ESP, Magic Thinking, and brain waves.

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Magic Thinking:

Not just ... but ESP, are included in the 'wishes come true' category.
Blü

If brain wave synchronization isn't ESP I would like to hear your definition of it.

Musicians sync up brain waves all the time and can even link with an audience. If you don't think a string quartet is mentally a single unit, which frequently involves an entire chamber audience, maybe you better go to a chamber concert some time. In larger venues it is harder to sync up, but it occasionally happens. I once was in a performance of the Missa Solemnis for 2000 people in Carnegie hall that for a moment had 2500 people believing in life after death. As a performer I could feel the energy from maestro, the rest of the chorus, orchestra and the audience all feeding off the Et Vitam fugue."

This was Robert Shaw conducting the New York Choral Society substituting for the hospitalized Bob DeCormier. The whole performance was magical and the melding with the audience was frequent but in the Et Vitam Venturi Saeculi, Amen (And the life in the world to come, So be it.) fugue the Maestro had everyone in the hall on the tip of his baton believing in the music if not the words.

I don't know how much of the Mass Beethoven believed in if any, but in the Missa Solemnis he certainly did his job as a musician and made the whole Mass believable and involving. In a good performance I would expect that a good Catholic or Lutheran would be in communion with God for the entire performance and beyond.

Do Parents Matter?

Do Parents Matter?: Scientific American:Interview with Judith Rich Harris:
"It’s no longer enough to show, for example, that parents who are conscientious about child rearing tend to have children who are conscientious about their schoolwork. Is this correlation the result of what the children learned from their parents or of the genes they inherited from them? Studies using the proper controls consistently favor the second explanation. In fact, personality resemblances between biological relatives are attributable almost entirely to heredity, rather than environment. Adopted children don’t resemble their adoptive parents in personality. I’m not particularly interested in genetic effects, but the point is that they have to be taken into account. Unless we know what the child brings to the environment, we can’t figure out what effect the environment has on the child."

"That’s the puzzle I tackled in No Two Alike. The expanded version of the theory is based on the idea that the human mind is modular and that it consists of a number of components, each designed by evolution to perform a specific job, and that three different mental modules are involved in social development. The first deals with relationships, including parent-child relationships. The second handles socialization. The third enables children to work out a successful strategy for competing with their peers, by figuring out what they are good at."

I find this fascinating in that Harris is most interested in the school environment and how it affects children. She seems to be saying that as parents our choice of schools, and the peer group that the child is a part of in the school is critical. The good news is that kids with good learning genes and good parenting will probably join the "value learning group" if one is available, the bad news is that if there is also a "goof off group" or if the goof off group is dominant in the school parents had better be aware of which group the kids are in and be prepared to take appropriate action to encourage proper group selection.

If I were more actively involved with small children both of these books would probably be on my hot shelf. She seems to be a bit of a contrarian which of course appeals to me. And the fact that social scientists jumped on the heretic bandwagon with respect to her books early and often is a great recommendation. I may have to put the books on the read someday list just for that reason, even though I am well beyond the need for guidance in the small child rearing area. By the time the GGs come around I will be irrelevant.

Can Boomers find a community on the net?

uuworld.org : the promised land is under your feet: "Novelist Wallace Stegner was a close observer of American culture. He once observed that people in this country can generally be assigned to one of two categories: “boomers” or “stickers.” He lamented that the former—folks who with very little forethought will pull up stakes and head for the latest boomtown—were becoming increasingly dominant. Modern society, Stegner complained, schools its citizens in discontent and encourages us to “get up and get out.” The itch for greener pastures or greater adventure—symptomatic, perhaps, of an unresolved frontier fixation—is one we just can’t resist scratching. But, Stegner wrote, “Neither the country nor the society we build out of it can be healthy if we don’t stop raiding and running and learn to be quiet part of the time, and acquire the sense not of ownership, but of belonging.”"

There are very few of us who can find what we need for personal fulfillment if we become "Stickers" for the sake of sticking and building and maintaining a community. The school to meet our aspirations may be across the country or around the world. The job we have prepared for may not be in the same community as the school where we learned our trade. Then we grow in our trade and outgrow the job that started our career, or our significant other may have outgrown the community we live in and another community change is in order.

Friends and associates in our monkeysphere also scatter so even if we would like to be stickers, the rest of the community isn't and we are stuck with a bunch of new neighbors, new industries, and even a bunch of new people in our church. that may change it beyond our comfort level.

There may still be a few communities where sticking is a possibility, but they are rare and the vibrant cutting edge industry that is a necessity for such a community, works against the stickers maintaining a stable community.

Where are we to find our roots? Is it possible that soil and bricks are no longer necessary for rootedness, but that the nascent communities on the internet will become the new roots for the boomers? Is facebook our new village green or post office where we get our daily social strokes? Are blogs the coffee houses where we share our profound ideas with like minded profound thinkers? Is our little piece of the net the new community where the boomers are rooted? I think so. There will still be meet ups and face time but they will be increasingly mediated on the net, and with few exceptions community roots in jobs, churches, and neighborhoods will be non-existent.

Secular Ethics

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Why does anyone believe in G-d?:

Primates have evolved in social groups where unethical behavior will normally result in the exclusion of the unethical individual from the social group. In general exclusion from the group is a death sentence unless the individual can find another group which will accept herm. Primates are generally smart enough not to repeat the unethical behavior in a new group.

Humans like other primates conform to the ethics of the group they find themselves in. These may be religious or secular ethics depending on the group. The major difference between religious and secular group ethics is that religious ethics customarily have a way to repent or repair ethical transgressions. Confess your sins or nail them to the cross if you are Christian and all is forgiven.

Expiation for secular ethical transgressions is much more difficult and involved. Serious secular ethical faults may involve the legal system and expiation may involve incarceration, or even execution. Less serious transgressions can result in expulsion from a social group, loss of job, or in science loss of credibility and a resulting inability to publish. But in general in the secular world there is no way to simply repent and have people say OK you can rejoin the society. At the very least there will be a long probationary period where all ethical behavior will be scrutinized closely to determine if membership in the society will be permitted. Although ostracism is not generally fatal in the modern world, it nevertheless is a very serious issue for most people, and ethical behavior according to the ethics of the chosen group(s) is of paramount importance.

