It occurs to me that there's really a very delicate balance implied in my last post. My rail against "toleration at all costs" implies some way to recognizing fundamental differences and settling them in some way. In a perfect world there would be a vital exchange of ideas where the better argument wins the day. But we have anything but a perfect world.
The idea of "self correcting societies" also implies a general recognition about certain foundational principles of society. Do we still have that?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Tolerance
I think the "tolerance above all else" mantra is a damaging thing.
Nice last post by the way, one which I read together with K, I think it's important that she's exposed to such ideas. Especially the idea that societies can be self correcting, but sometimes you have to stand up and be counted. Like in the movie "Network" ..
I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE !
:)
Nice last post by the way, one which I read together with K, I think it's important that she's exposed to such ideas. Especially the idea that societies can be self correcting, but sometimes you have to stand up and be counted. Like in the movie "Network" ..
I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE !
:)
Discerning Differences
I too think racism is a learned behavior. But then I'd define racism not as noticing differences, but rather acting upon differences noticed. The human is wired to notice differences; that is part of our ability to survive. But we learn how to react to those differences. Your daughter no doubt notices the differences between races, but she has learned to not allow those differences to affect her treatment of others.
As I grow older, I find that what I react to most is the behavior of others. And yes, I do that by comparing the behavior I observe against a standard of proper behavior I hold in my mind. What I consider "proper behavior" involves, essentially, the "treat others" doctrine.
Stereotyping comes into this when, across time, I see improper behavior, time and again, displayed by persons possessing certain external characteristics. I believe this is unavoidable; I believe this is how we are programmed as human beings. We note differences and we start to build a library of impressions based on what we experience.
Many will say, "Don't judge a book by its cover." But nobody really operates this way in the real world. They make judgments and discernments all the time. Doing so is an essential part of life. The issue is more how quickly we apply a judgment, what our initial reactions to that application of judgment are, and how enduring that application is given evidence to the contrary.
Several years ago now I was in a company sponsored "diversity" class. It was an attempt at indoctrination, pure and simple. One exercise had them displaying slides on the screen with photos of people, and we were to assess our initial reaction to the people in the photo. One photo showed a group of street thugs, dressed in gang leathers, all with facial expressions conveying anger and threat.
Of course the reaction to that is initially one of caution and fear. Of course! But we were then told the people in the photo were actors, and in real life they were doctors and teachers. The lesson was: "Shame on you for judging too quickly!"
I went up to the instructor during a break. I asked, "If you encountered a man on the street wearing a Ku Klux Klan white robe and hood, what would be your initial reaction?" Her answer: "I would think him simply someone in a white robe." Her answer was, of course, a complete lie. She would form, as any normal person would, an initial impression based on an historical understanding of the KKK and the garments they wear.
That is an extreme example, of course ... few people walk the streets in KKK robes. But what about the "gangsta" image? That look is designed to express a potential threat. That is the whole purpose of that look. And if time and again we are treated poorly by those who dress that way, is it wrong to form a general impression of people who dress that way? I would argue no.
Years ago, Martin Luther King, in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech said, "I dream that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The second part of that is conveniently ignored by liberals today. The idea that "character" matters is generally opposed. That's because if it is allowed to matter, then we must deal with the issue of what constitutes "good" character and what constitutes "bad" character. They don't want to allow such a distinction.
Note: well, they do, actually. They very much want to allow the distinction. The real issue is they want their definition to be applied. That is irony of today's rallying cry about "diversity" and "tolerance." They very definitely do not want diversity of thought or opinion; they demand fairly strict adherence to a set of beliefs. And by tolerance they mean tolerance for people that possess those beliefs, but rather severe intolerance for those who do not. The classic irony is this: if someone was truly tolerant, they'd tolerate even the intolerant.
But there is such a thing, and there used to be a societal mechanism to reward good and shame or ostracize bad. I think the "tolerance above all else" mantra is a damaging thing. I very much think certain intolerances in society is a healthy corrective mechanism.
As I grow older, I find that what I react to most is the behavior of others. And yes, I do that by comparing the behavior I observe against a standard of proper behavior I hold in my mind. What I consider "proper behavior" involves, essentially, the "treat others" doctrine.
Stereotyping comes into this when, across time, I see improper behavior, time and again, displayed by persons possessing certain external characteristics. I believe this is unavoidable; I believe this is how we are programmed as human beings. We note differences and we start to build a library of impressions based on what we experience.
Many will say, "Don't judge a book by its cover." But nobody really operates this way in the real world. They make judgments and discernments all the time. Doing so is an essential part of life. The issue is more how quickly we apply a judgment, what our initial reactions to that application of judgment are, and how enduring that application is given evidence to the contrary.
