkey?

How BBC brainwashes Brits with faked info

BBC today (via cherry picked "guests") again told the "Brits" about "white anti-immigrant men" who dislike "blacks and muslims". This typical and incidious double talk way of problem formulating monopoly not only seduces listeners associations to innocent and possibly poor or at least pity needing blacks and muslims in general, for the purpose of hiding the real culprits namely sharia islamofascists of whatever skin color.

Most people have never realized the core of original islam - no matter historians have reported about it clearly being robbing, raping, torturing, taxing and enslaving of "non-believers" excused by "Allah"/the Koran and the "last messenger". However, now the islamofascist Saudi dictator family* has made this core extremely visible for even the most stubborn deniers. At least Trump was honest when saying it was all about money. He could have added that the same logic applied to the Nazis and their collaborators. However, islam is much more global than Nazism because islam uses half of the population, women, to reproduce biologically as well as culturally new muslims who are told that the worst crime they can commit is apostasy, i.e. to leave islam. Moreover, this one way system is strengthened by muslim women being forbidden to marry non-muslim men.

* Per definition the concept of the "islamofascist Saudi dictator family" of course only includes the islamofascist members, i.e. not the ones biologically related but opposing islamofascism.

The murderous history of the islamofascist Saudi dictator  family

In 1902, The Exiled Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Saud and his gangsters (the Wahhabi movement) stormed Riyadh and shot and killed the Wali (the governor of the Khilafah:Al-Rasheed) as another gift for Britain. This event marked the beginning of the formation of the pirate kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

1902-1913, After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdul Aziz proceeded, over the following decades side by side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah.

In 1914, Britain started to send a stream of agents (including William H.Shakespeare, Harry St. John Phil by and Percy Cox) to woo and encourage Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman in her task on the Arabian front. Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman’s campaign was one of sabotage and stabbing in the back, it was never face-to-face confrontation.

In 1915 William H. Shakespeare, a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was murdered alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.

In 1915, Britain dispatched another agent by the name of Harry St. John Philby, who soon appeared in full Arab dress on top of a camel with Abdul- Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as a saudi warrior. Philby was called by Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman the “new star of Arab firmament”. Philby in return described Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as the Arabs “man of destiny”ä However, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was the arch political sell-out, many times offering to sell himself to the British. He once said to Philby, “If anyone offered me a million pounds I would give him all the concessions he wants”.

In December 1915 the Anglo-Saud friendship treaty was concluded and made the house of Saud an outpost of the British Empire. Britain was given trading privileges and was superintendent of Saudi foreign policy. A guarantee of British military protection and arms supplies ended the Turkish Ottoman Khaleefah’s authority in central Arabia.

In 1916, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman received from the British 1300 guns, 10,000 rupees and 20,000 gold coins.

1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organized Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of British soldiers succeeded in controlling the whole of Najd and Hijaz.

8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed "king" of Arabia and was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described Abdul-Aziz’s demeaning stature at these meetings “like a naughty schoolboy” in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to draw the frontiers between Kuwait, “Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia”.

1926-1932, "king" Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Ibn-Saud) courted the British unashamedly, showing sublime affection towards Britain’s envoys. He offered to put Arabia under their control. For his loyalty to the British crown, like so many other British agents, Ibn Saud was awarded a knighthood (presented to him by his self-proclaimed “father and mother” Percy Cox) and British documents referred to him as “Sir” Abdul Aziz Bin Saud for many years afterwards.

September 23, 1932 the self appointed "king", Sir Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman replaced the names of Najd and Hijaaz by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.

In 1953, The pirate "king" Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman died and Saud the eldest son of Abdul Aziz succeeded the "throne".

In 1957, "king" Saud made the first trip by a Saudi dictator-monarch to the United States.

In 1962, Saudi Arabia by special request of the British government sponsored an international Islamic conference, which fostered the Muslim World League, which has its headquarters in Makkah.

In 1964, "king" Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz died and Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

"King" Faisal by special request of the British government was a central force behind the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) in Jeddah.

In 1975 he was murdered by his brother Fahd.

In 1975, Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz became "king".

In 1982 he was poisoned by his brother Fahd .

In 1982, Fahd became "king".

"King" Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz was the pirate ruler of the pirate state of so-called Saudi-Arabia until he died and the dement "king" Salman became a puppet for his murderous son who now is accused of having murdered Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate in Europe (Islanbul).

The islamofascist “Royal Family” of Saudi Arabia is the leading champion of all efforts to wipe out and demolish the archelogical history of islam. Najd and Hijaaz were the former names of so-called Saudi Arabia today. The dark history of Hijaaz started with the ruthless, coward, savage and murderous Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud, who established himself as "king" back in 1932.

With the help of the British, Saudi Arabia became the only country in the world named after its dictator.

Peter Klevius theories on Thalamus/cognition and human evolution somehow bypassed John Hawks despite being clearly visible on the web for some 15 years.

 

 Are scientists holding science back? 

John Hawks is described by Wikipedia as the author of a widely read paleoanthropology blog. He is also an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. However, Klevius wonders if he also reads other blogs of importance for his topic? Or is it just that he doesn't like bloggers who defend basic Human Rights? However, Klevius use to read Hawks blog which in many respect is a decent one. However, when John Hawks writes: "Humans, with a rapidly evolving brain and vastly larger cortex, might be just the lineage in which “wrong” connections might have a positive effect once in a while", he would have greatly benefitted by taking Klevius seriously. There can't be "wrong connections" because such a statement is only possible from an outsider's existence-centric (see below) and subjective assessment.

