Hidden Scrutiny

While young we quickly learn that the answers are in the back of the book, at first only available to the teacher. By the time we attack subjects for which there are no definitive answers available, we've been trained to seek them from the book writers and have a hard time giving up that process. But, what we also fail to realize is the subjects for which the answers were given are also subject to scrutiny.

One Religion Doesn't Cure Another

It's nice to see that at least a couple of 9/11 anniversary events excluded religious themes and speakers. For those who complained, it's obvious that they didn't properly consider the religious zealotry that caused the attacks. To pretend that one form of religious extremism is a proper response to another is not sensible. The outrageous religious beliefs of one group are not a cure for someone else's.

9/11 Anniversay? Meh.

I may be in a minority, but I don't feel anything special about the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I've looked around my own mind and find nothing hidden in any corners or any kind of otherwise suppressed emotions. What I feel can basically be summed up by the commonly used response of "meh."

So, why am I so indifferent? In general, I think it comes down to how society's right-wing fringe elements latched on to the event, infecting it with their fascist attitudes and rhetoric. Trying to see the 9/11 attacks as some sort of universal evil becomes nearly impossible when they so vehemently fuel their hatred and bigotry with the event. It pushes people like myself to the outside of the attackers and those who oppose them in a way that makes them equally unattractive. It's like being asked to pick sides between two street gangs or mob families when you are an outsider to all of them. There is no good choice other than to shun them all.

If people want this event to become something other than an annual and perpetual hatefest, with ignorance and vile rhetoric perpetuating more human suffering and violence, then the prominent parties need to see how they force the rest of us to walk away from the entire thing. Until then, those who have the view of an outsider will see no reason not to remain there.

We Could Do Much Better For Ourselves

I wonder how many similarities there are between what we see as outright corruption and theft (for example, when donated food for the poor is stolen by corrupt governments), and the attitude that rich people in more structured societies have a right to proportionally more stuff than poor people. In both cases, those who have money and power are acquiring more of them while those who need assistance the most are getting less (or none). How can such a system be rationally justified other than to claim whatever system is in place provides divine support for the rules that produce the result?

It may also be that such justifications come from group identity. If a group in power denigrates other groups enough, then it becomes progressively easier to withhold assistance and/or directly steal. This is because if some other group is seen as an enemy in some capacity, there don't need to be any rules and certainly no empathy for that group's suffering.

It seems that those who have money and power justify having so much of each by the fact that they have so much of each. The poor have also earned their place by being poor, in this mindset. Therefore, any action that maintains this setup must be "right" because it is in harmony with this "natural order." We fail to even consider the possibility that these conditions are solely due to our own actions and can change them at will. But, we have this terrible flaw we see coming from some sort of ultimate guidance that allows us to justify the maintenance of a permanent underclass and a wealthy and powerful elite. Until we realize that it doesn't have to be this way, human suffering will always have humanity itself as its root cause.

One, Two, Three...A Lot

Studies have shown us that babies think logarithmically when it comes to figuring out quantities. They do not realize by default that the "distance" between every sequential whole number is identical. For them, the difference between one and two is massively greater than the distance between eight and nine, for example. It's not until children are 2-3 years old that they begin to grasp what we all take for granted, and only after it being drilled into them.

Non-modern societies who do not have any adults who think the way we do about numbers still think logarithmically. They were never taught out of it. They often don't have any words for quantities greater than three or four. They simply lump everything larger into one quantity translated as something like "a lot."

This provides a hint that modern societies have not completely purged themselves of this way of thinking either. We, too, after reaching a certain numeric quantity don't really grasp the reality of very large numbers, even if we do give each a unique name.

If we pay attention--really pay attention--to what our minds do when we are presented with large numbers, we will notice that meaning disappears and an unquantified haze takes over. When we teach ourselves the equidistant digital method of quantifying the world, it still has limits. We don't have the ability to understand these things because, like children, we still hit a wall where everything on the other side of it is simply "a lot." All we've done is move the point after which numbers are all basically identical.