Several years ago now I was in a company sponsored "diversity" class. It was an attempt at indoctrination, pure and simple. One exercise had them displaying slides on the screen with photos of people, and we were to assess our initial reaction to the people in the photo. One photo showed a group of street thugs, dressed in gang leathers, all with facial expressions conveying anger and threat.
Of course the reaction to that is initially one of caution and fear. Of course! But we were then told the people in the photo were actors, and in real life they were doctors and teachers. The lesson was: "Shame on you for judging too quickly!"
I went up to the instructor during a break. I asked, "If you encountered a man on the street wearing a Ku Klux Klan white robe and hood, what would be your initial reaction?" Her answer: "I would think him simply someone in a white robe." Her answer was, of course, a complete lie. She would form, as any normal person would, an initial impression based on an historical understanding of the KKK and the garments they wear.
That is an extreme example, of course ... few people walk the streets in KKK robes. But what about the "gangsta" image? That look is designed to express a potential threat. That is the whole purpose of that look. And if time and again we are treated poorly by those who dress that way, is it wrong to form a general impression of people who dress that way? I would argue no.
Years ago, Martin Luther King, in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech said, "I dream that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The second part of that is conveniently ignored by liberals today. The idea that "character" matters is generally opposed. That's because if it is allowed to matter, then we must deal with the issue of what constitutes "good" character and what constitutes "bad" character. They don't want to allow such a distinction.
Note: well, they do, actually. They very much want to allow the distinction. The real issue is they want their definition to be applied. That is irony of today's rallying cry about "diversity" and "tolerance." They very definitely do not want diversity of thought or opinion; they demand fairly strict adherence to a set of beliefs. And by tolerance they mean tolerance for people that possess those beliefs, but rather severe intolerance for those who do not. The classic irony is this: if someone was truly tolerant, they'd tolerate even the intolerant.
But there is such a thing, and there used to be a societal mechanism to reward good and shame or ostracize bad. I think the "tolerance above all else" mantra is a damaging thing. I very much think certain intolerances in society is a healthy corrective mechanism.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Racism
A question on racism .. is it learned behaviour or is it something inate in humans?
For many years my assessment was that it was the latter - a result of the quality in humans that evolution has given us .. ie. a preference for the familiar.
But watching my daughter grow up I see *none* of that when it comes to children of other "races" .. although why that term is used is beyond me as we are all part of the human race homo sapiens.
Societal pressure and whether it's coming back in some kind of ant-politically-correct way against the war on terrorists is interesting, I think your observation is spot on. I think it is returning.
+++
It's funny, we are like Locke and Demosthenes from Enders Game by Orson Scott Card ...
For many years my assessment was that it was the latter - a result of the quality in humans that evolution has given us .. ie. a preference for the familiar.
But watching my daughter grow up I see *none* of that when it comes to children of other "races" .. although why that term is used is beyond me as we are all part of the human race homo sapiens.
Societal pressure and whether it's coming back in some kind of ant-politically-correct way against the war on terrorists is interesting, I think your observation is spot on. I think it is returning.
+++
It's funny, we are like Locke and Demosthenes from Enders Game by Orson Scott Card ...
Back on Earth, Ender's brother and sister have begun trying their hand at popular politics, assuming the virtual identities of Locke and Demosthenes. The latter, written by Valentine, is a hot-headed rabble-rouser who stirs up discontent and whose main purpose is to provide a counterpoint to Peter's Locke identity, whom he is using to gain real power and influence over the world stage.
:)Stereotype Alert
I'm in the Dallas airport, awaiting my flight to New York. SOA time in the Big Apple, baby!
On the CNN TVs that are throughout the airport -- side note: brilliant marketing move on CNN's part to cut the deal to be the supplier of a news feed to airports -- they had a story about an arrest of someone associated with the Belfast airport terrorist attack.
Here's the stereotype -- all terrorists seem to look alike. They're all young men, somewhere between 20 and 35-ish or so, with a beard and an angry look on their face.
Now I recognize that not all people who fit that description are terrorists. But still I wonder ... is there a growing perception among the general population of this common "look" of terrorists? And is there perhaps a chance of a movement towards general distrust and discrimination against people who fit this profile?
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Societal pressure used to be a governing force. We've scrubbed it from our discourse for politically correct purposes. I'm wondering if people are coming back around to the realization that all the multi-cultural politically correct stuff is not in our best interest?
On the CNN TVs that are throughout the airport -- side note: brilliant marketing move on CNN's part to cut the deal to be the supplier of a news feed to airports -- they had a story about an arrest of someone associated with the Belfast airport terrorist attack.
Here's the stereotype -- all terrorists seem to look alike. They're all young men, somewhere between 20 and 35-ish or so, with a beard and an angry look on their face.
