..out of the dark

But to do that, we first need to examine one early human being running in the forest. He cannot speak more than a few words, his jaw and cheek- bones are particularly pronounced, he has a running style that is a forward lurch, with the arms acting as supports for avoiding low obstacles. His brain is the size of an overgrown broccoli, and he is using all of it to assist him in moving quickly under the thick forest panoply.

And he does it by predicting his next moves, and so make use of his limbs and body in the most efficient way. He has, however, done this before, and knows the forest, so he can move with seeming ease. He knows what soft patches look like, he knows what a rotten branch looks like without studying it up close, and how thick and resistant various types of brush and branches are. And he also knows how high he can jump, and how far ahead he can reach - and he can then predict what he can do to maintain his speed.

He then, after returning to his cave, thanks the spirits of the forest for granting him protection and foresight.

I shall now take a look at how far humans have evolved.

Let's examine a human sitting behind his computer, moving about the internet jungle. He or she cannot type more than a particular amount of words, but they are sufficient to explain their immediate thoughts. Their brain is the size of a rotten cabbage, and they're using it all to assist them in dealing with the vast wealth of information available.

For that purpose, this human employs prediction. In order to accept the information seen, it must be categorised and processed. And so it is filed down in ways that allow their brain to remember the important things and forget the less important ones. And in doing so, the human gains knowledge and skill in further predicting what is actually going on.

He then logs off and thanks the powers that be for granting them insight and wisdom.


What exactly, then, is the difference between the first and the second example? It is this: in the first example the early human takes information out of his environment to assist him in reaching his target. In the second, the less early human tries to make sense of all the information around him, by predicting the relevant aspects.

And let me just say from the outset that there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so. But the question we have to ask ourselves is if the methods we use for gathering evidence are sufficient. And for what purpose we are gathering information for.


In this roundabout way, we then come back to wondering about conspiracy theories. It's been a hobby of mine for a while to examine them, and it's for this reason: they say something about what sort of predictions we make. Just as an example - what sort of thinking is behind the idea that all the government is doing is perfectly orchestrated and completely controlled? It's not difficult to understand. What is the thinking behind vast government conspiracies to keep information secret? It's not difficult to explain that either. Because both rest in the belief, or perhaps hope, that government is so great, impenetrable and functional that it can control just about every aspect of people's lives, the nature of truth, logic and the laws of physics. Even though of course the state is dependent on people in it to function, and for those people to realise their "potential" under the organising umbrella.

Nevertheless, what is interesting is how the conspiracies about all- powerful leaders and the behemoth state keep turning up in oppressed societies with strong tribal ties and separated ruling elites and a large uneducated population - like in several middle- eastern countries and the US, for instance.

What exactly to read of that? Is the conspiracy theories about powerful but hidden shakers and movers an expression of fear and powerlessness? Is it an expression of respect for power and order, and a wish to submit to it's enigmatic rule?

Is it an expression of a wish to become part of the great project, that has purpose and direction? Or is it simply an expression of how stupid, simple and dependent on paternal leadership we have become, for all our imagination and progress in the various sciences? Or can we simply describe it all as painting a picture of what the unknowns in a society is, and what it seeks?

And with particular focus on government, that is the most immediately available interpretation. Because it's simply not so easy to discount that the size of the conspiracies very often do not depend on the imagination of the conspiracy theorist (everyone has an imagination, after all) - but instead on the lack of knowledge that is available to them. And so it's more important than anything else to examine, again, what 1. the purpose of filling the gap is. And 2. what the methods used are. As well as 3. the context these questions are asked in.

Because in doing so, we will extract important and useful information, from sheer insanity.

(^^ that's the profound bit, see?)