His latest posting refers to a paper by Michael Halassa about the Thalamus, i.e. a topic in which Peter Klevius has been the absolute world leader since 1992-94. In Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411) Klevius laid down the philosophical foundation, and crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.

According to Klevius 1990-92 analysis everything is adaptation. There's no principal analytical difference between how planets adapt to their star or how humans adapt to their environment. And no dude, this is not "simplifying away" or diluting it. When the bedrock of the Indo-Australian Plate met with the bedrock of the Asian plate the landscape was almost flat. However, look at the Himalayas today. Same rock but a completely different appearance due to adaptation.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is why people "mystify" it - from Penrose's hiding in quantum tubulars to Koch's escape into the brain's olfactory channels. The former outside falsifiability, and the latter outside any kind of scientific consensus and, more importantly, clearly related to the fact that brain evolution started as a smell organ adapted to getting food, which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) and among vertebrats connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different and powerful. This is also why claustrum is focused towards the olfactory lobes, i.e. functioning as a "translator" and transferer of these signals which weren't originally connected to thalamus at all.

To prove adaptation (not "mind")Klevius conducted the ultimate experiment (1992:30-33):

Translation from Resursbegär (Demand for Resources 1992 p 32-33).

A critique of Habermas' dichotomy observing/understanding:

Observing a stone = perception understood by the viewer
I observe a stone = utterance that is intelligible for an other person

Although I assume that Habermas would consider the latter example communication because of an allusion (via the language) to the former, I would argue that this "extension" of the meaning of the utterance cannot be demonstrated as being essentially different from the original observation/understanding. Consequently there exists no "abstract" meaning of symbols, which fact of course eliminates the symbol itself. The print color/waves (sound or light etc) of the word "stone" does not differ from the corresponding ones of a real or a fake (e.g. papier maché) stone.

The dichotomy observation/understanding hence cannot be upheld because there does not exist a theoretically defendable difference. What is usually expressed in language games as understanding is a historical - and often hierarchical - aspect of a particular phenomenon/association. Thus it is not surprising that Carl Popper and John C. Eccles tend to use culture-evolutionary interpretations to make pre-civilized human cultures fit in Popper´s World 1 to World 3 system of intellectual transition.



If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experience. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding is merely retrospection.

The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observation of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone, i.e.it's a prerequsite for observation. As a consequence it's not meaningful to separate observation and understanding. This, of course, doesn't exclude "local" (non-analytical) use of the terms in speech and literature etc. for the purpose of catching subtle nyances.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we watch a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think (as a result of our adaptation to the situation), "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it. If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of paper maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

It's almost frightening how often one hears researchers/scientists/philosophers etc. who think they are at least average in intelligence, telling others that "previously we didn't understand what X was", for example that "water consists of molecules and atoms". This kind of schizophrenic "thinking" reflects the depth of the mind/body hoax many are trapped in.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a "real" stone, while the word 'stone' written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts. When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We still act like complex worms, and sophistication is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience (adaptaion) and the overwhelming complexity that appears chaotic. Moreover, a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize (adapt) perception with previous experience. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is huge compared to a grown up. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied (adapted) in a stream of experience, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. Our brain doesn't store information - it kills information. From an analytical point of view "storing of information" is an oxymoron. On top of this, there is a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, "mental" world. Heureka, the baby appears to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of already synchronized (adapted) inputs.

* see "existence-centrism" in Demand for Resources for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!

1994, after having read a paper in Nature about two-way Thalamic communications, in a letter to Francis Crick Klevius presented EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis) as a commentary to Crick's The Astonishing Hypothsesis. Here Klevius connected what he had written already 1990 (and a precursor back in 1981) with a recent paper in Nature about thalamic two-way communication with the cortex.

 A lousy VHS copy of Peter Klevius 1986 refugee video was uploaded 2007 and can be seen here.

Already before that, over a cup of coffee in Finland, Klevius had explained to his slightly perplexed sound engineer friend (who mixed the music in Klevius Saigon video) that Klevius girlfriend (who sat at the same table) was principally not unlike a brick when it comes to consciousness and mind. Tension was released when Klevius added himself and his friend in the same category.

Actually, since 2004 the web has been scattered by Klevius images and text referring to his EMAH theory and human evolution. Everyone the slightest interested in cognition/brain/consciousness and anthropology should have been able to stumble on Klevius.


EMAH has been on the web since 2003 so there's no way paleo-anthropologist John Hawks could have avoided seeing it because when you image google on the two most interesting Homos ever found, i.e. 'floresiensis denisovan', Klevius comes up first. Or just type 'klevius' on normal Google search and see what pics come up.


Peter Klevius EMAH theory:

Peter Klevius contribution to the AI/consciousness debate.

The thoughts below were first presented 1979-81 in an article and correspondence with Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge), and later published in a book 1992, a letter to Francis Crick (Salk) 1994, and on the web 2003.

Evolution means change - a fact missed by many neo-creationists*

* Exemplified with the eager "humanifying" of Neandertals etc. extinct creatures. Or the equally eager (not to say desperate) search for a hiding place where "consciousness" can be protected against de-mystifiers such as e.g. Peter Klevius.