Now I recognize that not all people who fit that description are terrorists. But still I wonder ... is there a growing perception among the general population of this common "look" of terrorists? And is there perhaps a chance of a movement towards general distrust and discrimination against people who fit this profile?
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Societal pressure used to be a governing force. We've scrubbed it from our discourse for politically correct purposes. I'm wondering if people are coming back around to the realization that all the multi-cultural politically correct stuff is not in our best interest?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Glaven
Wow 0 to 100 in 0.8 seconds??
So does that qualify it as the highest acceleration from a standing start of any vehicle that can carry a person? I am trying to think what else could accelerate from 0 at 5 gee's.
K really laughed at the "rabbid" (she still pronounces like that) with the pancakes on it's head!
I'm tired, lack of sleep.
So does that qualify it as the highest acceleration from a standing start of any vehicle that can carry a person? I am trying to think what else could accelerate from 0 at 5 gee's.
K really laughed at the "rabbid" (she still pronounces like that) with the pancakes on it's head!
I'm tired, lack of sleep.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
For No Particular Reason
A picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head!
You can thank me later for this.
You can thank me later for this.
Top Fuel Dragsters
I don't know if this is a sport over there in the UK. No reason it can't be ... I just don't know if it's the same as it is here.
Here's a picture of a top fuel dragster:
And here's some "fun facts" that came off the NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) website:
Here's a picture of a top fuel dragster:
And here's some "fun facts" that came off the NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) website:
- The nitromethane-powered engines of NHRA Top Fuel dragsters and Funny Cars produce approximately 7,000 horsepower, about 37 times that of the average street car.
- One cylinder of the eight cylinders of a Top Fuel dragster or a Funny Car produces 750 horsepower, equaling the entire horsepower output of a NASCAR engine.
- An NHRA Top Fuel dragster accelerates from 0 to 100 mph in less than .8-second, almost 11 seconds quicker than it takes a production Porsche 911 Turbo to reach the same speed.
- An NHRA Top Fuel dragster leaves the starting line with a force nearly five times that of gravity, the same force of the space shuttle when it leaves the launching pad at Cape Canaveral.
- NHRA Top Fuel dragsters and Funny Cars consume between four and five gallons of fuel during a quarter-mile run, which is equivalent to between 16 and 20 gallons per mile.
- From a standing start, NHRA Top Fuel dragsters accelerate faster than a jumbo jet, a fighter jet, and a Formula One race car.
- A fuel pump for an NHRA Top Fuel dragster and Funny Car delivers 65 gallons of fuel per minute, equivalent to eight bathroom showers running at the same time.
Cardboard Cutout Love
Although I was expecting a verse or two of prose detailing how the human existence is devoid of all meaning without love. :)
How's this:
Would human existence be devoid of meaning without love? Or would its meaning be tragically different? I honestly don't know.
I struggle with commenting on this because I'm not so sure I fully understand what it really means to "love" someone. I know lots of words that relate to the subject, but I'm not sure I fully understand the concept at its core. I'm not trying to sound like someone saying, "Woe is me ... poor me." Honestly, I'm not. I'm honestly surveying my heart and what I'm finding is that I have lots of intellectual concepts that are like cardboard cutouts -- they appear like something from a distance, but up close they don't have any substance.
I'm doing a lot of self-appraisal of late. :-)
* * *
I've been thinking a lot about faith and life and such. I'm coming to realize that a good deal of it is willful mind control. That's a loaded term, and many flee from it. But there's great truth in the notion that what one chooses to dwell on in the mind matters.
Example: if I were to spend considerable time dwelling on the stories of treating others most definitely in ways I would not myself want to be treated ... if I saturated my mind with such things ... then the idea of "Treat others" becomes very difficult for me. I've allowed my mind to be "marinated" in a bad concept. My mind then takes on the flavor of that bad marinade. I can't live my life dwelling on the concept of hurting and cheating others, then with the blink of an eye start doing it with my own self.
The Bible is actually full of this concept. If I weren't so darn lazy I'd pull up the various references. But the Old Testament has quite a few references to "keeping the law before me daily." And the New Testament speaks of "putting out of your mind" various bad thoughts and notions, and "taking on the mind that was in Jesus."
I'm wondering ... the concept of "mind control" has been, I think, improperly maligned. There is such a thing as good mind control, correct?
* * *
I'm in Sacramento, CA this week. I am offering the SOA workshop sans labs to a group of State of CA people, at the request of the lead architect for our employer who covers the state. He seems to feel the message I deliver is of some value. :-)
* * *
I will definitely see "The Simpson's Movie." It'll be a hoot! No attempt at realistic animation there!
* * *
Yes, I do recall Frank Bruno. A name like "Bruno" is a natural for a boxer, wouldn't you say?
How's this:
All I need is love,How do you spell "woo ooo ooo, oo-oo-ooo?" :-)
All I need is love,
All I need is love, love
All I need is love.
