Thursday, January 21, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Idolatry
So is it against the Bible to erect a statue of Abraham Lincoln.
That is one of the more idiotic concepts of the Hebrew derived religions, the concept of "idolatry," or the worship of images.
Sheesh, no one thinks the idol or the picture or the icon is the god or the saint or the prophet or whatever. It is all a case of condemning something that doesn't exist. Muslims really go overboard on this, greatly stunting the artistic development of their culture. Mosques can be impressive and maybe beautiful, but once you've seen one you've seen them all.
Some people, I'm told, use icons as an aid to worship or a focus of concentration in prayer, but they do not imagine they are praying to the icon. Personally I just see them as an excuse for art with a religious awe aspect attached.
That is one of the more idiotic concepts of the Hebrew derived religions, the concept of "idolatry," or the worship of images.
Sheesh, no one thinks the idol or the picture or the icon is the god or the saint or the prophet or whatever. It is all a case of condemning something that doesn't exist. Muslims really go overboard on this, greatly stunting the artistic development of their culture. Mosques can be impressive and maybe beautiful, but once you've seen one you've seen them all.
Some people, I'm told, use icons as an aid to worship or a focus of concentration in prayer, but they do not imagine they are praying to the icon. Personally I just see them as an excuse for art with a religious awe aspect attached.
About saying science is stupid
Anyone who says science is stupid is stupid. I would have died in my thirties except for the luck that at the point I was most desperate science came up with a cure for my particular infection.
You can't be selective and accept the good things science gives you while denying the rest of it based on religion or prejudice or ideology (as in Lysenkoism).
You can't be selective and accept the good things science gives you while denying the rest of it based on religion or prejudice or ideology (as in Lysenkoism).
Should caterers and similar businesses be allowed to discriminte against gay functions?
This is a tough call. I think if you are going to conduct a public business, you have no basis for discrimination, and those you discriminate against should have the right to take you to law.
At the same time, I think a restaurant, for example, should have the right to refuse entry to someone barefoot, as such a person, if they step on some glass on the floor, is likely to hold the restaurant responsible (although of course such a suit would be quickly dismissed).
So the ban on discrimination has subtleties and exceptions. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the one discriminating has a burden to show that the discrimination has valid purpose behind it and is not just reflective of prejudice or whim. This sort of complication makes lots of work for lawyers.
I can see anyone, not just African-Americans, legitimately declining to associate in any way with the KKK, and I can see lawyers coming up with dozens of valid reasons, depending on the details of the case, for this discrimination.
Discrimination against gays is perhaps a little more difficult to justify.
At the same time, I think a restaurant, for example, should have the right to refuse entry to someone barefoot, as such a person, if they step on some glass on the floor, is likely to hold the restaurant responsible (although of course such a suit would be quickly dismissed).
So the ban on discrimination has subtleties and exceptions. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the one discriminating has a burden to show that the discrimination has valid purpose behind it and is not just reflective of prejudice or whim. This sort of complication makes lots of work for lawyers.
I can see anyone, not just African-Americans, legitimately declining to associate in any way with the KKK, and I can see lawyers coming up with dozens of valid reasons, depending on the details of the case, for this discrimination.
Discrimination against gays is perhaps a little more difficult to justify.
Democrats and Republicans and military spending
Good defense doesn't mean spending and spending and spending. The generals have their pet projects, as to the universities and health institutes and tax collectors, and the central government has to make hard choices.
Cutting expenses in any of these and others does not necessarily go with reduced effectiveness. In fact when dealilng with government types (including generals) it usually is better a sign of increased effectiveness. Waste is being reduced and technology is being introduced that is less expensive and the big showy ego-trips of the generals are being passed over, or at least scrutinized more carefully.
There is also the fact that the US does not have the external threats of the old Communist empire.
