Sunday, February 28, 2010

Protect Our Self By Categorizing Others

In one way or another we tend to remove from our lives those we can't categorize. In everyday ways we simply do not associate with anyone we can't tag. On a societal scale, we put people away in institutions, jails, ghettos--whatever. If someone has a mental state (not defect) or physical difference that we can't accept, we remove them from our "field of vision" in order to keep our categories of humanity intact and unchallenged.

These things can include simple attributes or complex ones, it doesn't matter. To challenge our view of the world and the places and ways in which we divide it--which is an attack on our 'self'--is a challenge that is avoided because to take it on forthrightly would be a losing cause in maintaining our current 'self' and we can't often risk a loss so grand. It would be too devastating. It would be making one's life up until that point meaningless.

Everything we have learned and attached to our sensory input and the results of contemplating that input is who we are, largely. By attaching our 'selfs' to that 'result,' we therefore must protect it in order to protect our 'self.' Otherwise, it is very much like commuting suicide.

Friday, February 26, 2010

"Special" Rights

During Reconstruction after the end of the U.S. Civil War, President Andrew Johnson was presented with a civil rights bill giving blacks “the same rights of property and person” as whites. He vetoed this bill based partially on the idea it would give blacks extra rights not afforded to whites. From A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner:

"Somehow, the president had decided that giving blacks full citizenship discriminated against whites--'the distinction of race and color is b the bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.' Johnson even invoked the specter of racial intermarriage as the logical consequence of Congressional policy."

Fortunately, the Congress voted to override the veto. But Johnson’s mindset could easily be paralleled to those protesting equal rights for homosexuals. The similarities are striking.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Hearing Lyrics As An Instrument

When listening to music, how many of us hear the lyrics as simply another instrument, not really taking in the meaning of the words as language? If a person takes in the lyrics--even being able to sing along --but when the song's over not even know what meaning the words would produce if spoken directly, how would that condition be categorized? Is it a condition at all?

Giant Leaps Forward: Zero and Atheism

The mathematical concept of zero and atheism, two seemingly unrelated steps in the evolution of human knowledge, are interesting to ponder together in order to give a unique insight into both.

Before zero was realized as a valid concept in mathematics, the ability to make discoveries and interpret the universe was severely hampered and flawed. The use of zero was a major breakthrough in understanding. The concept of nothingness also eventually led from accepting there must be some sort of god(s) to the advent of atheism, a position of non-belief in the existence of any deities.

The concept of non-existence has ironically propelled humanity forward on multiple levels as two giant leaps forward for humankind.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Choose To Think

Thinking and believing are mutually exclusive. Choose wisely.

Giving Up A Belief Is Too Risky

Why is it that people will disagree with scientific evidence, even when there is near universal consensus among scientists on a given topic?

This basic question was looked at in a recent paper available through The Social Science Research Network. Although this paper, "Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus," did not look at religion specifically, its findings are likely closely related to religion, too.

Looking to verify what has been known as the “cultural cognition of risk,” the paper’s conclusions assert that “individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept as a result of a cultural availability effect that influences how readily they can recall instances of expert endorsement of those positions.”

In other words, a person is likely to accept assertions by those people who already agree with them, or are seen as culturally close in some fashion. If the majority of “experts” a person is exposed to espouses a certain position, they will tend to agree with it, even if those “experts” compose an extreme minority.

“If individuals more readily count someone as an expert when that person endorses a conclusion that fits their cultural predispositions, individuals of opposing cultural outlooks will over time form opposingly skewed impressions of what most experts believe. As a result, even when experts by and large agree, individuals of diverse world-views will disagree about the state of scientific consensus,” the report concludes.

This idea that people will more easily accept “expert” opinion that is already close to their own opinions is not new. But what is interesting is that this study looked specifically at positions considered risky--climate change, nuclear power and gun control. From a certain point of view, religious belief can also be seen in terms of risk--in an afterlife.

In some religions the risk is one of eternal punishment or banishment. In others it’s a reincarnation scenario where a person could return as a “lower” form of life, for example. If an expert opinion is interpreted as putting the religious believer at risk for a painful or otherwise less-than-ideal afterlife, the expert will more than likely be dismissed; the expert’s opinion is too risky to accept, given the believer’s cultural point of view.

This, of course, is likely the seed for the Pascal’s Wager argument, which basically asserts that the risk of not believing is too great, even if there is no god to believe in. If this study’s conclusions can be applied to religious beliefs--as seems likely--then we now have an wonderful scientific hint at what’s going on in keeping believers believing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to those beliefs.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Sign Of A Dive

Why is it that an elaborately beautiful lighted sign for a reputable establishment can suddenly denote a sleezy dive when just one letter burns out?