Would human existence be devoid of meaning without love? Or would its meaning be tragically different? I honestly don't know.
I struggle with commenting on this because I'm not so sure I fully understand what it really means to "love" someone. I know lots of words that relate to the subject, but I'm not sure I fully understand the concept at its core. I'm not trying to sound like someone saying, "Woe is me ... poor me." Honestly, I'm not. I'm honestly surveying my heart and what I'm finding is that I have lots of intellectual concepts that are like cardboard cutouts -- they appear like something from a distance, but up close they don't have any substance.
I'm doing a lot of self-appraisal of late. :-)
* * *
I've been thinking a lot about faith and life and such. I'm coming to realize that a good deal of it is willful mind control. That's a loaded term, and many flee from it. But there's great truth in the notion that what one chooses to dwell on in the mind matters.
Example: if I were to spend considerable time dwelling on the stories of treating others most definitely in ways I would not myself want to be treated ... if I saturated my mind with such things ... then the idea of "Treat others" becomes very difficult for me. I've allowed my mind to be "marinated" in a bad concept. My mind then takes on the flavor of that bad marinade. I can't live my life dwelling on the concept of hurting and cheating others, then with the blink of an eye start doing it with my own self.
The Bible is actually full of this concept. If I weren't so darn lazy I'd pull up the various references. But the Old Testament has quite a few references to "keeping the law before me daily." And the New Testament speaks of "putting out of your mind" various bad thoughts and notions, and "taking on the mind that was in Jesus."
I'm wondering ... the concept of "mind control" has been, I think, improperly maligned. There is such a thing as good mind control, correct?
* * *
I'm in Sacramento, CA this week. I am offering the SOA workshop sans labs to a group of State of CA people, at the request of the lead architect for our employer who covers the state. He seems to feel the message I deliver is of some value. :-)
* * *
I will definitely see "The Simpson's Movie." It'll be a hoot! No attempt at realistic animation there!
* * *
Yes, I do recall Frank Bruno. A name like "Bruno" is a natural for a boxer, wouldn't you say?
Grand Order of Water Rats
Perhaps because that's what they've been taught to aspire to? Or maybe because, as we've discussed, people order their lives around the avoidance of those things they fear ... and fear of being alone and lonely is a powerful motivator?
Maybe, probably in fact. Although I was expecting a verse or two of prose detailing how the human existence is devoid of all meaning without love. :)
+++
The Ratatouille is on our list to see this month (I don't think it's out in the UK yet) - along with the new Harry Potter film and the movie event of K's lifetime .. The Simpsons! Thanks for your words on the Rat movie, I had it down as "just another CGI run of the mills kids animation" .. but now I shall look more closely.
+++
Ever hear of a UK boxer named Frank Bruno? He had a title shot once against Tyson. He was in my local supermarket yesterday (Tesco store), I wonder if he's living up here now, or in some kids panto in the area? I met him when I was a kid he came to our school. He is still an enormous fella.
Maybe, probably in fact. Although I was expecting a verse or two of prose detailing how the human existence is devoid of all meaning without love. :)
+++
The Ratatouille is on our list to see this month (I don't think it's out in the UK yet) - along with the new Harry Potter film and the movie event of K's lifetime .. The Simpsons! Thanks for your words on the Rat movie, I had it down as "just another CGI run of the mills kids animation" .. but now I shall look more closely.
+++
Ever hear of a UK boxer named Frank Bruno? He had a title shot once against Tyson. He was in my local supermarket yesterday (Tesco store), I wonder if he's living up here now, or in some kids panto in the area? I met him when I was a kid he came to our school. He is still an enormous fella.
Darwinian Ratatouille
Why is getting a life partner such an attractive prospect for most people? Explain please.
Perhaps because that's what they've been taught to aspire to? Or maybe because, as we've discussed, people order their lives around the avoidance of those things they fear ... and fear of being alone and lonely is a powerful motivator?
* * *
We went to see the Disney/Pixar movie "Ratatouille" yesterday. It is a phenomenal piece of work, both technically and artistically. Technically the animation is stunning. In earlier computer animations I was left with a sense of watching animation throughout the movie. With this film that sense of "watching animation" drifted away very quickly.
One of the things I have noticed is that animated film makers are very intentionally not making certain elements of the characters "lifelike." They're maintaining a certain cartoonishness to the facial features, particularly eyes. The eyes are what convey most emotional expression, and with eyes that are intentionally "not real," they're capable of amplifying the expression.
The movie is not, however, a movie purely aimed at little kids. In fact, many of the kids in the theater were bored at about 1 hour. The action slows and the story develops during the "middle bridge."