Democrats tend to keep us out of war, Republicans the opposite. There are exceptions, as the external world does not always cooperate, but this is a noticeable fact. The reason I think is that Democrats prefer quiet compromise whenever possible, the Republicans tend to be obnoxious, uncompromising, and eager to show how tough they are.
Cutting expenses in any of these and others does not necessarily go with reduced effectiveness. In fact when dealilng with government types (including generals) it usually is better a sign of increased effectiveness. Waste is being reduced and technology is being introduced that is less expensive and the big showy ego-trips of the generals are being passed over, or at least scrutinized more carefully.
There is also the fact that the US does not have the external threats of the old Communist empire.
Democrats tend to keep us out of war, Republicans the opposite. There are exceptions, as the external world does not always cooperate, but this is a noticeable fact. The reason I think is that Democrats prefer quiet compromise whenever possible, the Republicans tend to be obnoxious, uncompromising, and eager to show how tough they are.
Neurology's hard problem, sentience and qualia and intelligence and mind
I would suggest making a distinction between sentience and intelligence or "thinking."
Sentience has to do with senses, and by extension also with emotions. The "sound" of one hand clapping is what we sometimes call frustration -- an unfulfilled expectation -- there should be a sound but there is not. This hoary old koan teaches how emotions and sensations are essentially the same sort of thing -- things we "feel" or experience, but are entirely in our mind.
Yes what we see and hear and so on is entirely in our mind. It is an illusion (not a delusion -- there is something outside our mind generating it). The brain or something of that sort processes incoming information and feeds it to us as sensations ("qualia"). "Green" has no physical reality -- what we see as green is invented in the brain or mind -- what it is based on are certain wavelengths of light (usually but not always) fed to our consciousness as the color.
It is easy to demonstrate (showing Descartes had it all wrong) that a lot of animals are sentient. Descartes said that what they do looks like sentience, but is really just reflex. Of course there are things we do that are reflex, but we recognize them as such because they happen before we are consciously aware. That animals suffer too, though, shows me when they are in pain there is more than reflex going on, and one has to wonder what Descartes could have been thinking.
Sentience is a huge advance in survival. It can, for example, be associated with pleasure and displeasure centers in the brain, enabling the body to motivate the animal much more strongly and much more flexibly. So we perceive pain not just as a sensation but as something very unpleasant and bad -- and the animal does not have to wait for mutations that tell it not to do certain things.
Intelligence comes later, and probably needs the presence of sentience to evolve, and is associated with logic processing and association and categorization of things and stuff like that. A lot of animals can do those things too, but apparently it takes a lot more brainpower to do it well, hence our brains use four times as many calories ongoing as does a chimpanzee brain. Languages obviously fit into this as allowing these activities even more efficiently, and that is where I would also put mathematics.
Does the mind ever stop experiencing and thinking? I guess that depends on what "mind" is. If it is just an illusion generated by brain, then of course it stops thinking when we sleep without dream, when we are comatose, and when we die. Maybe that is the case even if mind is something more.
What sentience is and what it is when we experience qualia (including self awareness) is the "deep problem" of neurology, and, I would say, also of philosophy and psychology and maybe even physics. Because neither I nor anyone else has an answer (no one can pretend to even have an idea how to approach it scientifically) is not an excuse to jump to the god of the gaps, nor to jump to the woo of the gaps, but it is an excuse to seriously doubt traditional philosophical materialism (or its modern descendant now known as physicalism).
Sentience has to do with senses, and by extension also with emotions. The "sound" of one hand clapping is what we sometimes call frustration -- an unfulfilled expectation -- there should be a sound but there is not. This hoary old koan teaches how emotions and sensations are essentially the same sort of thing -- things we "feel" or experience, but are entirely in our mind.
Yes what we see and hear and so on is entirely in our mind. It is an illusion (not a delusion -- there is something outside our mind generating it). The brain or something of that sort processes incoming information and feeds it to us as sensations ("qualia"). "Green" has no physical reality -- what we see as green is invented in the brain or mind -- what it is based on are certain wavelengths of light (usually but not always) fed to our consciousness as the color.