In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.
According to Klevius analysis everything is adaptation. There's no principal analytical difference between how planets adapt to their star or how humans adapt to their environment. And no dude, this is not "simplifying away" or diluting it. When the bedrock of the Indo-Australian Plate met with the bedrock of the Asian plate the landscape was almost flat. However, look at the Himalayas today. Same rock but a completely different and extremely wrinkled appearance and a new name, mountain range.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is how people "mystify" it - from Penrose's hiding in quantum tubulars to Koch's escape into the brain's olfactory channels. The former outside falsifiability, and the latter outside any kind of scientific consensus and, more importantly, clearly related to the fact that brain evolution started as a smell organ which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different. This is also why claustrum is focused towards the olfactory lobes, i.e. functioning as a "translator" and transferer of these signals which weren't originally connected to thalamus at all.

And please, don't get stuck in the frontal lobe just because you find some difference compared to other parts of the brain. The simple reason is just that the frontal lobe happens to be the last expansion in brain evolution and is lacking in non-humans.

The  "mystery" of drivingness - or carness.

An undriving car doesn't move.

A selfdriving car makes intentional decisions based on history and present. These decisions wouldn't be any different with a human driver with exactly the same information available. A surprising looking choice of route may be just based on info npt available for the surprised.

Humans have humanness rather than "consciousness"*

* Humans have skin. So were's the mystery of "skinness"?
According to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2003) humans have trapped themselves in language and have a borderline problem re. what can be said across the border between humans and "the rest".

In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), Peter Klevius presented the following - his own (as far as he is aware of) - original observations re. evolution and awareness/mind:

Existence is change - not creation out of nothing.

Among so called "primitive" societies which had had no contact with monotheisms, the very thought that something could appear out of nothing was impossible.

So why did monotheisms come up with such a ridiculous idea? It's very simple. The racist "chosen people" supremacist ideology created a "god" that was not part of the world he (yes, he) had created out of nothing, i.e. making a clean sheet on which the chosen ones could exist (see the chapter Existencecentrism in Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411).

Culture is that (arbitrarily defined and bordered) part of adaptation that is shared by others.


Warning/advise: To better your understanding of Klevius writings you need to realize that he is extremely critical of how concepts are created and used. Not in a stiff/absolute sense of meaning, but rather how concepts may cluelessly (or deliberately) migrate within a particular discourse. So when Dennet talks about "deliberate design" he contrasts it against "clueless design", although such a distinction isn't possible. Evolution is neither clueless nor deliberate. And whatever we are up to it can't be distinguished from evolution other than as a purely human assessment - in which case it can't include evolution. Only humans can evaluate human behavior, which fact renders such evaluations pointless outside the realm of humans. Getting this seems to constitute a main obstacle in debates about AI and singularity.

This is why Klevius always refers to the individual human's negative Human Rights, i.e. everyone we agree is a human. This is also why Klevius can emphasize the Denisova bracelet, genetics etc. finds in Siberia/Altai as proof of modern humans evolving there (with some help from island South East Asia, not in Africa. Most humans living today would have been incapable of intellectually perform the task because the IQ peak has long since been diluted in the mass of humans. We're all one family of humans but the top of the line of human intelligence was a combination of island shrinking brains and its genetic transfrer to big skulled relatives in the north - as Klevius has pointed out since 2004 on the web.

Peter Klevius EMAH update on "consciousness" 2018: 

Acknowledgement: I've never in my life met anyone who I've felt being more intelligent* than I am. This means I've had no reason warshipping human intelligence. And whole my life I've been told it's unfair that I see things faster and clearer than others - or even worse, that I "turn black into white" (some real idiots from the 1970-80s). But how could it be "unfair" when I can't use it for my own advantage without others sooner or later catching up and shaming me? And when you're in the front line no one understands and therefore doesn't pay you. Which fact has added valuable neutrality and reduced malign bias to/from Klevius' analysis.

* Klevius intelligence was perhaps best described by the Finnish neuroscientist, J. Juurmaa, who in the 1990s wrote: "Peter Kleviuksen ajatuksen kulku on ilmavan lennokas ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs" which translated to English would mean something like: "Peter Klevius' thought process is easily eloquent yet simultaneously concisely punchy." This he wrote in a long letter answering Klevius question about the effects on the visual cortex on individuals who have been blind from birth. This inquiry was part of Klevius check up of his already published EMAH theory, so to get a qualified confirmation that the "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed with other things than vision. Juurmaa's description of Klevius  is in line with philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright's 1980 assessment, and more importantly with Klevius own experience, and perhaps most importantly when assessing AI/deep learning etc.

Only in true science and Human Rights does Klevius intelligence matter. And with AI singularity "pure" science will be dead anyway (although some idiots will never get it). Why? Because human existencecentrism (look it up in Klevius 1992 book pp 21-22) will only follow AI to the point of singularity.

Peter Klevius has - since he at age 14 read Einstein's and Barnett's book - been fascinated with human aversion of checking themselves in the mirror of existencecentrism.

Future democracy will be cloud based and filtered through (negative) Human Rights equality. This means that we get rid of the distorting bottleneck our politicians now constitute.

This also means the definitive end of islam as we know it, i.e. as a Human Rights violating excuse for racism, sexism, and power greed.

It's astonishing how the avoidance of negative Human Rights affects every debate. And most of this is due to our politicians' defense of the Saudi dictator family. Why? Simply because they stand as the "guardians" of islam and 1.6 Billion muslims which are all lumped together and protected by the label "islamophobia" which in fact only protects the Saudi dictator family and those who want to deal with it and its Human Rights violating sharia(e.g. OIC etc).

There's no way to copy a brain without a total break between individuals. That's perhaps one definition of what it means to be a human.