The writing and story of Ratatouille is superb. It's a very clever story. Some elements could be jettisoned, but overall it's witty and heartwarming. Oh, and the boy does get the girl! :-)
* * *
Apparently "Live Earth" did not quite meet expectations in terms of attendance. And I've seen several stories about how the performers in these shows flew private jets, a heavy contributor to greenhouse gases.
Unlike previous "Live ____" shows, this one labored under the burden of advocating something that asked participants to actually consider sacrificing their own personal convenience. It's one thing to pay money to some abstract starving child in Africa ... quite another to modify my own lifestyle as part of a cause.
Perhaps because that's what they've been taught to aspire to? Or maybe because, as we've discussed, people order their lives around the avoidance of those things they fear ... and fear of being alone and lonely is a powerful motivator?
* * *
We went to see the Disney/Pixar movie "Ratatouille" yesterday. It is a phenomenal piece of work, both technically and artistically. Technically the animation is stunning. In earlier computer animations I was left with a sense of watching animation throughout the movie. With this film that sense of "watching animation" drifted away very quickly.
One of the things I have noticed is that animated film makers are very intentionally not making certain elements of the characters "lifelike." They're maintaining a certain cartoonishness to the facial features, particularly eyes. The eyes are what convey most emotional expression, and with eyes that are intentionally "not real," they're capable of amplifying the expression.
The movie is not, however, a movie purely aimed at little kids. In fact, many of the kids in the theater were bored at about 1 hour. The action slows and the story develops during the "middle bridge."
The writing and story of Ratatouille is superb. It's a very clever story. Some elements could be jettisoned, but overall it's witty and heartwarming. Oh, and the boy does get the girl! :-)
* * *
Apparently "Live Earth" did not quite meet expectations in terms of attendance. And I've seen several stories about how the performers in these shows flew private jets, a heavy contributor to greenhouse gases.
Unlike previous "Live ____" shows, this one labored under the burden of advocating something that asked participants to actually consider sacrificing their own personal convenience. It's one thing to pay money to some abstract starving child in Africa ... quite another to modify my own lifestyle as part of a cause.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Darwinian Puzzle
Interesting article. Quite saddening (but true) that the whole world seems to be dominated by the desire to reproduce, to dance to the tune that DNA is playing.
Some thoughts as I read ...
It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.
"No coincidence" vs. "Probably". Hmmm. Which is it? I thought at this point that the authors had fallen into the age old trap of using "It's a well known fact .." (ie. the sure fire statement "It is no coincidence" and then realising they had done that followed up with a back-peddle (ie. "probably"). Either way it left me thinking "maybe these guys are just bullshitting me to make a buck".
True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.
Why is getting a life partner such an attractive prospect for most people? Explain please.
Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.
Yes I agree, and I think the "daughter effect" is largely due to attractive, if poor, fathers - nothing to do with women (or Americans :)
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes
This is so true. I learned this in my mid twenties and have done my best to refuse to play this little game ever since. I recall saying to you some years ago (7 or 8) .. "who wants to dance to the tune of DNA?" I think this was outside a Yaght Club in the Poughkeepsie are if memory serves me correctly. We don't have to play, as thinking beings we always have a choice.
Some thoughts as I read ...
It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.
"No coincidence" vs. "Probably". Hmmm. Which is it? I thought at this point that the authors had fallen into the age old trap of using "It's a well known fact .." (ie. the sure fire statement "It is no coincidence" and then realising they had done that followed up with a back-peddle (ie. "probably"). Either way it left me thinking "maybe these guys are just bullshitting me to make a buck".
True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.
Why is getting a life partner such an attractive prospect for most people? Explain please.
Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.
Yes I agree, and I think the "daughter effect" is largely due to attractive, if poor, fathers - nothing to do with women (or Americans :)
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes
This is so true. I learned this in my mid twenties and have done my best to refuse to play this little game ever since. I recall saying to you some years ago (7 or 8) .. "who wants to dance to the tune of DNA?" I think this was outside a Yaght Club in the Poughkeepsie are if memory serves me correctly. We don't have to play, as thinking beings we always have a choice.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Influences
And it got me wondering -- what is one supposed to do about things like that?
Yes I think you would need to put some pressure on it. Perhaps a Steri-Strip(tm) across the almost invisible wound, some cotton wool on top of that and then a plaster on top of that. Not being a haemophiliac this would give your platelets a chance to aggregate around the exposure and form a clot, overnight is the best time for this to happen as you won't be using your mouth so much! I had one of those on my chin once that wept for literally days, all healed up eventually and the scar went away after 5 years or so.
K is terrified of her own blood. I have tried to explain to her what it's function is and how she could lose a lot of it and still be ok, like in a blood donation scenario, but still she has a very low level instinctual fear of seeing even a drop of her own blood. Ah, the mind of a child. I explained that when we are young we have many many fears, and that these fears are like the bars of a cage around us. As we grow older, we break down the bars of the cage one by one until - if we are lucky - we are totally free of fear - but it's ok to have these bars they are natural. I also mentioned even when one is eventually free of fears for oneself, one then takes on fears that loved ones may come to harm, so we never get to be really free of fear.