Friday, February 19, 2010

Delusions And Collateral Damage

Like oil and water, believers in different gods and dogmas just don't mix. It's too bad that the rest of us have to be collaterally affected while their delusions create chaos.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Truth Tips The Scale

A tipping point will eventually be reached on all positions when pursuit of verifiable truth is not included within it; the position will eventually collapse when too many objections based on facts tip the scale.

How To Quickly Lose IQ Points

Too many IQ points? Think Republican.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

The Public Would Help If Things Were Fair

If laws and law enforcement were reasonable, police would get vast amounts of help from the public. As it is, they don't, which is a serious sign that laws and their enforcement are out of whack.

Old Self vs. New Self

When learning something new that challenges someone's current "self," a state which is based on past knowledge, the new knowledge can be ignored if the old "self" wins in its attempt at self-preservation.

All Goals Are Moving Targets

In pursuit of any goal a wall is reached at some point. Even if the original goal is met, that goal has likely changed during the pursuit of it. If it changes to something more difficult or more grand, the goal keeps moving away. If it changes to something less difficult or easier, the original goal has been abandoned. If the goal just changes, again, it's not met.

In any of these cases the goal is not achieved. Even when a goal remains constant during its pursuit somehow, the moment it is reached it is a catalyst for something else...either to do it again or do something different. The tie between that original goal and the new one is a moving of the original goal, even if it didn't exist until the moment the original goal was met. The connection is just a great as if it had changed before being met.

Re-search And No-search

Think of the term research as re-search, as in searching again or continuously. That is science--looking for the best answer with the newest information. Think of religion as no-search, as in giving up and not looking for answers other than what ancient hallucinators happened to write down.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Melodies As Everyday Speech

The other day a woman died who was the last speaker of what could have been the world's oldest language. Called Bo, this language could be up to 70,000 years old by some estimations. The woman, named Bo Sr, lived in India's Adamans region among other people who also speak ancient languages.


Bo is a very melodic and enchanting language, as if the person is singing. And that raises an interesting idea. What if the earliest languages were innately musical? One of the things we know is that people can recall a song much more easily than other spoken material. An old memorization trick is to put the text to music, singing it.

Could it be that musical languages began to fade to more monotone alternatives after the invention of writing? When things are written down, there is less need to memorize them. Before writing it would be necessary to pass on everything verbally, and if the language is melodic, the ability to remember what is spoken accurately and completely increases dramatically.

It causes one to wonder if we ultimately lost something extremely valuable in the development of writing, offsetting a good portion of the gain.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Disability Protections For Believers

A strong belief in the literal existence of a god could be grounds for legal disability protections.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Secret Body Reactions

Our bodies and minds aren't so separate as many people think. The mind is only a word for one part of the body about which we have the most awareness and have bothered to name. We are way more complex than that. The inputs we receive and reactions we produce are not so simple and awareness of them is not always picked up by what we know as the mind. Some parts of the body seems to keep secrets from the rest of it.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Perceptions Are Necessary But Never Accurate

Is there a separation between 'you'--however its defined--and your thoughts? (real or perceived).


From my point of view there is no difference to be made. We are a single biological entity with electrical impulses and chemical reactions as the engines of our selves (two words on purpose). Other than personal assertions made by individuals, there is no evidence that we are anything more. We don't have anything separate from our bodies and the things going on inside them. We can and do react to outside forces, but those reactions are still contained within us and are not acting upon any separate-ness we might feel.

There is a range of perceptions among different people that something "extra" is there, but it's only a result of the reactions of the human body. It can sometimes be helpful to some people to create a model of their self that includes a separate entity of some kind in order to have things make some sense. But an acceptance of a model, even one that "works" for the individual, is not an accurate reflection of reality. It's a tool and need not be accurate to be useful in some ways. (I would argue that this kind of tool ends up being detrimental if fully investigated and, if used exclusively, will produce all kinds of paradoxes and inconsistencies that will bring it crashing down.)

There is an interesting book that covers some issues relating to this point. It's called I am a Strange Loop, by Douglas Hofstadter. In it he puts forward the case that our existence requires these perceptions to emerge in order to simply survive and make sense of the world around us. It doesn't mean they are true in and of themselves, but they are a byproduct of human-ness. (I am paraphrasing, of course.)

What we are, in one sense, is a temporary congealing of matter and energy not able to properly interpret its surroundings due to its built-in limitations.