It is easy to demonstrate (showing Descartes had it all wrong) that a lot of animals are sentient. Descartes said that what they do looks like sentience, but is really just reflex. Of course there are things we do that are reflex, but we recognize them as such because they happen before we are consciously aware. That animals suffer too, though, shows me when they are in pain there is more than reflex going on, and one has to wonder what Descartes could have been thinking.
Sentience is a huge advance in survival. It can, for example, be associated with pleasure and displeasure centers in the brain, enabling the body to motivate the animal much more strongly and much more flexibly. So we perceive pain not just as a sensation but as something very unpleasant and bad -- and the animal does not have to wait for mutations that tell it not to do certain things.
Intelligence comes later, and probably needs the presence of sentience to evolve, and is associated with logic processing and association and categorization of things and stuff like that. A lot of animals can do those things too, but apparently it takes a lot more brainpower to do it well, hence our brains use four times as many calories ongoing as does a chimpanzee brain. Languages obviously fit into this as allowing these activities even more efficiently, and that is where I would also put mathematics.
Does the mind ever stop experiencing and thinking? I guess that depends on what "mind" is. If it is just an illusion generated by brain, then of course it stops thinking when we sleep without dream, when we are comatose, and when we die. Maybe that is the case even if mind is something more.
What sentience is and what it is when we experience qualia (including self awareness) is the "deep problem" of neurology, and, I would say, also of philosophy and psychology and maybe even physics. Because neither I nor anyone else has an answer (no one can pretend to even have an idea how to approach it scientifically) is not an excuse to jump to the god of the gaps, nor to jump to the woo of the gaps, but it is an excuse to seriously doubt traditional philosophical materialism (or its modern descendant now known as physicalism).
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
What causes homosexuality?
One might ask for what just is it that determines our "sexual orientation?" Most of the details of how to have sex and who we think beautiful are learned, as are fetishes, and all that comes through life. It is probably true that almost all men (gay and straight) are born with an inherent desire for youthful partners who are of optimal breeding age, and it is probably true that most women have a different, more "will they be loyal and help me with my baby?" set of priorities. Otherwise the details get fixed by experiences of what is pleasurable and what isn't.
The sexual orientation also has to be kept separate in one's mind from one's sexual identity. I'm gay but I know and like the fact that I'm a man and have no desire to be a woman, either physically or in bed. That is a separate set of issues.
Now what is it that makes for orientation? I think it is "turn on" buttons, and there are two sets of these. One is an attraction to smooth skin, broad hips, breasts, female genitals. The other is an attraction to rougher skin, narrow hips and broad shoulders, male genitals. Except for bisexuals, who appear to be heterogeneous here (if it's genetic), we get one or the other and it is in place from the beginning, although of course it doesn't really present itself until the puberty hormones set in.
There does seem to be pretty strong twin evidence of an inherited component (identical twins are more likely the same orientation that fraternal twins), but there could be a uterine component too (there is a slight prevalence of same orientation in fraternal twins). Brothers raised together and brothers raised separately show no particular concurrence, so we conclude it is not overbearing mothers and weak fathers.
What one inherits seems to be a genetic "turn on" pattern, in humans mainly visually oriented.
Of course one could ask what is the survival value of having the patterns inverted occasionally. I don't think there needs to be one (although theories abound). It could be just something that evolution has never had any reason to evolve prevention mechanisms for. In most societies when a boy is gay, the brother steps in on the sly, and the family name goes on. There is not that much of a selective disadvantage, and it can be offset by the additional help raising the babies. Besides, among hunter-gatherers, it could be useful to have members of the tribe who the hunters know will not cuckold them remain behind with the women to provide better security.
The sexual orientation also has to be kept separate in one's mind from one's sexual identity. I'm gay but I know and like the fact that I'm a man and have no desire to be a woman, either physically or in bed. That is a separate set of issues.