+++
Some Wikipedia info:
(It didn't have) a thing (to do with the Beatles' Let It Be). Just a coincidence because you're working along the same lines at the same time at the same age as a lot of other cats. All trying to do the same thing basically, turn themselves and other people on. Let It Bleed was just one line in that song Mick wrote. It became the title... we just kicked a line out... We dug that song so... maybe there was some influence because Let It Be had been kicked around for years for their movie, for that album. Let it be something. Let it out. Let it loose.
Yes I think you would need to put some pressure on it. Perhaps a Steri-Strip(tm) across the almost invisible wound, some cotton wool on top of that and then a plaster on top of that. Not being a haemophiliac this would give your platelets a chance to aggregate around the exposure and form a clot, overnight is the best time for this to happen as you won't be using your mouth so much! I had one of those on my chin once that wept for literally days, all healed up eventually and the scar went away after 5 years or so.
K is terrified of her own blood. I have tried to explain to her what it's function is and how she could lose a lot of it and still be ok, like in a blood donation scenario, but still she has a very low level instinctual fear of seeing even a drop of her own blood. Ah, the mind of a child. I explained that when we are young we have many many fears, and that these fears are like the bars of a cage around us. As we grow older, we break down the bars of the cage one by one until - if we are lucky - we are totally free of fear - but it's ok to have these bars they are natural. I also mentioned even when one is eventually free of fears for oneself, one then takes on fears that loved ones may come to harm, so we never get to be really free of fear.
+++
Some Wikipedia info:
- Most of Let It Be was recorded in January 1969, before the recording and release of the album Abbey Road.
- Let It Be is the twelfth and final album by The Beatles, released on May 8, 1970
- Let It Bleed is an album by The Rolling Stones, released in 1969
- ... recording for Let It Bleed began in earnest in February 1969
- The Stone's Let It Bleed was released months before Let it Be, but it should be noted that most of the song (sic) from Let it Be had been recorded earlier than most of the songs in Let It Bleed, and was a known project.
(It didn't have) a thing (to do with the Beatles' Let It Be). Just a coincidence because you're working along the same lines at the same time at the same age as a lot of other cats. All trying to do the same thing basically, turn themselves and other people on. Let It Bleed was just one line in that song Mick wrote. It became the title... we just kicked a line out... We dug that song so... maybe there was some influence because Let It Be had been kicked around for years for their movie, for that album. Let it be something. Let it out. Let it loose.
Let it Bleed
Today I nicked myself shaving. No big deal, right? Normally it's not. But this morning the cut was right on the edge of the lip, and I must have severed a fairly significant blood vessel right near the surface. It bled fiercely. I thought I had it stopped after about 1 hour of pressure and perhaps a tablespoon or more of shed blood. But then it opened back up and it took 1.5 hours more to once again get it to stop. Now I am sitting nearly motionless, determined to not disturb the wound so that hopefully it will clot properly and start to heal.
The cut was about 1/10th of a millimeter. I'm very serious ... it was that small.
And it got me wondering -- what is one supposed to do about things like that? The normal procedure would be pressure and elevation, which I tried, but to no avail. In both instances where it stopped -- the first, which gave way, and now, which I'm crossing my fingers on -- it stopped for no apparent reason. Going to a hospital would earn me the laughs and guffaws of those there. "It's tiny! Why are you wasting our time?"
Suturing is out of the question ... the wound is too small for that. Cauterization would probably be the course of action if pressure and elevation failed to stem the bleeding.
I wonder if anyone makes a "home cauterization kit?" Probably not. They make "Styptic pencils," which attempt to constrict the blood vessels to assist in coagulation. I tried one of those, but to no avail. I read on Wikipedia that there is heat cauterization, electric (which probably involves localized heat), and chemical (using silver nitrate).
The cut was about 1/10th of a millimeter. I'm very serious ... it was that small.
And it got me wondering -- what is one supposed to do about things like that? The normal procedure would be pressure and elevation, which I tried, but to no avail. In both instances where it stopped -- the first, which gave way, and now, which I'm crossing my fingers on -- it stopped for no apparent reason. Going to a hospital would earn me the laughs and guffaws of those there. "It's tiny! Why are you wasting our time?"
Suturing is out of the question ... the wound is too small for that. Cauterization would probably be the course of action if pressure and elevation failed to stem the bleeding.
I wonder if anyone makes a "home cauterization kit?" Probably not. They make "Styptic pencils," which attempt to constrict the blood vessels to assist in coagulation. I tried one of those, but to no avail. I read on Wikipedia that there is heat cauterization, electric (which probably involves localized heat), and chemical (using silver nitrate).