What makes humans individuals (atoms) and robots collective. Robot memories are shared and if you destroy the hardware, the software will still be alive and well.

However, a human individual is extremely vulnerable to individual extinction.

And a "pet" copy is an other individual - although it remembers and behaves like the original.

Peter Klevius in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):

The basis of existence is change, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are reinforced. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. energy equilibrium) where time/change finally ends. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity (Klevius 1981, 1992 - text copied from Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources).

The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH)

by Peter Klevius

1991, years before Crick's book, the original idea was presented for Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's own choice of successor at his Cambridge chair), then published in Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), and 1994 presented for Francis Crick and 2004 presented on the world wide web.

Abstract: Consciousness may be seen as environmental adaptation rather than something "uniqely human". Although neo-cortex constitutes the mass of adaptations Thalamus is the least discussed yet perhaps the most important piece in the "puzzle of mind" due to its central function as the main relay station between body actions, brain and environment. A critical assessment of concepts such as: observation/understanding, mind/body, free will, knowledge and language reveals an inescapable awareness in the Thalamic "meet-puts". In conclusion memories hence may be better described as associations causing linguistic traps (i.e. self-inflicted "problems" produced in language) rather than as distinct entities. The continuity model proposed in EMAH avoids the limitations of a "discrete packets of information" model, and without Cartesian dualism or the Homunculus fallacy.

Note. In some respect the neural network of "lower" systems such as the spinal cord and cerebellum by far outperforms the cortex. This is because of different tasks (fast motorics and slow adaptation) and due difference in processing. (Copyright Peter Klevius).


Introduction

Understanding how social behavior and its maintenance in human and other forms of life (incl. plants etc) evolved has nothing to do with “the balance between self interest and co-operative behavior” but all to do with kinship and friendship adaptation. Everything is "self-interest" - how could it not be? Although humans may be attributed a more chaotic (i.e. more incalculable) "personality", they are, like life in general, just adaptive "robots" (i.e. active fighters against entropy – see Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411). Misunderstanding (or plain ignorance of – alternatively ideological avoidance of) kin recognition/friendship (symbiosis), and AI (robotics) pave the way for the formulation of unnecessary, not to say construed, problems which, in an extension, may become problematic themselves precisely because they hinder an open access for direct problem solving (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist – kinship vs. social state).

Mentalists trap themselves in selfinflicted astonishment over phenomenons they think are beyond determinism. When Chomsky says "there are things beyond comprehension" he should ask himself: Who are you to talk about things beyond comprehension (compare 'existencecentrism' in Klevius Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411), i.e. something that can't be asked - without just pushing the border a little - or rather, just a new comprehensible adaptation. And if it seems incomprehensible, it's no more so than e.g. Donald Duck (see below).


The Future of a "Gap" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Human: What is a human being? Can the answer be found in a non-rational a priori statement (compare e.g. the axiomatic Human Rights individual) or in a logical analysis of the alleged "gap" between human beings and others? The following analysis uses an "anti-gap" approach. It also rests on the struggle and success of research performed in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), automation/robotics etc.

Signal: A "signal gap" is commonly understood as a break in the transition from input to output, i.e., from perception to behavior. Mentalists use to fill the gap with "mind" and "consciousness" while behaviorists don't bother because they can't even see it. A five minute timelaps of Earth spanning 4.5 Billion years would make a very lively planet. However, where's "consiousness" between input (the single frames) and output (the running video)? Or, what/whom should we allow to possess "consciousness"? And if we limit it only to humans we are stuck with it being just a human thing - hence impossible to use in general meaning. An easier way out is to avoid the signal "gap" and call it what it is, a network. But a network that continuously builds new patterns on top of already existing ones. 

Matter: Berkeley never believed in matter. What you experience is what you get and the rest is in the hand of "God" (i.e. uncertainty). This view makes him a super-determinist without "real" matter. Klevius just adds the fact that Berkeley's "God" is truly metaphysical and therefore not worthy of even talking about.

Mind: The confusing mind-body debate originated in the Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into two different substances, which, when put together, are assumed to make the world intelligible. However, on the contrary, they seem to have created a new problem based on this very assumption. But a problem that has become popular among those who want to talk metaphysics, i.e. giving an impression of talking about what can't be talked about.

Free will: Following a mind-body world view, many scholars prefer to regard human beings as intentional animals fueled by free will. It is, however, a challenging task to defend such a philosophical standpoint. Not even Martin Luther managed to do it, but rather transferred free will to God despite loud protests from Erasmus. Although Luther's thoughts in other respects have had a tremendous influence on Western thinking, this particular angle of view has been less emphasized. However, 'free will' can only be used locally.

Future: When asked about the "really human" way of thinking, many mentalists refer to our capacity to "calculate" the future. But is there really a future out there? All concepts of the future seem trapped in the past. We cannot actually talk about a certain date in the future as real future. What we do talk about is, for example, just a date in a calendar. Although it is a good guess that we are going to die, the basis for this reasoning always lies in the past. The present hence is the impenetrable mirror between the "real future" and ourselves. Consequently, every our effort to approach this future brings us back in history. Closest to future we seem to be when we live intensely in the immediate present without even thinking about the future. As a consequence the gap between sophisticated human planning and "instinctual" animal behavior seems less obvious. Is primitive thinking that primitive after all? And isn't 'instinct' just an excuse for ignorance?