(Another example of this type of mental reaction is when we first encounter a very long word for the first time. The now famous volcano in Iceland named Eyjafjallajokull is a perfect example. Most people will attempt to sound out the first two or three syllables but then give up.)

This is crucial to the way we make decisions about very important things like federal budget deficits and how we understand the distance to the next solar system. This also likely plays a role in the fact that people who commit multiple crimes before getting caught do not get proportionally more punishment than those who break the law once or twice. One hundred counts of dealing drugs does not get 100 times the punishment of doing it once. Killing 20 people is not really seen as proportionally worse than killing two.

Murdering millions is literally incomprehensible. Therefore, many don't even try and might even assert that it is impossible, claiming such things haven't happened at all. This kind of mental activity might also be one of the reasons  that religious believers will dismiss science. If they can't understand it because the details are lost inside that other side of the wall where "a lot" is the only value, there's no reason to accept it. Going with a simple book of easy explanations and magical beings we're not supposed to understand is seen as a valid alternative.

Our minds are wonderful things and can figure out quite a bit. But, we do have limitations and tend to skew reality in favor of easy answers. We need to be diligent about everything we think, trying to pay attention to our thoughts in order to catch those mistakes we accept too quickly and too easily. Evolution isn't done with us yet, so we do have some changes to anticipate. Hopefully they will include mental improvements, including the ability to recognize our flaws more easily.

The Strange Truth

If the adage that truth is stranger than fiction happens to be true, then holding up a religious text along side a quantum mechanics textbook would do nothing to disprove it.

Finding Our Voices

Everyone "hears" voices. Only some of us claim they are from an outside source. Most know it's just their own mind at work. For some, this phenomenon is evidence of dualism and is why some hold their "self" is separate from their body. For others, however, the response is to wear tin hats or clerical collars or create myths.

We Make Our Own Morals

Morality is determined by culture. That's it. There's no more to it than that.

Some people want to claim it is religion that creates morals and without it we have none. Religion is simply one part of some cultures; it doesn't exist in others. It's just one piece of the very complex puzzle of human behavior, and it's never static. That is just the way it is. Deal with it.

For those who want to claim that there is some ultimate moral code handed down from just one of the ancient Hebrew deities, the god in question first needs to show up. Being invisible and only communicating through hallucinations and ghost writers is not anywhere near a valid claim to even consider worthwhile.

In addition, why would it be the case that any creature, deified or not, would have some sort of ultimate (and currently secret) moral code that everyone should support? There's no logical reason to assert that any creature has such a list and that it wouldn't be riddled with flaws that would offend large numbers of other creatures, such as humans.

We have to live with the fact that we are the ones who set our own rules. We create the cultures under which we exist. Any faults found are with us, as are the benefits. There is no group of atheists that advocate or even consider pedophilia as a viable cultural option, for example, even though there are believer types who insist otherwise. These kinds of people also like to claim a moral need for all kinds of information not being examined, such as sex education. Not discussing things is what gets us in trouble. Abstinence-only "education" for kids actually increases unwanted pregnancies. But believers don't look at the results. The only goal seems to be supporting the bad idea that started the idea in the first place.

Information is good--all kinds of information. Myths and superstitions don't qualify, however. We need facts and that requires investigation. If we want a moral code of some kind, maybe that's it: Never believe, investigate--and never stop.

Maybe Size Doesn't Really Matter After All

I re-watched a program recently on fractal geometry and it reminded very much of the idea of "strange loops" in the book I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter I read a few years ago. Both of these look at repeating patterns and what that can mean to various mathematical disciplines. I'm not expert in math, so I don't know if there's a relationship there or not.

In addition, it also got me wondering if there's a relationship between fractal geometry and string theory's idea that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions. In this case, I'm actually wondering if they conflict.