Monday, July 02, 2007
Test Not Worth Conducting
It would be an interesting experiment, but this is what would happen ... if the result was statistically in favour of a prayer-granting God then non-believers would claim that more data points are necessary. If the result was God-neutral then believers would claim that God knew about the test and didn't want to demean Himself by getting involved.
Your concluding point is spot on: there would be no point :)
There are lots of troubling aspect of such a test:
And, as you say, regardless of the results, nobody is going to be happy. :-)
Your concluding point is spot on: there would be no point :)
There are lots of troubling aspect of such a test:
- We wouldn't be able to really discern the true faith of those in the "believer" control group. Can we know that someone who prays with a healthy dose of unbelief underlying their prayers is as effective as those who are true saints?
- It would be difficult to know if what people say they're praying for is what's really going on in their hearts.
And, as you say, regardless of the results, nobody is going to be happy. :-)
Scientific evidence for God
I agree, the article is ridiculous, you quite rightly point out that the author is suggesting that God is bound and limited by the "laws" that man has so far discovered about our Universe - forgetting that by defintion God is above all of that.
There is one interesting point though, but I don't fully understand the statistics behind it, that is - inferring the existance of God by having two groups .. one group that prayed for things, and one that didn't. Now, clearly the maker would not grant 100% of the prayers, but would He grant a statistically significant portion compared to those that did not pray?
It would be an interesting experiment, but this is what would happen ... if the result was statistically in favour of a prayer-granting God then non-believers would claim that more data points are necessary. If the result was God-neutral then believers would claim that God knew about the test and didn't want to demean Himself by getting involved. In addition, both sides would claim the results were "fixed". So there would be no point :)
There is one interesting point though, but I don't fully understand the statistics behind it, that is - inferring the existance of God by having two groups .. one group that prayed for things, and one that didn't. Now, clearly the maker would not grant 100% of the prayers, but would He grant a statistically significant portion compared to those that did not pray?
It would be an interesting experiment, but this is what would happen ... if the result was statistically in favour of a prayer-granting God then non-believers would claim that more data points are necessary. If the result was God-neutral then believers would claim that God knew about the test and didn't want to demean Himself by getting involved. In addition, both sides would claim the results were "fixed". So there would be no point :)
More on "The Fuzz"
The Fuzz, stretched out on the top of the La-Z-Boy recliner in my home office:
The new perch for The Fuzz in the corner of my home office, where the two windows are:
In the past I generally had the shades down. But now that I've lifted the shades so the cat can look out, he's drawn to the spot.
The new perch for The Fuzz in the corner of my home office, where the two windows are:
In the past I generally had the shades down. But now that I've lifted the shades so the cat can look out, he's drawn to the spot.
Prayers and Neurology
This article seems to me a bit silly. Key elements:
I'm really not trying to get into a theological debate about the existence or specific capabilities of God. I'm trying to apply some consistent thinking to this question. I'm not convinced the author(s) have. I believe they have fallen prey to a certain "scientific arrogance," if I may use that term.
* * *
Good observation regarding the selective removal of the "involve me" component of memory. I have no idea how that would be done. Or whether the reported findings are as precise as implied. It could be the initial findings are a bit more rough.
* * *
No, the puppy is not mine. That was on some other website. I just thought it cute. My lovely bride has softened somewhat on the cat. We are not getting rid of him. I have had to take on a more active role in the upkeep of the cat. To that end, I have created a spot in the corner of my home office where the cat can sit on the filing cabinet and look out the two corner windows and survey the world. We also bought a battery operated cat toy that he seems to enjoy batting at. This is all part of a theory that one problem the cat has is simple boredom.
The brain, an electrochemical organ, consists of matter and energy, but the mental states that are the epiphenomena of its physiological processes are neither material substances nor forms of energy. Sherrington (1951) expressed this “scientific position” in saying, “Thoughts, feelings, and so on are not amenable to the energy (matter) concept. They lie outside it.” If thoughts—including silent prayers—are not a form of energy, then there is no known natural means by which they could be transmitted beyond ourselves or read within us.Right there it seems to me the author(s) are drawing a constraining box. They seem to be implying that God is limited to "natural means." This, it seems, gets back to the fundamental question of "natural" versus "supernatural." If God is simply part of the natural, then perhaps this statement makes some sense. But if God is beyond natural -- that is, supernatural -- then it would seem within the realm of possible. I'm deliberately avoiding the issue of whether God exists or is supernatural or merely natural. I'm saying: "Suppose God exists and suppose further God is outside the natural. Therefore, mechanisms outside the natural are then possible."