Now what is it that makes for orientation? I think it is "turn on" buttons, and there are two sets of these. One is an attraction to smooth skin, broad hips, breasts, female genitals. The other is an attraction to rougher skin, narrow hips and broad shoulders, male genitals. Except for bisexuals, who appear to be heterogeneous here (if it's genetic), we get one or the other and it is in place from the beginning, although of course it doesn't really present itself until the puberty hormones set in.
There does seem to be pretty strong twin evidence of an inherited component (identical twins are more likely the same orientation that fraternal twins), but there could be a uterine component too (there is a slight prevalence of same orientation in fraternal twins). Brothers raised together and brothers raised separately show no particular concurrence, so we conclude it is not overbearing mothers and weak fathers.
What one inherits seems to be a genetic "turn on" pattern, in humans mainly visually oriented.
Of course one could ask what is the survival value of having the patterns inverted occasionally. I don't think there needs to be one (although theories abound). It could be just something that evolution has never had any reason to evolve prevention mechanisms for. In most societies when a boy is gay, the brother steps in on the sly, and the family name goes on. There is not that much of a selective disadvantage, and it can be offset by the additional help raising the babies. Besides, among hunter-gatherers, it could be useful to have members of the tribe who the hunters know will not cuckold them remain behind with the women to provide better security.
Catholics and the Bible and Apostolic Succession
Catholics never denied the Bible, although their Bible is not the same as the Protestant Bible, it shares a common corpus. What they did deny is that people reading it have the ability to decide the Church's views are not Biblical. Frankly I think they have the better of the argument, even though of course their claim of Apostolic Succession is based on some pretty thin evidence.
The reason they get the better of the argument is that I see most Protestants picking and choosing which verses they like, even though they claim they don't, and even lifting passages out of context to "prove" their point.
It's kind of like making a study designed to prove some point one already believes. If they approached the Bible to see what it really says, they would not be so glib, but then of course they would eventually have to abandon the Bible altogether for all purposes but literary fiction.
The reason they get the better of the argument is that I see most Protestants picking and choosing which verses they like, even though they claim they don't, and even lifting passages out of context to "prove" their point.
It's kind of like making a study designed to prove some point one already believes. If they approached the Bible to see what it really says, they would not be so glib, but then of course they would eventually have to abandon the Bible altogether for all purposes but literary fiction.
God punishing his children
Have you heard that God punishes us to prevent our being bad or doing stupid things and getting hurt. In this he shows his love for us.
Psychologists know that if one tries to use punishment to teach a kid right and wrong, what you really do is teach the kid to lie and cause resentment and, depending on the severity, even hate. There are much better ways to raise kids.
Also, delayed consequences don't teach either. "Just wait until your father gets home," teaches the kid nothing about right and wrong and only that the father is someone to be feared.
There are ways, using real love and real compassion, to raise good children and never engage in any sort of punishment, neither physical nor verbal nor via denials. There are many books on the subject so I won't try to demonstrate this here.
Yet isn't the method known to be wrong the way the churches tell us God behaves?
Psychologists know that if one tries to use punishment to teach a kid right and wrong, what you really do is teach the kid to lie and cause resentment and, depending on the severity, even hate. There are much better ways to raise kids.
Also, delayed consequences don't teach either. "Just wait until your father gets home," teaches the kid nothing about right and wrong and only that the father is someone to be feared.
There are ways, using real love and real compassion, to raise good children and never engage in any sort of punishment, neither physical nor verbal nor via denials. There are many books on the subject so I won't try to demonstrate this here.
Yet isn't the method known to be wrong the way the churches tell us God behaves?
Pious fraud
One should never forget the phenomenon of pious fraud. This is the idea that lying and other forms of dishonesty (telling just part of the truth, for example) in the pursuit of saving souls is justified. The early Christians were open about doing this, and I think (tongue in cheek here) it may be part of the Jesuit manual.