Validating emperical observations

Beliefnet Community > Thread - How do creationists explain black people.:

Can you please explain to me how it is possible to validate any empirical observation without employing such metaphysical axioms?

Empirical observations are validated by consistency with other empirical observations which may be of a similar or relevant nature. If one for example makes the empirical observation that young children in learning how to separate self from other will frequently be unable to distinguish between living others, inanimate others such as toy animals, and mythical others like Santa Claus, or the Wizard of Oz. One can validate this observation by observing the child interacting with living others that hesh may not have met previously, a new inanimate toy, and a new myth like God. The fact that God is as real in the mind of the child as the living stranger validates the observation that until a certain age children have a concept of self and other, but the other may not be differentiated.

Playing peek-a-boo with a stranger may be just as enjoyable to the child as having a jack-in-the box pop up. God saying no may be just as frightening to a child as Mama saying no.

Eventually children learn to differentiate the other into classes with varying levels of importance and authenticity. Toys become inanimate objects of some degree of importance and closeness, but recognized as toys. Myths and stories are recognized as such, again with varying levels of authenticity and importance as educational sources. Other people are differentiated into classes with varying levels of authenticity and authority. But even adults may attach undue importance to certain inanimate objects and myths which become idols that distort their outlook on reality.

A ia A

Beliefnet Community > Thread - How do creationists explain black people.:

A is A, and A is not non-A.

Can you please explain to me how that purely metaphysical axiom is somehow untrue?

As with many metaphysical axioms the problem is not that it is untrue. It is just that it says nothing meaningful about A. Everyone from Ayn Rand to theologians to idiots can start with A is A and puffing up their chest say A is obviously A and then go on to bloviate about all sorts of things that must be necessary about A just because A is A.

God is God. God is not something other than God. No problem at all. Absolutely a true statement. But adding a simple property to God, for example God is God and therefore God exists because God can not be a non-existent God, since God cannot be not God, moves beyond metaphysical truth to gross speculation, theory or theology, which of course are equivalent.

Metaphysics in the modern world is not untrue it is just useless.

Well, not really useless, one can spend may enjoyable hours discussing whether Kant's noumenal ontology trumps Hume's empiricism and whether Aristotle is even relevant today, but one must be aware that in metaphysics like theology faith trumps truth. And one must not confuse the two from either side of the discussion.

Altruism

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Question about atheism:

I think I read it first in Heinlein but the definition “Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.” has no altruism at all in it. It is a purely selfish definition of love. My problem with altruism is that most definitions insist on self denial as a necessary condition of altruism.

If your child can see the parade better by standing on your shoulders, and shares herm excitement with you are you denying yourself enjoyment of the parade by standing back where you can’t see but where you and your child are safe from jostling by people trying to get close enough to see for themselves? Are you being altruistic by sharing the parade through the fresh eyes of your child? No way! What could be more selfish than providing your child a perfect and safe vantage point to share herm joy with you.

I don't think the traditional definition of altruism a la Ayn Rand has any validity at all. How can anyone be coerced into doing something involving self denial as a value? If they don't feel that they are doing something beneficial for their society and their friends what would compel them to be altruistic? Especially in a Godless society envisioned by Rand. But even throwing God into the picture, the little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony has to provide a selfish incentive even if it is pie in the sky to get the parishioners to give up their selfish pleasures.

Of Good

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Question about atheism: In a discussion of good and evil the question of personal pleasure came up as related to good.

"It is important to note that both physical and psychological pleasures usually involve other people. Those we love and care about, but also those we may be only incidentally involved with. An accidental encounter with a stranger on the street where we recognize each other’s humanity and worth can be a powerful reminder of the ideals we wish to identify with as good. But in any event if we are going to consider ourselves to be good, how we treat other people is going to be the most important and perhaps the only consideration."

Which leads to the next question can purely personal pleasure be considered to be good. I think we can dispense with the Biblical answer as that was a different time and culture where conservation of good genes in fetuses was a critical social requirement. BTW how did you know I was discussing masturbation? Get your mind out of the gutter, there are other personal pleasures that can be much more pleasurable and meaningful.

One of the most intense and pleasurable personal experiences I enjoyed was rounding a corner from an alley in Firenze and being assaulted by the facade of the Cathedral across the plaza.
There were no words just awe and wonder at what people had made. Perhaps their awe and wonder related to God was part of what I was experiencing but it was second hand at best. What the artisans had created was enough.

I frequently hike alone, not by choice, but due to differing tastes of those who I might like to share the experience with. The love of my life has a deep seated distaste for rocks. Once out of sheer devotion she accompanied me to Yosemite. Hating every minute she had to look out the window at Half Dome and the valley walls on the other side. Can anyone imagine pulling the drapes on a huge bay window overlooking half dome on a beautiful day! Nor can I. But the same devotion allowed her to do so. We spent most of our time indoors, or on the veranda overlooking the meadow and the forest which for the most part screened the rock walls that I had to go elsewhere to appreciate. So now my trips to Yosemite are solo, and the hikes are shared with random strangers who appreciate the mistbows and the vistas I point out to them after enjoying them myself first. Is the initial personal experience good? I think so. Is the sharing with a random stranger even better? Since they have chosen the same trail, of course.

Morality, God and Assholes

Beliefnet Community > Thread - The Bright Line...:

moral anemia comes from anything else than righteousness

"Actually moral anemia comes from the that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony who says “Believe this way, Pray to this God, and Hate these people and your morality is assured as well as everlasting boredom in the bosom of God after you die.”

Real morality comes from accepting responsibility for your affects on your fellow humans right now, right here. If you improve their lives even marginally you are being moral, if you make their lives unhappy or unpleasant, even by a little bit you need to accept responsibility for your immoral behavior and do what you can to repair the situation.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you believe in God, any god, or whether you have no such beliefs. You are still responsible for the other people in your life if you wish to be considered a moral person. Claiming that God made you an asshole does not make you a moral asshole. Believe it or not it makes you a God damned asshole, since no moral God expects believers to be assholes. One of the most famous Gods says love your neighbor as yourself. No excuses, no exceptions. Make your neighbor’s life better or pay the consequences in this life and the next if there is one. "

Amazon.com: The Space Child's Mother Goose: Frederick Winsor, Marian Parry (illustrator): Books

Amazon.com: The Space Child's Mother Goose: Frederick Winsor, Marian Parry (illustrator): Books

This is the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack Built.