Though thoughts and prayers are neither transmissible nor readable by any natural means, could they be known to a supernatural being? Evidence for or against this can be obtained by determining whether prayers are followed by what was solicited by them.This is the "scientific" approach. "Let's test if prayers work. We'll study requests asked and see if they are granted. This measurement will tell if the prayers are transmissible outside the brain." But this notion is built on a misunderstanding, it seems to me: that a prayer request offered necessarily must be granted. Theologically there's much to support the refutation of that. But if we stay within the realm of what we know as humans we can draw a parallel: if you as a parent do not grant a request expressed by your child, does that mean the request was not heard or understood by you? Of course not. You as a parent have a better understanding of what is good for your child than do they. You may deny or ignore the request because you know it to be either foolish or harmful.
Even if this immeasurable activity could be captured, seemingly insurmountable difficulties would prevent its translation into thoughts. To begin with, the translation would need to be simultaneous with the flow of thoughts as well as in the language of the thinker, for a full thought is its verbal expression. In view of what is known of brain development and organization (Harth 1993), the neural patterns underlying any thought, even a formulary prayer, would be unique for every individual. Thus, generic translations from neural patterns to verbal thoughts in any language would be impossible. A supernatural being would need to instantly surmount these difficulties—for multitudes of concurrent supplicants—in order to grasp the informational content of a mental prayer. Moreover, such a being would, logically, need to be with each supplicant while he or she is rotating with Earth at 1,038 miles per hour (if at the equator), orbiting around the Sun at 18.5 miles per second, rotating around the center of the Milky Way at about 150 miles per second, and moving through space with our galaxy at some thousands of miles per second.
To my eye there's a degree of anthropomorphism taking place here. The author(s) are aware of their own limitations to perform the translation they seem to think is necessary, and then project that on God.
Whether they can be known to a supernatural being hinges on the effects of the prayers’ solicitations as judged by proper scientific studies. To date, such studies of intercessory prayer have not shown it to improve health-care outcomes. In contrast to thoughts themselves, the brain activity from which thoughts arise does consist of energy—electrochemical energy within neural circuitry. Reading this teeming energy in millions of circuit neurons and translating it into the thought or prayer arising from it seems theoretically impossible for even a supernatural being.It strikes me two errors are being committed here:
- The first highlighted section confuses the issue of God "knowing" (or hearing, or understanding) a prayer with God's granting said request. The underlying assumption is that if asked, therefore it must be granted. Further, that only a "scientific study" of this will validate it. I understand the urge to scientifically validate such things ... but I think this statement betrays a preexisting bias on the part of the author(s).
- The second highlighted phrase is an opinion, not a scientifically derived conclusion. The phasing "it seems" softens it a bit. But still, this "conclusion" is drawn from a constrained view of what a "supernatural being" is capable of.
I'm really not trying to get into a theological debate about the existence or specific capabilities of God. I'm trying to apply some consistent thinking to this question. I'm not convinced the author(s) have. I believe they have fallen prey to a certain "scientific arrogance," if I may use that term.
* * *
Good observation regarding the selective removal of the "involve me" component of memory. I have no idea how that would be done. Or whether the reported findings are as precise as implied. It could be the initial findings are a bit more rough.
* * *
No, the puppy is not mine. That was on some other website. I just thought it cute. My lovely bride has softened somewhat on the cat. We are not getting rid of him. I have had to take on a more active role in the upkeep of the cat. To that end, I have created a spot in the corner of my home office where the cat can sit on the filing cabinet and look out the two corner windows and survey the world. We also bought a battery operated cat toy that he seems to enjoy batting at. This is all part of a theory that one problem the cat has is simple boredom.
Involvement
Hmm, the article at one point says:
"As the memory is getting restored, we gave patients a drug that turns down the emotional part of the memory. It left the conscious part of the memory intact, so they could still remember all the details but without being overwhelmed by the memory."
I don't see how that is possible, deleting the whole memory might be, but what is an "emotional part" of a memory and how could that be deleted and not the memory? More to this than meets the eye I think. I am reminded of the Chinese saying:
Tell Me -- I Forget
Show Me -- I Remember
Involve Me -- I understand
It looks like the researchers can remove the "Involve Me" component selectively?
+++
Is that little puppy your new dog by the way?
"As the memory is getting restored, we gave patients a drug that turns down the emotional part of the memory. It left the conscious part of the memory intact, so they could still remember all the details but without being overwhelmed by the memory."
I don't see how that is possible, deleting the whole memory might be, but what is an "emotional part" of a memory and how could that be deleted and not the memory? More to this than meets the eye I think. I am reminded of the Chinese saying:
Tell Me -- I Forget
Show Me -- I Remember
Involve Me -- I understand
It looks like the researchers can remove the "Involve Me" component selectively?
+++
Is that little puppy your new dog by the way?
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)