An additional aspect of future is that neither youth, deep freezing or a pill against aging will do as insurance for surviving tomorrow. The human individual is lost in a crash whereas the robot brain safely hovers in the cloud - in many copies.


Observation and Understanding (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experience. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding is merely retrospection.

The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observation of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone, i.e.it's a prerequsite for observation. As a consequence it's not meaningful to separate observation and understanding. This, of course, doesn't exclude "local" (non-analytical) use of the terms in speech and literature etc. for the purpose of catching subtle nyances.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we watch a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think (as a result of our adaptation to the situation), "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it. If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of paper maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

It's almost frightening how often one hears researchers/scientists/philosophers etc. who think they are at least average in intelligence, telling others that "previously we didn't understand what X was", for example that "water consists of molecules and atoms". This kind of schizophrenic "thinking" reflects the depth of the mind/body hoax many are trapped in.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a "real" stone, while the word 'stone' written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts. When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We still act like complex worms, and sophistication is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience (adaptaion) and the overwhelming complexity that appears chaotic. Moreover, a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize (adapt) perception with previous experience. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is huge compared to a grown up. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied (adapted) in a stream of experience, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. Our brain doesn't store information - it kills information. From an analytical point of view "storing of information" is an oxymoron. On top of this, there is a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, "mental" world. Heureka, the baby appears to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of already synchronized (adapted) inputs.

* see "existence-centrism" in Demand for Resources (1992) for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!


The Category of the Uniquely Human Category Mistake (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

It's meaningless to state that we are the best (or the worst) humankind. However, category mistakes re. humans and non-humans are still common and many researchers/scientists don't even seem to realize how carelessly they handle this important distinction.

It's equally meaningless to ask what something is that we don't know what 'it' is. 'Consciousness' is easily understood when used in comparison with 'unconcious'. However, how stupid is it when we mystify the term beyond comprehension by squeezing in random additional properties and then ask the question: What is this mystery with consciousness".

A main difficulty in formulating the concept of consciousness is our pride (presumably we should have been equally proud as mice) and our tautological belief in "something uniquely human", However, if we try to follow the die-hard determinists, we would find free will and destiny easier to cope with, and also that the concept of "the unique human being" is rather a question of point of view and carelessly crossing borders of concepts.

Following this line of thought, I suggest turning to old Berkeley as well as to Ryle but excluding Skinnerian Utopias. Those who think the word determinism sounds rude and blunt can try to adorn it with complexity to make it look more chaotic. Chaos here means something you cannot overview no matter how deterministic it is. We seem to like complexity just because we cannot follow the underlying determinism. The same could be said about what it really is to be a human? A passion for uncertainty, i.e. life itself. Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: "... your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

This statement is easy to agree on, so let me continue with another, perhaps more useful, quote from Crick: "Categories are not given to us as absolutes. They are human inventions." I think these two statements create an efficient basis for further investigations into the mystery of thinking. Hopefully you will forgive me now as I'm going to abolish not only memory but also free will and consciousness altogether. Then, I will go even one step further to deny that there are any thoughts (pictures, representations, etc.) at all in the cortex. At this point, many might agree, particularly regarding the cortex of the author of this text.

The main problem here is the storage of memories, with all their colors, smells, feelings and sounds. Crick suggests the dividing of memory into three parts: episodic, categorical and procedural. While that would be semantically useful, I'm afraid it would act more like an obstacle in the investigation of the brain, because it presupposes that the hardware uses the same basis of classification and, like a virus, hence infects our analyses.

The analysis presented here is the result of de-categorization. The only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of nature (and 'nature' includes all artefacts, non-human as well as human ones) is the structure and complexity most (but not all) humans possess. In other words, there's no point at which something "special" happens. This is why Klevius in 1994 said that there's no principal difference between a brick and his girlfriend - which comment rose the eyebrow on his pal who admired Klevius girlfriend.

Instead of categorization, this analysis sees only adaptation to the surrounding world incl. one's own brain, which condtitutes of layers of previous adaptations where the latest one is awareness, consciousness, or the present now if you like.


Nerves, Loops and "Meet-puts" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to Crick, "each thalamic area also receives massive connections from the cortical areas to which it sends information. The exact purpose of these back connections is not yet known." In the following paragraphs, I will outline a hypothetical model in line with this question. The interpretation of the interface between brain and its surrounding as it is presented here has the same starting point as Crick's theory but divides thinking into a relay/network system in the cortex and the perception terminals (or their representatives in the thalamus) around the body like an eternal kaleidoscope. Under this model, imagination would be a back-projected pattern of nerve signals, associated to the original events that caused them but with the signals faded and localized as "internal" based on direction of nerve signals. This view suggests that there are not only inputs and outputs but also whst one might name "meet-puts," i.e., when an input signal goes through and evolves into other signals in the cortex, these new signals meet other input signals in the thalamus.

There is no limit to the possible number of pattern/association in such a system, and there is no need for memory storage but rather, adaptive network couplings. These "couplings," or signal pathways, are constantly running in loops (not all simultaneously but some at any given moment, i.e. e.g. what we call awareness) from the nerve endings in our bodies through the network in the cortex and back again to the thalamus. Of course the back-projected signals have to be discriminated from incoming signals, thereby avoiding confusion regarding fantasy and reality. But this process, though still unknown, could be quite simple and perhaps detected simply based on the direction where it comes from. As a consequence of the loops, the back-projected pattern differs from the incoming signals, or the stimuli. Therefore, every signal from the body/perceptions, hormonal signals and so on, either finds its familiar old route or pattern of association in the network (established/adapted experiences) or creates new connections (new experiences) that can be of varying durability depending on how they settle with older associations. For example, if someone is blind from the moment of birth, s/he will have normal neuronal activity in the cortex area of vision. On the other hand, in case of an acquired blindness, the level of activity in the same area will become significantly lower over time. This is logical according to the EMAH model because, in the former case, the neurons have never become involved in association patterns of vision but were engaged in other tasks. In the latter case, the neurons have partly remained in previous vision patterns, which are no longer in use, while the rest has moved onto other new tasks.