Ah well, you all know the rest.


Finally back in print. At long last. The next generation can now discover the Erudite Verbal Haze and celebrate the theory that Jack Built.

But the Black Hen rules!

Are Dog Breeds Actually Different Species?: Scientific American

Are Dog Breeds Actually Different Species?: Scientific American: "Amazingly, right now Chihuahuas are still considered C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. And calling a Chihuahua a wolf is like calling someone at the Discovery Institute a scientist."

Not a bad idea. I have always thought of the working breeds a different species from the lap dogs, the breeding barrier being the matron who wouldn't let her beloved fluffy out of his upholstered carrier long enough to sniff a working breed. The question of hunting vs herding dogs is a bit more difficult, but again I would argue that temperament population isolation due to work environment would qualify them for speciation.

Is the Internet the Global Village?

For those whose local village or parish does not work for them for whatever reason my tentative answer is yes. I think of those in my graduating Class at Stanford, scattered all over the map, and found that although we could keep in a semblance of contact through reunions and mail, it wasn't until the blogs and social networking sites opened up that I was able to regain the intellectual contact that made Stanford so special. The inclusion in my village of those who never were face friends and probably never will be, has expanded my village to a proper size and enriched my world to share the joys and sorrows of those who would certainly be in my village if we weren't scattered all over the globe.

A beliefnet friend just completed a PhD in England, and shared her thrill at being awarded a post doc she was hoping for. I shared in the thrill and joy that I have missed in my local village where most do not have that academic level.

The village of retail marketing where I have spent most of my recent work life, has very little in the way of intellectual stimulation that I didn't create on my own, and I was huddled in my ivory tower reading my books and listening to my music with no one to discuss it with. There were compensations, but there was a huge hole in my life that has been filled with facebook, blogs and social networks that basically self select for people like me.

It is early in the life of the social net, and few have as yet discovered the village that awaits them there. But when they do I suspect that for much of the world the social milieu will be totally changed back to a small socially tight village where the people happen to live in far flung places in the world.

Do Facebook Friends Work?

The Human Condition : Friends With Benefits: Do Facebook Friends Provide the Same Support as Those In Real Life?: "Numerous studies have shown that a strong network of friends can be crucial to getting through a crisis, and can help you be healthier in general. But could virtual friends, like the group of online buddies that reached out to Sue, be just as helpful as the flesh-and-blood versions? In other words, do Facebook friends—and the support we get from them—count? These questions are all the more intriguing as the number of online social-network users increase. Facebook attracted 67.5 million visitors in the U.S. in April (according to ComScore Inc.), and the fastest-growing demographic is people over 35. It’s clear that connecting to friends, both close and distant, via the computer will become more the norm than novelty."

A good intro to something I have been working on recently: For those of us with an unusual demographic, in my case highly intelligent, spiritual atheist, choral musician, cosmopolitan with friends and family scattered all over the US and classical music literate, will on-line social networking take the place of the village or parish that historically has been the source of our social support for all of the important crises in life. Whether it is a stubbed toe or the death of a loved one, seeing a butterfly or falling in love, we need a touch of a friend.

If my local parish or village is an unpleasant place where I feel totally outcast due to my demographic not fitting in with the rest of the village, must I give up hope of a touch, or can a virtual touch work just as well.

As a related issue, is a real "touch" a necessary condition for the virtual touch to work?
As a single data point, a beliefnet friend who I never met, and who I had no contact with outside of forum posts died. I grieved as if he was a face-friend, and created an appreciation thread as soon as his absence from the boards was noted as I knew he was terminally ill. An obit was found and posted and the threat turned into a virtual atheist celebration of the life of. A donation to the hospice with a copy of the thread, generated a beautiful post by his daughter filling in details we (the virtual group of friends) would have known had we had face contact.

Does it make a difference?

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Question about atheism:

If both Hitler and Mother Teresa cease to exist at death, and all the people they helped or harmed cease to exist at death, then is there ultimately any difference between them (Hitler and Mother Teresa)?

"Will any of it matter a billion years from now? Probably not. Did it matter to those who suffered and to those of us in a world where we still deal with the repercussions? Hell yeah. I do not accept that, for instance, Hitler did good in some way because 'god' said so or because he was a part of the greater plan. I'm sure that you don't believe that, but apparently someone did, the man was sadly successful. So what difference does in make in the 'bigger picture'? Not sure that is does, but it makes a difference to me."

It makes a big difference to me as well. I will resist the bad guys and help the good guys because it makes a difference to me and my chosen society here and now, and the repercussions will resonate in the here and then far into my lifetime and for those who I care about who follow me.

Why do Good?

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Question about atheism:

What is an atheist's motivation for doing good, indeed how do you define good given your belief that everything ends at death?

"Again, speaking for myself, [Beliefnet Wampy] why not? Does a smile not have a value all it's own? Is life not valuable enough to save for it's own sake? Indeed, does it not have more value if one believes that there is nothing after death? I would wonder if one would not value life less if one believes that life is just a transitory state and not the real reward. Take suicide bombers for instance. My view is that good is it's own motivation. What does death have to do with good either way? How do you define good when the real action is in the afterlife? My view is that religions have promoted many things that are not good and still valued them as such. I see no intrinsic 'goodness' in something said to have passed down from a supernatural figure. Good is constructive and helpful. Death does not change this.

Perhaps you should make a discussion of what motivates you to do good other than a selfish desire for reward or fear of punishment? I use the word selfish only to indicate that either of those motivations are nothing more than a concern for yourself. Do you do no 'good' simply for the benefit of someone else, with no concern of the benefit or detriment to yourself?"

Indeed, is not a smile worth more than all the pie you can eat in the sky after you die?

What do atheists think?

