Whose rights are human rights?

Marriage is a relation between a man and a woman who aim to give birth and foster children. Human rights are the rights of both men and women as normal humans. The creatures who are neither men nor women must have their special rights. It is not a human right to be a non-human, or a homo-creature.

The basic right of any living creature is a right to live. The homo-creatures have a right to live too. But, from the fact that a tiger has a right to live does not follow that the humans must live together with tigers. Similarly, from the fact that the homo-creatures have a right to live does not follow that normal humans should be persuaded to live together with them. When I am persuaded to work in an office together with a homo-creature that demonstrates (to wit, propagandizes) its unnatural sexual predispositions, or when I am persuaded to watch such creatures on TV, or read about them in magazines, I treat this as a rude violation of my human rights.

Would anybody like to meet the tigers every day in the streets of our cities? I don’t think so. When found in the street, the tiger is compulsory moved to a zoo or savanna. Similarly, I do not want to see the homo-creatures in our streets. The homo-creatures have to be compulsory moved to some places too. Let it be some city, some enclosed territory, or even an island. Another basic right of all living creatures is a right for self-organization with formation of societies. Therefore, let the homo-creatures have their own government, own laws, police, courts, and army. Let them have their own television, own internet and other media.

Such segregation is vitally important because, by living among normal humans, homo-creatures endanger the whole of human society. Once upon a time, the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were incinerated for debauchery. Therefore, I do not want the entire human society to become the victim of creators’ anger on one fine day (by “creators” I mean the ancient geneticists/selectionists for whom we should be grateful for not being ape-like anymore, and who told us to breed and multiply).

If the European Union wants my country, the Ukraine, to become its member someday, the homo-creatures have to be necessarily segregated from normal humans.

With due respect to all living creatures,
Serge Patlavskiy

Posted in Science | 1 Comment

Do you believe in Life after Birth?

I would like to tell a parable. Two embryos (a believer and a non-believer) are residing in woman’s womb and arguing with each other.

Non-believer: “Do you believe in life after birth?”
Believer: “Of course! It is something standing to reason, and everybody knows that there is life after birth. And we stay here just to become stronger and to be prepared to live after birth.”

Non-believer: “It’s a rank nonsense! There is no life after birth at all. Are you able to imagine how the life after birth can look like?”
Believer: “Well. I cannot say to know all the details, but, as I believe, there will be more light, happiness, and we will be able to eat with our mouth.”

Non-believer: “But it’s ridiculous! We have a navel string and it feeds us. As to the life after birth, nobody has yet returned therefrom! The life just finishes at the moment of birth.”
Believer: “Yes, I do not know how the life after birth will look like, but at any rate we will be able to meet Mother, and she will take care of us”.

Non-believer: “Mother???!!! Do you believe in something like Mother? And where does it reside?”
Believer: “But She is everywhere! She is around us! Due to Her we live! We are nothing without Her!”

Non-believer: “Unmitigated nonsense! I have never seen any “Mother”, therefore it is obvious that she does not exist.”
Believer: “No, I do not agree. Sometimes, when it is quiet around, we can hear how She sings, and can feel how She strokes our World. I do believe that our true life will start only after birth!”

But what about you, my dear reader? Do you now believe in life after birth? If you do, then why not for you to believe in life after death as well?

Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy

Posted in Science | Leave a comment

What we are studying when studying consciousness?

To approach the central problem of consciousness from the position of natural science properly, we have first develop and apply proper methods of study and means of formalization. We should not forget that in case of consciousness, we simultaneously use our consciousness as a tool and as an object of study.

I hold that both “the nature of the world around us” and our consciousness obey the same fundamental natural law. This means that we can know about the outer world through studying our consciousness. This also explains why the very process of cognition is possible, or why we are able to perceive the elements of outer world. For instance, the notes C, C#(Db), D, D#(Eb), E, F, F#(Gb), G, G#(Ab), A, A#(Bb), and B form a 12-tone row, or a chain of sounds. On the other hand, the process of thinking also presumes formation of the chains of integrated information systems. That is why we are able to perceive not only the sounds (as physical signals), but music as such. And that is also why music can “play” in our head, so to say. And that is why we feel uncomfortable when we hear the gamut that misses any sound, or some sound is not the one that has to be there.

In fact, the formulated above is the Second basic idea of my meta-theory (http://generaltheory.webs.com/GeneralTheory.pdf  Section 2.6). The first one states that Reality can be explained in its all complexity (together with all phenomena and processes that belong to it) in case we will use the methods (laws) of Physics together with the methods (laws) based on the idea of integrated information system. The third basic idea addresses the question of relation between Phenomenal Reality and Noumenal Reality (see ibid., Section 4.2). In simple terms, it examines to which extent the model of Reality we form due to conducting the process of cognition corresponds with Reality as it exists objectively and independently of the process of cognition.

By the way, I am looking for a person(s) who is not able keeping long time the focus of attention on some performing action. Simply speaking, I mean the persons who (being absent-minded by their very nature) can quickly forget about what they are doing now, and start thinking involuntarily about something else. I want to suggest them to replicate an experiment on calculating the length of veritas chains (see ibid., p.46-47). To do science means doing experiments, doesn’t it?

Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy

Posted in Science | 15 Comments