It is important to note that human thinking, contrary to what today's computers do, involves the perceptions that originate from the chemical processes in the body's hormonal system, what we carelessly name "emotions." This, I think, is the main source behind the term "human behavior." The difference between man and machine is a source of concern but, as I see it, there is no point in making a "human machine". But perhaps someone might be interested in building a "human-like machine".


Body vs. Environment - a History of Illusions (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The surface of our body isn't the border of consciousness. A better candidate is the neuronal system/Thalamus.

According to the EMAH model, nerves define our body. Thus, our hormonal signals inside our body can be viewed as belonging to the environment surrounding the nerveous system. As the meaning of life is to uphold complexity by guarding the borders, it's ultimately a fight against entropy. In this struggle, life is supported by a certain genetic structure and metabolism, which synchronizes its dealings (adaptation) with the surrounding environment. Balancing and neutralizing these dealings is a job done by nerves. Also consider Klevius gut bacterias with brain.

A major and crucial feature of this "body-guarding" mechanism is knowing difference in the direction between incoming signals and outgoing, processed signals. On top of this, both areas change continuously and thus have to be matched against each other to uphold or even improve the complexity. According to this model, people suffering from schizophrenia, just like healthy people, have no problem in discriminating between inputs and outputs. In fact, we can safely assume that the way they sometimes experience hallucinations is just like the way we experience nightmares. Both hallucinations and nightmares seem so frightening because they are perceived as incoming signals and confused as real perceptions. The problem for the schizophrenic lies in a defect in processing due to abnormal functions in and among the receptors on the neurons, which makes the association pattern unstable and "creative" in a way that is completely different compared with controlled fantasies. In the case of nightmares, the confusion is related to low and fluctuating energy levels during sleep. However, a frightful hallucination is always real because it is based on perceptions. What makes it an illusion is when it is viewed historically from a new point of view or experienced in a new "now," i.e., weighed and recorded as illusory from a standpoint that differs from the original one. In conclusion, one may argue that what really differentiates a frightful ghost from a harmless fantasy is that we know the latter being created inside our body, whereas we feel unsure about the former.



EMAH Computing as Matched Changes (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

EMAH does not support the idea that information is conveyed over distance, both in the peripheral and central nervous system, by the time of occurrence of action potential?

"All we are hypothesizing is that the activity in V1 does not directly enter awareness. What does enter awareness, we believe, is some form of the neural activity in certain higher visual areas, since they do project directly to prefrontal areas. This seems well established for cortical areas in the fifth tier of the visual hierarchy, such as MT and V4." (Crick & Koch, 1995a,b).  Hardware in a computer is, together with software (should be “a program” because this word signals programming more directly), specified at the outset. A high level of flexibility is made possible through the hardware's ability to unceasingly customize to incoming signals. This is partly what differs human beings from a machine. The rest of the differentiating factors include our perceptions of body chemistry such as hormones, etc. Programming a computer equipped with flexible hardware, i.e., to make them function like neurons, will, according to the EMAH-model, make the machine resemble the development of a fetus or infant. The development of this machine depends on the type of input terminals.

All input signals in the human, including emotional ones, involve a feedback process that matches the incoming signals from the environment with a changing copy of it in the form of representations (or rather adaptations) in the brain's network couplings. Life starts with a basic set of neurons, the connections of which grow as experiences come flooding in. This complex body of neuronal connections can be divided into permanent couplings, the sum of experiences that is your "personality," and temporary couplings, short-term more shallow "memories"/imprints for the time being.

A certain relay connection, if activated, results in a back-projected signal toward every receptor originally involved and thus creates, in collaboration with millions of other signals, a "collage" that we often call awareness. This is a constant flow and is in fact what we refer to as the mysterious consciousness. At this stage, it is important to note that every thought, fantasy or association is a mix of different kinds of signals. You cannot, for example, think about a color alone because it is always "in" or "on" something else (on a surface or embedded in some kind of substance) and connected by relay couplings to other perceptions or hormonal systems. "Meaning" is thus derived from a complex mix of the loops between perceptions and back-projected perceptions. This can be compared to a video camera system with a receiving screen and a back-projecting screen. The light meter is the "personality" and the aperture control the motor system. However, this system lacks the complex network system found in the cortex and thus has no possibility to "remember"/adapt. The recorded signal is of course not equivalent to the brain's network couplings because it is fixed. To save "bytes," our brains actually "forgets" what has been synchronized (adapted) rather than "remember" it. Such changes in the brain - not memories - are what build up our awareness. This process is in fact a common technique in transmitting compressed data. It's also similar to how we first actively learn to walk, and then stop thinking about it.


Short-Term Memories and Dreams (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

At any given moment, incoming signals, or perceptions, have to be understood through fitting and dissolving in a network of associations. If there are new, incomprehensible signals, they become linked (coupled) to the existing net and localized in the present pattern of associations. Whether their couplings finally vanish or stay depends on how they fit into the previous pattern and/or what happens next.