Sexual ethics
As I tend to say over and over, ethics comes not from how we feel about things but from the basic principles of compassion, utility, and equality.
Now any sex act where one of the people involved either does not understand or does not want it is violation of equality, and is of course rape.
Even when both parties are willing, if it does harm, such as spread disease or hurt one or the other emotionally, then it violates utility and is again wrong. Infidelity too is wrong if it hurts one's spouse emotionally or otherwise, no matter how consenting the partners are.
It seems to me highly likely that adults having sex with minors is highly prone to hurt the minor emotionally, and to adversely affect their normal maturation. That being the case it should be avoided. I personally, as I have said before, have no attraction to teenagers. In fact my partner is my age -- we are both old codgers. However, it is too easy to condemn things we have no inclination toward -- this is hypocritical and lacks compassion and is also wrong.
Morality is not easy, and has to be settle not with rules but with reasoning derived from rational principles. There is no rule that stands up under all circumstances -- I would be perfectly capable of killing Pol Pot given the chance.
Now any sex act where one of the people involved either does not understand or does not want it is violation of equality, and is of course rape.
Even when both parties are willing, if it does harm, such as spread disease or hurt one or the other emotionally, then it violates utility and is again wrong. Infidelity too is wrong if it hurts one's spouse emotionally or otherwise, no matter how consenting the partners are.
It seems to me highly likely that adults having sex with minors is highly prone to hurt the minor emotionally, and to adversely affect their normal maturation. That being the case it should be avoided. I personally, as I have said before, have no attraction to teenagers. In fact my partner is my age -- we are both old codgers. However, it is too easy to condemn things we have no inclination toward -- this is hypocritical and lacks compassion and is also wrong.
Morality is not easy, and has to be settle not with rules but with reasoning derived from rational principles. There is no rule that stands up under all circumstances -- I would be perfectly capable of killing Pol Pot given the chance.
Falling trees making sound paradox
We have the hoary old "paradox" of whether a tree falling in the forest where there is no one around makes a sound.
I had this explained to me once by an old philosopher that this is not a paradox at all but just a confusion of two distinct meanings of the word "sound." Is it vibrations in the air? In that case the falling tree makes a sound only if there is air.
Is it such vibrations striking the ear drum of a sentient being and ending up as the sensation sound in a mind, in that case it is possible the tree makes no sound if there are no sentient beings around.
So the seeming paradox is not a paradox but just a case of asking two different questions which are entitled to have different answers.
Is it such vibrations striking the ear drum of a sentient being and ending up as the sensation sound in a mind, in that case it is possible the tree makes no sound if there are no sentient beings around.
So the seeming paradox is not a paradox but just a case of asking two different questions which are entitled to have different answers.
The Bible and Apostolic Succession
The Bible, as I understand it (speaking from outside Christianity) has never played the role in Catholicism that it plays in Protestantism. Instead the Catholics understand that "inspired" does not mean one can just take it and read it as one wants and one cannot be so arrogant as to think what one reads actually is what was intended. The words in the Bible were through men, were translated and copied so that errors crept in, and each person has their own sense of what given words mean, which varies from person to person.
So Catholics depend, not on their own understanding, but on the understanding of the Church, as provided via Apostolic Succession.
Of course Luther and others could not claim direct succession from the Apostles, so they had to invent the idea that each man is his own Priest and that the Bible rather than the Church is the source of interpretation.
Well of course this is because by Luther's day a lot of things the RC taught had gotten so far from what is in the Bible that honest people had to say something needed fixing. The problem is their fix is worse than the disease.
So Catholics depend, not on their own understanding, but on the understanding of the Church, as provided via Apostolic Succession.
Of course Luther and others could not claim direct succession from the Apostles, so they had to invent the idea that each man is his own Priest and that the Bible rather than the Church is the source of interpretation.
Well of course this is because by Luther's day a lot of things the RC taught had gotten so far from what is in the Bible that honest people had to say something needed fixing. The problem is their fix is worse than the disease.