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Question about atheism: "I suppose I will start by echoing the obvious. There's not much of an 'atheist' viewpoint. There are no gods pretty much sums it up. Whether it is God, Allah, Zeus, or Steve the god of biscuits, they simply do not exist. Everything else is opinion that has not much to do with it. So, I can only tell you what I think about a specific question, not necessarily an 'atheist viewpoint'."

An amusing and succinct answer to any question beginning What do Atheists think"

Penis-shaped mushroom named after frog expert: Scientific American Blog

Penis-shaped mushroom named after frog expert: Scientific American Blog: "Herpetologist Robert Drewes will forever be remembered for his two-inch Phallus.

In the upcoming issue of the journal Mycologia, scientists describe a new species of stinkhorn fungus from Africa, which they christened Phallus drewesii in honor of their expedition leader."

With colleagues like these you don't need any hecklers.

The Sound of Passion: Scientific American

The Sound of Passion: Scientific American: "The new work is part of an emerging portrait of the broader connections between music, emotion and speech. These studies are finding that musicians are more accurate in detecting emotion -- such as joy, sadness and anger -- in speech samples. The effect has been found even in children as young as 7 years old, with as little as one year of music training. It is a fascinating example of how experience in one domain (music) benefits another (emotion perception). However, it is not until very recently, with the publication of the new study by Strait and her colleagues, that the biological foundation of the effect has been demonstrated."

As they say music is fundamental. Deprive your children of music and they will be "Depraved on account of being deprived" from "West Side Story." Daniel J. Levitin believes that it was music rather than speech that gave early hominids their sophisticated emotional communication capability. Maybe you can lie with your words, but can you lie with your song?

Importantly related was a performance of the Missa Solemnis by the Minnesota Orchestra the other night. It was the last performance by their concertmaster, and yes she is a master, Jorja Fleezanis. The Preleuso was exquisite and would certainly get God's attention if there was one created at the performance. I didn't feel the presence, but it was a concert not a parish.

Chalice lighting ceremony circa 1989 for a Lay Service at Davis UU Church.

Sermon Topic: The Natural History of God.

Sacred Flames


Leader: Since a time before History
People have gathered around fires
To share their joys and sorrows
And to sing and to hear stories
That help them through their daily lives.
As we light our special fire, Let us reflect:

The flame focuses
The concern and help we receive,
But they come from the love we share.

Congregation: When we need strength and hope
May we have the courage to reach out
And to accept without fear
The love of our fellows.

When we are full with life's blessings
May we share lovingly.
Only by sharing with others
Can we increase them for ourselves.

Tsujii 2nd Rock

Apparantly you can't upload from the website, or at least I can't. Go to http://www.cliburn.tv/# go to June 6 on the bottom of the finals section and enjoy.
Tsujii has been blind from birth, but states "There are no barriers in the field of music." Sure.

Health issues

You were warned. Eminently boring old fart tedium.

I passed out at the computer Wed about noon for no good reason at all, scared the crap out of Shu-Ju and ended up in the ER with excruciating pain from biting my tongue almost in half lengthwise and laying my shin open down to the bone. Neurologist says best guess at this time is Grand Mal, which is French for Brain Fart. A few more tests to rule out odd stuff, but Brain Fart looks pretty solid. Leg and tongue working. Pau.

Shortchanging the Living

Available evidence shows that after we die there is no way to do anything at all for those who remain alive. All that they have is whatever legacy is built for them by the deceased. The material legacy is of questionable value. As Lazarus Long says

Don't handicap your children by making their lives too easy.

The emotional and intellectual legacy is far more important, and the beauty is that building it simply means paying attention to those who will enjoy it.

I wonder about those who spend their lives chasing a place in Heaven. What do those that remain get besides a nice party to send them off to Heaven. When the living think about the deceased, what to they think about? Do they simply wonder if the bet on Pascal's wager has paid off? I guess if they have been conditioned properly and are investing heavily at the Pascal Casino themselves this is OK. But what a waste.

When I think of my deceased parents, and those close to them and to me that are no longer living, I never wonder about what they are doing now, I am too busy reviewing all the important lessons they taught me and the rest of my world in their rich lives that were dedidicated to making that world the best they could make it. Certainly lives worth dying for in Forrest's words.

Eternal Reflections

Email in response to an ex Christian's questions about death.

"The issue of mortality is a very difficult one for former Christians since Pie in the Sky after you die is really all Christians have to sell these days so they sell the Hell out of it. If you ask a Christian 'Why' when they blather about eternal bliss kissing God's ass in heaven, you will get some interesting reactions, but almost all of them boil down to Why Not?

I would suggest that you ask yourself that question? Why do you want eternal life? Why would you want some sort of existence after you die? Particularly since available evidence says you can do nothing for those that remain after you. The most likely scenario is you spend the first millennium sucking your thumb and gazing at your navel and trying to figure out something different to do for the next millennium. That is a pretty good definition of Hell as far as I am concerned. The alternative of kissing God's ass is just as bad.

One resource and a thought. The resource is Love and Death by Forrest Church. Forrest is living on time borrowed from the medical profession in spite of their assurances that they had no time to lend. He was not lying in a sermon he gave in which he said he had six months to live. That was a very generous estimate given his metastasized esophageal cancer. Love and Death grew out of that diagnosis. It turned out that the medico's were mistaken, but that wasn't Forrest's fault although his incredible will to live probably influenced the outcome.

The thought is that there is no atheist dogma that says that an afterlife is not possible. The only dogma that applies is that Pascal's wager is a losing bet because if there is an afterlife it is certain that a non-existent God has no influence at all on it. Kiss Herm ass all you want to while you are alive and whatever happens after you die will happen just the same as if you kissed some other God's ass or your own for that matter.

Some people think that there is a possibility, slim, that a natural result of death is that the spirit is released to continuing doing whatever one has been doing in life with the other spirits that have been released from their bodies. The only difference this should make in one's life is that it is even more important to live in a way that you would be happy to live with forever. If there is no end to the spirit at death, then the spirit had better be well trained in enjoying whatever it does.

Thanks for your questions, At my age I need to think about them.
"

The Human Mind Trumps everything

Belief Corner: Religious and Political Debate - Educated out of God?: "Yep. and the human mind trumps everything.