As a consequence of this coupling process - a process that could be described rather as a flow - memories in a conventional, semantic meaning do not exist, because everything happens now. Consciousness or awareness is something one cannot influence, but rather, something that involves an ongoing flow of information to and from nerve endings through the brain (a relay station incl. Thalamus). For every given moment (now) there is consequently only one possible way of acting, i.e. no absolute "free will". One cannot escape awareness or decisions because whatever one thinks, it is based on the past and will rule the future. Memories are thus similar to fantasies of the future, based on and created by experiences. Regarding short-term memory, I agree with Crick's view and hypothesis. But I certainly would not call it memory, only weaker or vanishing superficial couplings between neurons. Remember that with this model, the imagination of something or someone seen a long time ago always has to be projected back on the ports were it came through and thus enabling the appropriate association pattern. Although signals in each individual nerve are all equal, the back-projected pattern makes sense only as a combination of signals. The relay couplings in the cortex is the "code," and the receptor system is the "screen." Because this system does not allow any "escape" from the ever changing "now" which determines the dealings with the surrounding environment. Living creatures develope their software by living.

Dreams are, according to this model, remnants of short-term memories from the previous day(s), connected and mixed with relevant patterns of associations but excluding a major part of finer association structures. This is why dreams differ from conscious thinking. The lack of finer association structures is due to low or irregular activity levels in the brain during sleep. The results are "confused thoughts", which are quite similar to those of demented people, whose finer neural structures are damaged because of tissue death due to a lack of appropriate blood flow. Thus dreams are relevantly structured but in no way a secret message in the way psychoanalysts see them, whereas patients with dementia tend to go back to their childhood due to the irrevocable nature of the physical retardation process. Investigating dreams and their meaning by interpreting them is essentially the same as labeling them as psychological (in a psychoanalytical sense). A better and less biased result would emerge if the researcher actually lived with the subject the day before the dream occurred. Rather than analyzing pale and almost vanished childhood experiences from a view trapped in theoretical prejudices that describe an uncertain future, the researcher should perhaps put more efforts in the logic of the presence.





Donald Duck and a Stone in the Holy Land of Language (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Wittgenstein: "Sie ist kein Etwas, aber auch nicht ein Nichts!" (Phil. Untersuch. 304). Also see P. Klevius' analysis of a stone (in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor, 1992).

Although Wittgenstein describes language as a tool it seems more appropriate to classify it as human behavior. Unlike tools language is a set (family) of a certain kind of bodily reactions (internal and/or towards its environment). We have to reject, not only the grammar which tries to force  itself on us", but also, and perhaps even more so, representations we, without any particular reason, assign to language.

Language is basically vocal but apart from that, little has been said about its real boundaries. One could actually argue that the best definition is perhaps the view that language is human territory. The question whether animals have a language is then consequently meaningless. On the other hand, Wittgenstein denied the existence of a "private language" because applying it could never prove the validity of its products. We are trapped in words and connotations of language although these categories themselves, like language in general, are completely arbitrary "language games," as Wittgenstein would have put it. (no offense, Mr Chomsky and others, but this is the tough reality for those trying to make sense of it in the efforts of constructing intelligent, talking computers). Furthermore, these categories change over time and within different contexts with overlapping borders.

Changing language games provide endless possibilities for creating new "language products", such as e.g. psycho-dynamic psychology. I believe this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he found Freud interesting as a player of such games but with nothing to say about the scientific roots of the mental phenomenon.

Let's imaging Donald Duck and a picture of a stone. Like many psychological terms, Donald Duck is very real in his symbolized form but nonetheless without any direct connection to the reality of the stone. In this sense, even the word stone has no connection to reality for those who don't speak English. Words and languages are shared experience.

It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrive to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of human thinking.

If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interaction with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. Language is a categorizing extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences.

Language has developed from a tool for communication to an additional tool of deception within itself. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) I used the example of a stone that turned out to be papier mache, as well as the word existence which has transformed from emerge to exist, i.e. loosing its root and hence opening up for the question how we can exist.

However, words and language are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories". Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of adaptation to one's environment (in a broad sense of course), i.e. resistance against entropy.



Wikipedia: Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so.
Human language has the properties of productivity and displacement, and relies entirely on social convention and learning. Its complex structure affords a much wider range of expressions than any known system of animal communication. Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language and emotion with signs and symbols.

This short "definition" reveals the meaninglessness of the definition.



It's important to note the difference between everyday use of language, and language used about itself.

What's the difference between an image of a distant galaxy taken via a space telescope, or smell molecules left on a path?

And long before humans realized how nature performs photosynthesis, they already thought of themselves as the masters of Universe.

And unlike what Chomsky and others say, Klevius doesn't think in language other than when preparing to answer someone through language. Is this why Klevius is a lousier talker than most early teenagers who don't have a clue about what Klevius is talking about?

Words constitute rigid traps when compared to free, smoothly running thinking/analysis - unless you're gambling with words, as Freud did while waiting for reality to catch up with his speculations we call psychoanalysis (see Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline.

However, words are also so unprecise that they are useless for construction work etc. where we need math and geometry instead. Words describe what it is and math how it is.

Everyday language needs its greatest asset, volatility, which simultaneously constitutes its main security risk re. faking/misleading communication.