Gays and Jews
It is interesting how nowadays the ignoramuses use gayness, mainly male gayness, as the foundation for what they think are insults -- intended but of course failing to hurt the party being insulted.
It is a little frightening. If you look at pre-Nazi Germany, the ignoramus insults all involved Jewishness. There are an awful lot of ignoramuses in this world, going by how the American primary season among Republicans seems to be turning out.
It is a little frightening. If you look at pre-Nazi Germany, the ignoramus insults all involved Jewishness. There are an awful lot of ignoramuses in this world, going by how the American primary season among Republicans seems to be turning out.
Guilt and shame after sin
My observation of people tells me they rarely if ever do things they really think are sinful. The only exception is probably giving in to sex urges, so people would be a lot happier if they realized sex is not a sin, although of course infidelity is. Maybe giving in to addictions such as gambling and using food for comfort rather than nourishment fall into that category to, but only a little.
Criminals can kill people without the slightest qualm; con artists regularly take money from the elderly and destroy what is left of their lives without giving it a second thought; people easily gossip about others and then secretly do the same things, without even noticing. In other words the serious sins are done and no one feels guilty or shame or remorse (until they are caught, and then these emotions are usually fake).
Our conscience can be good or evil, and in most it is a mix, of personal predilections, cultural norms, and no doubt personal experience. That is karma -- the fact that the more you do good the better your person becomes, the more you do evil the worse it becomes.
The key is not guilt or shame or whatever, but mindfulness and rational thought about what you are doing and its effects on others and on yourself.
Criminals can kill people without the slightest qualm; con artists regularly take money from the elderly and destroy what is left of their lives without giving it a second thought; people easily gossip about others and then secretly do the same things, without even noticing. In other words the serious sins are done and no one feels guilty or shame or remorse (until they are caught, and then these emotions are usually fake).
Our conscience can be good or evil, and in most it is a mix, of personal predilections, cultural norms, and no doubt personal experience. That is karma -- the fact that the more you do good the better your person becomes, the more you do evil the worse it becomes.
The key is not guilt or shame or whatever, but mindfulness and rational thought about what you are doing and its effects on others and on yourself.
Belief in God
I think maybe "believing" is the problem, not God. Believing something can be distinguished from having an opinion, even though dictionaries, given their purpose of merely reflecting common use, generally mis this.
When one believes, one knows. When one has an opinion, one thinks.
When one believes, one knows. When one has an opinion, one thinks.
Compassion, optimization, equality
The mores of a society can be seriously immoral when looked it rationally using principles of compassion, optimization and equality.
We should keep in mind that this applies to our own societies too, and that their mores may also have elements that are rationally immoral. One need but consider where the term "witch hunt" comes from and how often those things still take place.
Sometimes religions contribute to the evil, sometimes they condemn it, sometimes they merely tolerate it in order to keep from losing adherents.
We should keep in mind that this applies to our own societies too, and that their mores may also have elements that are rationally immoral. One need but consider where the term "witch hunt" comes from and how often those things still take place.
Sometimes religions contribute to the evil, sometimes they condemn it, sometimes they merely tolerate it in order to keep from losing adherents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
My guess on this is that it comes from two things -- the lack of discipline (indeed its prohibition) and the fact that the emphasis is not on memorizing but on creativity. There is also a tendency to avoid controversial subjects because of politics (elected boards of education are a horror). The fact that publication of school texts is a profit-oriented business also doesn't help.
Because less creative people (but often with other abiliities) are made to feel inadequate and more disruptive people are tolerated and often allowed to slow everyone's progress -- they are just passed on but ignored and exit schools effectively illiterate and prey to preachers and cults and criminals. Then the bright ones get attention from good teachers and go on to great lives.
The one thing all Americans lack is the ability to memorize, and, of course, notoriously, the ability to learn languages. More balance here would be advisable.