Fractal geometry is a shape that repeats itself consistently throughout, even when looked at in minute detail. The shapes of very small pieces are the same as the larger ones--size doesn't matter. In string theory we throw this idea away and say that when we reach a certain level of smallness, the universe is not the same as it is at larger scales; we not only have different laws in play but more dimensions within which the laws act.

I wonder if it's possible that the unified theory so many scientists are looking for could simply be based on the number of dimensions being used by whatever is being observed (and/or the observer)? Maybe objects that only use (and exist) within "our" three dimensions use one set of rules and objects that exists in any other combination of whatever dimensions exist use a set of rules specific and unique to that combination. It may not be the size of the stuff being looked at that determines the laws under which it exists, but the combination of the dimensions being used by it (and/or who's observing it).

Praying Medically v. Praying Financially

If made to choose between praying for someone to successfully come through a difficult medical procedure or for the bill to be paid, which would a logical person choose? It seems it should be the bill because the patient's outcome still depends on the skill and knowledge of the trained medical team, which remains the same. Unless a random person off the street is handed a scalpel and told to operate, even a believer would be best served by praying financially.

Capitalism and The Stanford Prison Experiment

With the Stanford Prison Experiment in mind, why wouldn't the same attitudes take hold if capitalism is left unregulated? The experiment shows when one group of people is given total control over another, the group in control can't control itself and quickly begins to act horribly toward the other, even blaming the victims for their status and coming up with ways to justify the situation. Being ungoverned means the worst of humanity gets the upper hand and fights to keep it. Those who advocate for unregulated capitalism are arguing in favor of letting the worst of the species be rewarded for that very trait.

Irrational Barking Believers

Trying to get a believer to think rationally is like getting a carnival barker to tell the truth about what's really in the tent.

dee-uh-rif'-ik

New word I've made up (at least I think no one else has claimed this one):

deirrific -- dee-uh-rif'-ik

Any action a believer in a deity assigns to it, even if it's pure evil.

Mental Mismatch

I wonder if a lot of conditions we see as mental problems can be best described as a difference between the view of one's self v. how the society has forced (or tried to force) the person to live in opposition to that view.

As I've written before, I think a great deal of human behavior can be explained with a model that tells us that the human self is made up of everything we accept into it about how we view the universe and our place in it. When that individual self is challenged or voluntarily changed, the person has to go through a process of limited suicide because the self, in its current configuration, is being killed. That goes against a core human instinct, making it very difficult and results in substantial side-effects.

In most cases it is likely that we accept the self we are and, despite a few minor challenges, make due and get on with things. But, what if, for some people, the self never really absorbs the conditions in which it lives. For whatever reason, it just can't make the adjustment and acceptance never happens. The self would be in a constant state of battle with (and within) its conditions. It seems that it wouldn't be too big of a leap to suggest the result could be mental instability.

Metaphorically, it could be like one of the causes of sea sickness where the motion felt by the inner ear is not matched to the stability the eye sees when below deck. The cure is to go above deck and look at the horizon which will provide a visual motion to match the input from the inner ear.

Similarly, if a person can't get "above deck" to match up the view of the universe through the self and the "real" universe, sickness could be the result. Coping mechanisms may be attempted that result in mild bouts of "illness" we might label as quirks or minor mental conditions. But for some people the differences are too great or last too long to result in a self that can function in the society it sees as so in opposition to it. For these people mild coping mechanisms don't work and more pronounced behaviors and conditions come forth.

One of the ways this manifests itself is through the claim of "truth" in a person's or group's view of things. The verifiable universe is somehow faulty and their version is valid because of this special truth which they have acquired. Instead of looking for verification of their view, they look to discredit the verified claims of others, even if it means creating a new version of "truth."

Some of these behaviors are not even seen as problems when they manifest themselves through religious or political avenues. When someone has a view of the world that doesn't match what's really going on, we can end up with extreme personalities coming forward to "make things right." Those with similar mismatched mindsets will join their fight in order to not have to change their self, which would be suicide (at least partially).