How?

When the human brain finally matures it potentially, note, potentially not necessarily, is able to override both genetic and environmental programming to take control of its destiny. It may not have complete freedom of action, Steven Hawking cannot control the disease in control of his body, and John Nash had to overcome his probably genetic schizophrenia, but their minds were able to control their mental destiny. Extreme cases to be sure, but functioning adult downs syndrome people, who are making the best of their limited mental capabilities are common enough to be seen frequently in public.

Most people with disabilities either genetic or environmental, need help and support both medical and emotional to assume control, and it certainly is not automatic, but it is possible and happens frequently enough that I will stand by my statement that the human mind trumps all. It is of course a choice to play the trump, and some chose not to. A tightly controlled religious upbringing is the most common environmental programming that is accepted without question by the mind and the trump to override is never played. But enough are, even in tight fundamentalist societies, that the mind even trumps God."

This was in response to one of those tedious nature vs nurture debates with respect to God beliefs. The preceeding imo renders the whole subject moot.

Genetic determinism?

Belief Corner: Religious and Political Debate - Educated out of God?: "What those genes have given humans is an extremely flexible massively parallel computer that for instance is capable of recognizing friends instantly from a variety of positions and from body language and facial expressions determine their mood and feelings toward us at that moment and then communicating that information almost instantaneously through large fast mono-dendrite nerves to action centers of the brain which use the information to take appropriate action. One might say that the ability to recognize faces and determine moods is genetic and perhaps it is. But appropriate actions in response to that knowledge? Aside from simple paradigms like fight or fly, useful of course but not real useful at a cocktail party or business meeting, the mind has considerable flexibility in determining appropriate behaviors. Unless the genetic imperative is do the right thing, the genetic component in normal social interactions is nil."

The Post-Rapture Postman - Postal Service for the Saved? There's a sucker born again every minute II

Beliefnet Community > Thread - The Post-Rapture Postman -: "Just dug up this article from Orlando, Florida and thought it was too funny! An enterprising entrepreneur in Orlando Florida is offering to deliver messages to friends and relatives Left Behind on behalf of believers who fully expect to be swept up into the Rapture. Since he's an atheist, he'll undoubtedly be Left Behind as well when the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse thunder over the horizon......."

www.postrapturepost.com

What makes a social animal.

Brain Cells for Socializing | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine:

"Allman likes to show a clip from a documentary about a group of African elephants that adopted an orphaned calf. When the baby elephant falls into a water hole, the matriarch quickly marches in, followed by the others. Together she and a second female use their tusks, trunks and legs to free the calf from the muck. Another animal paws at the steep bank with its foot, building a ramp the youngster uses to climb to safety. 'It's really remarkable,' says Allman of how the elephants rapidly sized up the crisis and worked together to save the baby. 'It's a very high sort of functioning that very few animals are able to do. And,' he adds with a chuckle, 'humans can do it only on good days.'"

An amazing article on a particular high speed nerve cell in the brain that seems to facilitate the recognition of social signals in a few highly social intelligent species like higher primates, elephants, whales, dolphins, and orcas.

Determining moral actions

Belief Corner: Deciding Whether Something is Moral:

"In a moral crisis situation there is no time for analysis. The moral sense of the person will determine the moral choice.

Moral sense is very similar to language. We get the basics and the ability to function morally from our parents and/or care givers as infants and toddlers. The genetic imperative is to make mom smile. As the child grows and joins social groups other than family the moral sense will be refined by what works to keep the paddle off the butt, or other disincentive for anti-social actions. Compliance with the mores of the peer group, that is avoiding ostracism guides pre- and early adolescence and moral development may end there for many. Religion driven morality generally results in such stagnation of moral development.

As the individual matures and makes choices about social connections the morality of the chosen social group will normally be accepted with varying degrees of thoughtfulness and analysis, but once the moral sense is conditioned it will guide actions in all moral situations. Post crisis analysis may result in the modification of the moral sense but action in all cases is determined by the developed moral sense at that point."

Rob Paterson's "Eternal Reflections"

Compose Mail - Yahoo! Mail: " Re. Rob Paterson's Eternal Reflections

If this is not in your [Volti] 30 year recording project, it must be. It is an incredibly moving piece for young and old alike. Colin being the young and Carlin being the old. I don't know where Mary Rose fits in. It has the makings of a modern Choral Standard, Volti should do what you can to help it along the path. Thank you for the commission and the first performance, but the commercial recording will put the icing on the wonderful cake you made."

One would think that three texts on eschatology, tragedy, and death would make for a rather dismal piece of music. But Rob has created one of the most moving and beautiful compositions it has ever been my pleasure to hear. A poignant pleasure to be sure, but aren't those really the best kind?

If you ever get a chance to hear this work, or Volti does record it, let nothing get in your way. Hear it!

Edited to reflect title change by the composer. Even though he ignored my suggestions I was honored to be a part of the process.

Yosemite Springs BB

Yosemite Springs BB - conventionally Reviews, Cheap Rates, Deals conventionally - Coulterville | coffee shopcoffeemaker: "Yosemite Springs BB - conventionally Reviews, Cheap Rates, Deals conventionally - Coulterville
5 月 18th, 2009 · コメントはまだありません

I am a swotter and homelessness to in good likeness pennies wherever I can. mostly Yosemite Springs is frightful because you breath at a wonderful ritzy chair to set-back in restitution consent the unusually judge as a motel cubicle quarters. mostly The rations is absolutely exclusive cooked, the towels are muted, there is DirecTV and DVD players in each cubicle quarters and there is a steam flood so you can get rid of yourself of all of the confidential data you aggregate while hiking."

Absolutely brilliant automatic translation. Makes me want to jump in the car and Go! But instead I will probably spend the day trying to scrut the inscrutable Japanese mind to put together an idiomatic English translation.

Is forcing people to live ethical?

Growing Old with Autism: The Silent Struggle - TIME: "Noah, my younger brother, does not talk. Nor can he dress himself, prepare a meal for himself or wipe himself. He is a 42-year-old man, balding, gaunt, angry and, literally, crazy. And having spent 15 years at the Fairview Developmental Center in Costa Mesa, Calif., a state facility, Noah has picked up the con's trick of lashing out before anyone could take a shot at him.