To define it more narrowly, language is also the room where psychoanalysis is supposed to live and work. A stone does not belong to language, but the word "stone" does. What is the difference? How does the word differ from the symbolic expression of a "real" stone in front of you? Or if we put it the other way round: What precisely makes it a stone? Nothing, except for the symbolic value derived from the word "stone." The term "observation" thus implicates an underlying "private language. When Turing mixed up his collapsing bridges with math, he was corrected by Wittgenstein, just as Freud was corrected when he tried to build psychological courses of events on a fantasy of natural science. Wittgenstein's "no" to Turing at the famous lecture at Cambridge hit home the difference between games and reality.

Archetypes and grammar as evolutionary tracks imprinted in our genes is a favorite theme among certain scholars. But what about other skills? Can there also be some hidden imprints that make driving or playing computer games possible? And what about ice hockey, football, chess, talk shows, chats and so on? The list can go on forever. Again, there is no distinguishing border between evolutionary "imprints" (i.e. adaptation) and other stimulus/response features in ordinary life.


"Primitive" vs. "Sophisticated" Thinking (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The more synchronized (informed) something or someone is with its surrounding reality, the less dynamics/interest this something or someone invests in its relationship with that particular reality. Interest causes investment and social entropy excludes investment economy because economy is always at war against entropy. The key to economic success is luck and thus includes lack of knowledge. No matter how well a business idea is outlined and performed, the success or lack of success is ultimately unforeseeable.In Demand for Resources I discussed the possibility of some serious prejudice hidden in Karl Poppers' top achievement of civilization, namely the "World 3" and his and Eccles' assumption of an increasing level of sophistication from the primitive to the modern stage of development. It is of course easy to be impressed by the sophistication of the artificial, technical environment constructed by man, including language and literature, etc. But there is nonetheless a striking lack of evidence in support of a higher degree of complexity in the civilized human thinking than that of e.g. Australian Aboriginals, say 25,000 years ago. Needless to say, many hunting-gathering societies have been affluent in the way that they have food, shelter and enough time to enrich World 3, but in reality they have failed to do so.

Even on the level of physical anthropology, human evolution gives no good, single answer to our originality. What is "uniquely human" has rested on a "gap," which is now closed, according to Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, among others. This gap is presumably the same as the one between sensory input and behavioral output mentioned above.From an anthropological point of view, it can be said that a computer lacks genetic kinship, which, however, is a rule without exception in the animate world, although we in the West seem to have underestimated its real power.


De-constructing the Mind (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A deconstruction of our underlying concepts of the brain can easily end up in serious troubles due to the problem with language manipulation. Wittgenstein would probably have suggested us to leave it as it is. If language is a way of manipulating a certain area - language - then the confusion will become even greater if we try to manipulate the manipulation! But why not try to find out how suitable "the inner environment" is for deconstruction? After all, this environment presupposes some kind of biology at least in the border line between the outside and the inside world. Are not behavioral reactions as well as intra-bodily causes, e g hormones etc. highly dependent on presumed biological "starting points"? How does skin color or sex hormones affect our thinking? Where do causes and reactions start and isn't even the question a kind of explanation and understanding?

Determinists usually do not recognize the point of free will although they admit the possible existence of freedom. Why? Obviously this needs some Wittgensteinian cleaning of language. Unfortunately I'm not prepared for the task, so let's pick up only the best looking parts, i.e. that words as freedom, will, mind, etc., are semantic inventions and that they have no connections to anything else if not proved by convincing and understandable evidence. Does this sound familiar and maybe even boring? Here comes the gap again. Stimuli and response seen purely as a reflex/adaptation is not always correct, says G. H. von Wright, because sometimes there may be a particular reason causing an action. According to von Wright, an acoustic sensation, for example, is mental and semantic and thus out of reach for the scientific understanding of the body-mind interaction. Is this a view of a diplomatic gentleman eating the cake and wanting to keep it too? To me, it is a deterministic indeterminist's view.

G. H. von Wright concludes that what we experience in our brain is the meaning of its behavioral effects. In making such a conclusion that it is rather a question of two different ways of narrowing one's view on living beings von Wright seems to narrow himself to Spinoza's view. Is meaning meaningful or is it perhaps only the interpreter's random projection of him/herself? Is it, in other words, based only on the existence of the word meaning?

Aristotle divided the world primarily into matter and definable reality (psyche). As many other Greek philosophers, Aristotle was an individualist and would have fitted quite well in the Western discourse of today. Berkeley, who was a full-blood determinist, however recognized the sameness in mind and matter and handed both over to "god". Consequently Philonous' perceived sensations in the mind were not directly aligned with Hylas view of immediate perceptions. We thus end up with Berkeley as a spiritual die-hard determinist challenging materialistic humanism.


Conclusion
                                                                            
In conclusion one might propose a rethinking of the conventional hierarchy of the brain. What we use to call "higher levels", perhaps because they are more pronounced in humans, are in fact only huge "neural mirrors" for the real genius, thalamus (and its capability of two-way communication with the cortex and extensions in the cerebellum, spine, nerv ends etc), i.e. what is part of the "primitive" system. In other words, one may propose a view describing the "gap" between humans and animals as a quantitative difference in the amount/power of cerebral "mirroring" and communication with thalamus, rather than as a distinct qualitative feature. Nothing, except our "emotions", seems to hinder us from making a "human machine". And because these very "emotions" are lived experience (there is, for example, no way to scientifically establish what could be considered "emotions" in a fetus) nothing, except the meaninglessness in the project itself, could hinder us from allowing a machine to "live" a "human life".