When human behavior is views in this way, it's possible to come up with new approaches to deal with this problem, I think. Being aware of what we do and, more importantly, why we do it can only make things better.

Stick To Art

A definition is to meaning as a stick figure is to a full color piece of art.

You Are It

You are the everything contained within it.

The Culture In Communication

I want to share a passage in Women of the Forest, by Yolanda and Robert F. Murphy, an old book I just finished about the Mundurucú people of the Amazon basin:

Sojourners in exotic places become more than mere strangers; they are outsiders and "aliens" in the sense the term is used in science fiction stories. This was our dilemma. We could not speak Mundurucú, and the few people who knew some Portuguese did not like using it. To make matters worse, we could not interpret gestures or facial expressions, and most of the actions of the people around us were without meaning. Indeed, we had entered a meaningless (to us) world, and we would never again underestimate the tyranny that culture holds over our behavior, our sense of self, and our consciousness.

I want to share this because of the conclusion of the passage that culture is tyrannical in its controlling "our behavior, our sense of self, and our consciousness." It makes me think that one of the main reasons--perhaps the main reason--so many people can't (or won't) accept any of the assertions of people with whom they don't agree is their particular point of view that comes from culture in which those views are held and expressed. It seems that unless someone wants to make the effort to incorporate at least a part of the culture of others, any communication will be minimal and has a good chance of being wrong.

Many problems that religious people have with non-believers I think falls within this framework. It is much less so in the other direction because we aren't former believers, we have lived within their society and can't have helped but learned that culture. Life-long believers, on the other hand, have had little, if any, desire or experience in the culture of non-belief. It may be similar to the way a servant or slave knows their master's ways much better than the other way around.

To be fair, many non-believers have a hard time communicating on a believer's cultural terms and using their mores due to a disdain for them, having "been there." But at least they are known. It is common that a believer will refuse to acknowledge the difference and, if so, only work to get the non-believer to move into their culture. Without force, this method has a very low success rate.

Communication Is Never Easy

In order to explain something new it is often necessary to use a metaphor or analogy to something already understood--if the new thing is not understood clearly on its own. If not understood and no connection can be made with analogy and metaphor, then communication fails, either altogether or misunderstanding. When few references are shared across cultures or time, that bridge must be built first in order to communicate effectively and properly.

What's So Good About The Past?

It seems to be universal (or nearly so) that belief systems have as their basis a point in the past where perfection was once found. If not perfect time, then a person or collection of writings that are seen to be so. Whether it is a religion, politics, nationalism, or any other secular "good ol' days" sentiment, the search for truth and a way to improve society through a belief system often comes from looking to the past.

There are at least two problems with this.

1) We know that societies have improved with time. Any serious look at the conditions under which humans live will show vast improvements with time--at least for the majority, on average. (There are, of course, many cases of the worst off of a more recent period being worse off than some of those who lived previously, and vice versa.)

2) It includes the idea that all changes from the designated historical point in time are not desirable. To assert that no new information or better methods can be discovered is ludicrous. Plus, the promoted view of the past in question is often a lie or just plain wrong. There is often not enough information to make such determinations and motivations by the current promoters that make the assertions untenable.

"We think we actually understand things only when we have traced them back to what we do not understand and cannot understand - to causality, to axioms, to God, to character."  -Georg Simmel

Musical Cosmos

Music is the universe...it contains beauty, math, meaning, motion, emotion, has time-suspending ability, love, joy, ability to affect physiology, soothes, etc. It is with music that one's mind--one's self--becomes easily aligned with happiness. There are so many cases where people of all intelligence levels will appreciate and envelop themselves in the same piece of music as if there were no differences between them. The different paths to this place are minor differences that mean little once there. 

Those who don't feel anything from music might be categorized as deficient in more than a trivial way. It could be a type of sensory deprivation like color blindness, a loss on a level we don't admit or even recognize.

All things are scooped from a cosmic bowl that could be described as filled only with music.