Noah's autism has been marked by 'three identified high priority maladaptive behaviors that interfere with his adaptive programming. These include banging his head against solid surfaces, pinching himself and grabbing others,'"

Related: From The Responsibility Project "An Alzheimer patient has wandered off again. What do you do?

I am beginning to wonder if we are being cruel to these people by forcing them to stay alive. The Responsibility Project would not allow my comment: "Maybe he is wandering off to find a place to die." Maybe the Autism patient is banging his head against the wall in an ineffective suicide attempt.

Just because the body is capable of supporting life are we being ethical in forcing it to do so in the absence of informed consent of the mind controlling that body? There are of course difficult issues of determining intent from a damaged mind, but is it not ethically presumptuous to say the head banging or the wandering off is not a suicide attempt, or at the very least an attempt to end the lack of control over one's life?

I have given explicit instruction to my family that if the genetic dementia expresses itself in spite of the medical preventative measures, they are to find a care facility near the back country in the Sierra, Hetch Hetchy, by preference with explicit instructions not to limit my wandering off. If some day I don't return they may assume that I was careless and provided lunch for a bear. It wouldn't offend me in the least to be recycled in that manner.

My family on my mother's side has a tradition of "Turning their face to the wall" when they decide their will to live is no longer present. Not a bad choice, and I am sure I could do it when necessary, but I would much rather wander in the wilderness on my last day and "Turn my face to the cliff." Sure I will feed a wild animal instead of a crematory, but the wild animal won't care or know the difference between me and any other dead or dying large animal.

Abiogenesis

Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life - NYTimes.com:

"An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago.

He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life — how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier."

I like his theory as it takes place in the warm puddles that life like us should start in. The high energy source is UV rather than geothermal which again makes more sense for surface life. A major step in the right direction as it gives a plausible pathway to RNA.

Abiogenesis

The blue roads of thinking: Thinking about Death.: "Have you ever thought about How Life on earth ever began?"

I am a chemist by training if not inclination anymore, and I have no problem at all with natural abiogenesis. Organic molecules that can hook up will and will try every way possible. (Kind of like some people I know.) The fact (observed) that ACGT/U formed a stable and self-replicating combination is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that once the replicator was formed that it used up all the ACGT and U that was available making more replicators. Nor that once formed the replicators "got busy" making more efficient replicators.

If it makes you feel good to think that God made the first replicator and threw it into the ACGTU soup to make more replicators be my guest. Or is God the first simple RNA molecule and jumped into the ACGTU soup to make more RNA in Herm image? Then like the Sorcerers Apprentice just couldn't turn off all the multiplying and changing stuff that resulted. And finally when humans came around Hesh got so pissed off Hesh flooded the world to try to start over. Didn't work obviously.

Thinking about Death.

Beliefnet Community > Thread - My Story: Atheist by Necessity, not by Choice!:

"Personally I find that the probability of an afterlife is close to zero is quite liberating. As Forrest Church says in Love and Death, love survives death and those we have loved and made a difference in their lives will love us in return and as we think of those who have died with love and respect those who follow us will pay it forward with the same love and respect. They will tell stories about me to the next few generations and maybe someone will learn something. I do my best in life to build a Legacy that will be worth telling stories about.

Just recently I passed some advice from my father, a great athlete, to his great grandson who will probably not be a great athlete but who is trying to learn a sport for fun. Maybe my grandson didn't even listen, but the time I spent with the memories of my father and the love I still gave and received from him makes his death merely a release from the pain of the cancer that took his life."

Atheist divorce

The Bright Line...:

Still, I think there's more to it [Why there is less divorce among atheists.] More than the lack of religion to not fight about.

"Actually there is. Since atheists do not have a prepackaged moral system handed to them 'From God' they need to have figured out a moral system that works in the society that they find themselves in. Relationships with others in the society will necessarily be an important part of that morality. In all important relationships a functioning atheist will have a good idea of the reciprocal responsibilities in the relationship and be comfortable with them or will not enter into the relationship.

Most atheists I know are almost prudish when it comes to sex, and won't even think of procreative sex without a stable relationship to support it. Even 'Recreational sex' is approached with extreme care due to the implied commitments involved.

It is real hard for an atheist to hide from God and sneak a push in the bush. The atheist's moral judge always knows exactly what hesh is doing and whether it is right or wrong. And if it is wrong the atheist can't just nail it to the cross and forget it. If it is wrong, it has to be fixed."

This does not mean that divorce is not common, but it is generally later in life and usually after children are independent if there are children involved. An important part of this is that much of the married atheist's society revolves around the family, and there is little emotional support for those who choose to leave the family. In a church the congregation will choose sides, but there will always be emotional support for the "Sinner" in the broken relationship. An atheist does not have this support, so the justification for the break up has to be pretty strong to avoid losing a good chunk of one's friends and acquaintances.

Lenore Skenazy -- Quit Treating Parents Like Babies - washingtonpost.com

Lenore Skenazy -- Quit Treating Parents Like Babies - washingtonpost.com:

"And here's my favorite recommendation from a book of 'Baby Must-Haves' (yes, a 200-plus-page volume on items you simply must buy unless you want your baby to be seriously deprived): 'You'll get more bang for your buck with a toy that can be played with in more than one way -- for instance, a push toy that can also be pulled.'

Now, you've got to feel sorry for the poor writer who had to come up with something -- anything -- to say about a pull toy. But can you think of a push toy that can't be pulled? Can you think of any toy that can't be pulled, besides a cranky daddy trying to watch SportsCenter?"

I guess these are for those who don't have a pastor to guide them in these and other areas of their lives that are on a similar level. Need help in socializing your child? Bring herm to our Cradle Service where only our brand of God will infect your child's mind. As the Jesuits point out by the time hesh is 10 we will own him. It works for any cult.

The purpose of Death.

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Evolution makes no sense.:
"Death is Nature's way of telling you you flunked out."

Would Jesus refute theTelevangelists?

Beliefnet Community > Thread - Human Dignity, Good and Evil:

Yes, it does matter [when Paul lived], because people that knew Jesus were still alive, and therefore would have attempted to correct him or refute him, if his info about Jesus was incorrect.
El Cid

"Paul was creating a cult based on Jesus Christ, not Jesus. The only relationship of Jesus of Nazareth to Jesus Christ was the hijacking of his name and charisma. The three Synoptic Gospels which were written after Paul, are a systematic and largely successful exercise in correcting and refuting Paul.

It is impossible to read Paul with the synoptics open in three other bibles and find anything in the synoptics that supports anything in Paul. It is almost a trivial exercise in reading comprehension to find a refutation of Paul's misanthropy and misogyny in any random passage from the words of Jesus in one of the three gospels. If you do it in the other direction that is read the synoptics and try to find anything at all in Paul's misanthropy and misogyny that relates to the Jesus you find in the synoptics, you will find absolutely nothing.

I find the evidence for the existence of Jesus, the itinerant preacher and entertainer, persuasive. He would be a great televangelist today and as then he would refute all the Pauline garbage preached by the followers of his competitor in the religious leader industry."

What would Jesus do? If he were alive today would he have a television ministry based in a megachurch in Marin County? It sure wouldn't be in LaLa Land. Would he be regaling against the preachers of hate for your neighbors of the wrong religion, color, or sexual preference? Would he be successful?

I think the answers to all of the above would be yes. We are seeing a return to the gospels, particularly the Two Great Commandments in many local congregations in many of the big denominations. Certainly the bigots are the loudest and sell the lead in and follow up ads and so are supported by the networks or at least the cable companies. Someone foaming at the mouth at a gay person's funeral will get a spot on the news just like a train wreck. All the news companies care about is eyeballs, they don't care if the eyeball is blurry from booze or not, well, they do boozers buy. Train wrecks sell ads, and any train wreck will do. An emotional train wreck is as good, or maybe better than a steel one. They can milk it longer.

Why do I ask so many Why's?

Thread - Is there a moral position without God?:

"The three year olds I know would never accept the cop out of Goddidit. They want to know why in terms they can understand and wrap their rapidly growing minds around. I would feel that Goddidit would be a real damper on that vibrant inquisitiveness that is the birthright of all humans."

Since they weren't stunted by Goddidit most of the kids I dealt with were 2 or so when they got into the Why?'s, and many of them never got over it. One I know got the nickname of Rikki for Rikki Tikky Tavi because she always had to "Run and find out." I suspect that after 30 odd years she is still running and finding out. No one ever told her she had to ask God's permission to do so.

The title of the post is reputed to be an actual question of J'Carlin at 2. (The "J" was more important then which is why it is part of J'Carlin). I hope it is true. I want to know everything and I want to know why about everything. I'll never get there but I will try.

Moral Standards

Is there a moral position without God?:

"Morals are not beliefs they are behavior patterns bred into us over millions of years of being dependent on our social group for survival. Doing what we must for the good of the social group is the beginning and the end of moral behavior. If the social group is religious, doing what the mediator says God wants is part of the package. Many of us have a more cosmopolitan social group see Appiah, Cosmopolitanism - Ethics in a World of Strangers and the insular and usually xenophobic morality of religious groups just does not work for us."

Atheism for Theists

Thread - Can there be a moral position without God?:

"Many have a hard time with atheism as they try to map it into a belief system. It is not a belief system, it is simply a way of managing life without a deity to blame things on. Life itself is far from random, natural selection insures that only advantageous changes are conserved. Life is a series of events, most predictable but some indeed random that must be dealt with in a reasonable and for most atheists a rational manner. An atheist will waste no time trying to second guess a deity or try to get the deity to intercede, hesh will deal with events as they are for good or for bad and try to emerge with life and integrity intact."

What Makes Us Human?: Scientific American

What Makes Us Human?: Scientific American: "It turns out that until humans came along, HAR1 evolved extremely slowly. In chickens and chimps—whose lineages diverged some 300 million years ago—only two of the 118 bases differ, compared with 18 differences between humans and chimps, whose lineages diverged far more recently. The fact that HAR1 was essentially frozen in time through hundreds of millions of years indicates that it does something very important; that it then underwent abrupt revision in humans suggests that this function was significantly modified in our lineage."

And HAR1 is only one, and it doesn't even code a protein. It simply! regulates the protein coding genes around it. Great article well worth reading for anyone interested in genetics.

Spirit continuation after death.

Belief Corner: Religious and Political Debate - agnostic atheist and agnostic theist?: "UPGs are not particularly reliable in dealing with the unknowable. If there is any continuation of the spirit after death, highly unlikely in my UPG, but possible, we will all go to the same place when we die. It will be a natural continuation of the way we lived unmediated by supernatural influences. In other words it will be a completely natural continuation of the spirit we nurtured while alive. Which tells me that whether a UPG includes an afterlife or not, one better be sure that the spirit they are nurturing in this life is one which they would like to live with forever. My guess is that it is WYSIWYG once it posts after death."

Those who think Pascal's wager will make any difference after death seem to me to be taking the short end of the odds if they are neglecting their personal spiritual enrichment in this life. I wonder what it would be like to spend eternity in Westboro Baptist Church? Sure sounds like Hell to me.

Moral Standard

moral position without God?: "Lavengro wrote:

Could someone tell me what this [moral] standard is, whence it derives?

I don't know about others but my standard is that the welfare, defined as satisfaction with the life they are living, of those in the society which I choose as my own, is a higher priority than even my own welfare. This is a genetic imperative derived from countless generations of primate ancestors for whom group welfare was a necessary condition for survival. The society definition is historically a village, even cities have historically been collections of village sized neighborhoods, although in cities some villages may overlap.

This genetic imperative has usually been co-opted by mediators for Gods, and occasionally by national leaders, by imposing a society on individuals either by indoctrination or more rarely by coercion. Churches have transferred the society from the village to the parish but the concept remains the same."

The difference for me is that I do not accept another's definition of what my society is. I may consider those outside my society as being important and worthy of consideration, but they are not covered by the obligation I accept for my society, and become a different consideration where my welfare and that of my society takes precedence.

Arguing with a belief.

beliefnet :

"To argue with a belief is to tilt at a windmill. The sails keep going round and round, with any damage to the sails ignored rather than repaired. One gets the impression that if the sails are shredded completely, the believer will turn the crank hermself to keep the sails moving."

One gets to the point that there is nothing left to tilt at. The sails are completely gone. At that point one can only say, as belief is usually God related, "God Bless You, it is all you have left."

Is Evolution a Science?

Thread - Is Evolution a Science?:

"Evolution is alive and well for humans, it just doesn't involve physical survival to breed anymore. It is a given in a modern technological society that mortality prior to adulthood is minimal, and evolution is focused on how adults are able to cope with living in that modern technological society. Numbers are no longer a measure of fitness, indeed out breeding resources without the technology to manage those resources is evidence of lack of fitness for survival in a modern society and the results speak for themselves. The wars and genocides in Africa and the Middle East and the slaughter of millions of citizens by modern despots while deplorable, can be thought of as evolution in action. Evolution has never been kind to the less fit by whatever standard species fitness is determined.

Evolution is occurring in Bangalore, Shanghai, parts of the US and a few other areas of the planet. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next few generations. I suspect that those parts of the US where creationism is taught in science class, will find themselves among the unfit. The country is rich enough and benevolent enough to provide all with a couch and a TV to keep them off the streets, but it will be interesting to see if their religion provides them with meaning and purpose to get off the couch even to breed."

Evolution like economics is a dismal science.

God beliefs

Bread and Circuses: "Mar 27, 2009 - 06:20AM, artboyz wrote:

There is only one reason to be an atheist, and we all agree: There is no rational reason to believe in God.

'There is no reason to personally believe in God.' works better for me. Rational or irrational there is no argument that points to God for me. I put the personal reference in there because many atheists, I am one of them, find many reasons, rational and irrational, for others to believe in God. I also agree that existential issues are not germane, nor are definitional issues for God.

CaliberCadillac seems to enjoy the bread and circuses provided by his Christ. If he is hungry the loaves and fishes will sustain him. If his boat is sinking someone will walk across the water to save him. If he is needy God bless him.

I have other ways of dealing with hunger, danger, and other needs, and I think they are much more effective, but I certainly wouldn't suggest them to CaliberCadillac. They all take rational, intelligently directed action. Faith and prayer only get in the way."

In line with my long time thinking that one should let the believers believe. It seems that very few have the wherewithal to think for themselves about important issues. They do what they can to earn their tithe, and let the guy in the fancy dress worry about everything else.

Unitarians v Universalists v atheists

Unitarians v Universalists: "Mar 29, 2009 - 04:53AM, RevDorris wrote:

The children are in a state of rebellion against those who would want us to deny the existence of God. They want a return to God centered worship and open spiritual training and development.
Rev Dorris

I am am one of those children rebelling against those who deny God in UU churches. I find those churches where God is a three letter word, never to be said out loud or even lusted after in the heart to be sterile exercises in community building and frequently social action, both of which are desireable but IMO have nothing to do with spiritual growth. A Sunday morning gender inclusive Rotary meeting or Elks club.

For a UU church to gain my support it must be a diverse community of Paul denying Christians; hopefully a few ex-Jews that still cling to their Jewish roots and ritual; Pagans who wish to share and enrich their spirituality with the 'Unitarians' who only have one God; maybe a smattering of others who found other traditional religions too confining, and a few atheists to remind all that God is not necessary for spirituality.

And the sine qua non for me is a music program where no spiritual music is forbidden. Catholic Prayers? Jewish hazzanut? Buddhist Chants? Lutheran Hymns? Bring 'em all on. These folks have had hundreds if not thousands of years of refining the music that connects people to their higher being whatever that is. And believers are needed to bring the passion, in the best sense of the word, to the music."

I am glad to hear from Rev Dorris that the children are rebelling. I quit rebelling a while ago and found other ways to feed my spiritual needs without a pile of rocks (or bricks) and a guy in a fancy dress to help. I was not happy to do so, but I never was into Rotary and found my social needs satisfied in other venues than churches. Social action was much more satisfying with direct participation unguided by the guy in the fancy dress and politically correctness of the causes. I was usually ahead of the UU's in political correctness and got tired of pulling them along.

I found the internet early on as a source of spirituality APOD for example, and since most of my social group was scattered all over the country email was an early substitute for coffee hour.

I think churches of all denominations need to be aware of and beware of Web 2.0. Any church that doesn't have a Web 2.0 site based on DRUPAL or the equivalent is probably going to have to build one or die. And soon.

The problem of evil ..

Thread - The Bright Line...: "Mar 25, 2009 - 05:22PM, Leight wrote:

....addressing the problem of evil..... first of all you/I/everyone is straitjacketed in evil, that is a sin nature that is all dimensional and personal, your flesh, hormones, cravings ect....

Sorry the sin nature was invented by Paul as a marketing ploy for his Savior. Since everybody has flesh, hormones, cravings and especially sexual cravings, (note that all animals that have survived as a species have an intense drive to reproduce or they would be extinct) Paul said this drive and all of its variations including missionary position sex for the express purpose of reproduction are sin but the last one is forgivable presumably so that Christians don't join the extinct species that didn't have a reproductive drive. Nonetheless making a Christian baby is a sin, so you better hang it on the cross and get your GOOHF ticket for it.

But most Christians say if reproducing is sin we might as well have fun doing it and hang that on the cross along with the missionary sex and maybe God won't notice and give us the GOOHF card anyway. From there it is a slippery slope to hating neighbors, killing enemies, kinky sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Some call this atheism but notice that the GOOHF card is in the back pocket to hang on the cross which means that God is still looking over the shoulder. As long as God is there it ain't atheism by definition."

Atheists don't have a cross to hang the bad things they do on, so they tend to pay attention to everything they do so that they don't have to pick up the pieces when they break something. No supernatural omnipotent alpha humanoid to kiss it and make it better either for the injured or the injurer.

Mediocrity

Beware of the lollipop of mediocrity...one lick and you suck forever...

From Elizabeth's friend Andy via facebook.