tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89748538066248881492024-02-18T20:12:53.647-08:00Here is no whyLorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-55027215538033771892017-05-28T00:37:00.001-07:002017-05-28T00:37:53.964-07:00Who knows?[23:07] <dAw00d--> LOL<br />
[23:21] <Drayan> ?<br />
<br />
me: He was probably watching Brass Eye and Nichijou.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-80101880841611250582016-07-30T04:41:00.000-07:002016-07-30T04:41:01.957-07:00Dust theory....is a mind bender!Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-27742352474756081052016-01-01T17:30:00.001-08:002016-01-01T17:30:24.464-08:00SI Unit for length....should be 10^34 Planck lengths! Which is ~6.3622 inches or ~16.16 cm. Just need a snazzy name for it.<br />
<br />
For reference the Planck length is: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo_1TF_j9dIJeY_dPSzfl-woyXOtCeUGg7ABiWslXSwWTN53Ji59I5P01YW35tDoc_lW-pvJXGGYeOhWCPqCUIB5N9WxhRSd2ioYyiSeasjWdPXi3s1eE4KQ-jEQ3wHWaEIMv-DBJzEXg/s1600/img6n.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo_1TF_j9dIJeY_dPSzfl-woyXOtCeUGg7ABiWslXSwWTN53Ji59I5P01YW35tDoc_lW-pvJXGGYeOhWCPqCUIB5N9WxhRSd2ioYyiSeasjWdPXi3s1eE4KQ-jEQ3wHWaEIMv-DBJzEXg/s1600/img6n.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-28947782003215935092015-07-22T04:15:00.000-07:002015-07-22T04:17:18.713-07:00Matt Slick 31 questions for atheists<b>1. How would you define atheism?</b><br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
A state of mind which is characterized by a lack of a belief in a god or gods.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a pretty vague question, if you are asking if I act according to beliefs, or a lack of beliefs, then yes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?</b><br />
<br />
Mu. The question is malformed as any normal response assumes god's existence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you instead want to ask if it is inconsistent for a person who lacks a belief in something to endeavor to convince others to lack this belief as well, then no, this is not inconsistent.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am as sure as I can be that I lack a belief in a god.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't understand the question. How is an abstract idea correct or incorrect?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>6. How would you define what truth is?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That which is in accord with fact or reality as can be shown by reason and evidence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The 'default' position is to lack a belief. If a given position has not met its burden of proof, that is, it is not sufficiently supported by reason and evidence then it is reasonable to lack a belief in that position. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?</b></div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both. Things suspected as being immaterial have become material with sufficient understanding in the past, for example electromagnetism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Atheism is not a worldview, as the way a person views the world is independent of the number of gods they believe to exist.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not particularly antagonistic towards Christianity, but I can certainly understand the antagonism, especially in the United States where I live. The antagonism is due to an unconstitutional lack of separation of church and state in a multitude of areas, intolerance from many Christians towards those of differing faiths, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and sometimes even race. There are also many Christians who are anti-science, despite the enormous benefit to the human race science has provided.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have never believed in a god.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's a very far reaching question. It's hard to imagine such a world. I will say that the world would be a better place with <i>much less </i>religion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't think a world without any religion is realistic, and may even be undesirable. It's simply too far removed from present day reality for me to contemplate. It's also problematic because in my opinion the definition of religion lacks sufficient rigor to enable the thought experiment. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would need more specifics on the scenario. For example, in this scenario is Christianity completely replaced with some other popular religion in the world today, such as Islam? I don't think the world would be better off in that scenario. Are Christians replaced with atheists whose typical idealisms are ones of wisdom, generosity and peace? That sounds like a positive scenario.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The definition of a mental disorder would be "a mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't think a belief in a god or gods can be made to fit this definition sufficiently.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>15. Must God be known through the scientific method?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Do you mean for proof of existence? Perhaps not, but certainly something very close to it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoQygllKYzY">TMM</a> stated that proof of god's existence would require: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. A coherent definition of god.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. A set of empirically testable and falsifiable predictions based on the supposition that god exists. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. Test results that match those predictions and are more parsimoniously explained by god's existence than by any other hypothesis.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That seems reasonable. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I did not answer yes, but this refers to number one regarding a coherent definition of god. For an 'immaterial god' to be coherent, 'immaterial' would also have to be coherent.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think you are looking for some kind of 'grand, divine purpose', and for that I say no. Biologically our purpose is to reproduce, nothing more. Psychologically, each person can find their own purpose in life, something to strive for that makes them happy if this is something they feel they need.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I refer to my previous answer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>19. Where does morality come from?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From mind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>20. Are there moral absolutes?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I understand it, moral absolutes require objective morality, and morality at its foundation is subjective.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
N/A</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The concept of evil? Yes I believe that exists. That's a strange thing to ask, like, do you believe dignity exists? Why would it be interesting to determine whether or not an abstract idea that does not relate to any particular physical phenomena exists or not? If I understand the word and the concept it's associated with, it implies that it exists, at least as a word and a concept. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can read between the lines about what the question was intended to ask and I could provide a more insightful answer if I really wanted to, but I don't think it deserves it. Ask better questions and you will get better answers. It's impolite for me to have to clean up malformed questions to enable a better answer.<br />
<br />
<b>23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?</b><br />
<br />
I use these definitions.<br />
<br />
Moral or right if it somehow promotes happiness, well being, or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm/suffering or both.<br />
<br />
Immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well being, or health, or it somehow causes unnecessary harm/suffering or both.<br />
<br />
By those definitions the god character in the old testament did many morally questionable things.<br />
<br />
Why should anyone use these definitions? Well, they're roughly the best we can do. Health can be objectively measured, and perhaps in the future, things like well-being and happiness could be as well.<br />
<br />
<b>24. What would it take for you to believe in God?</b><br />
<br />
See #15.<br />
<br />
<b>25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?</b><br />
<br />
See #15.<br />
<br />
<b>26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?</b><br />
<br />
See #15. Yes it must be 'rationally' based, what good is 'irrationally' based evidence?<br />
<br />
I think I am taller than the Empire State Building, and my evidence is this banana.<br />
<br />
<b>27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?</b><br />
<br />
A society run by "Christians or atheists" as opposed to what?<br />
<br />
<b>28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion).</b><br />
<br />
First of all, it's spelled 'coercion'. Secondly, free will is entirely within the realm of philosophy since it makes no difference to us unless we have some knowledge of coercion.<br />
<br />
The B-series of time indicates that all events have already transpired which would indicate that there is no free will, and general relativity is more supportive of the B-series. However since we appear to be locked in a scenario in which the future is unknown, with the past decided, free will exists <i>for us</i>, even if it doesn't <i>actually </i>exist.<br />
<br />
<b>29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?</b><br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
<b>30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?</b><br />
<br />
I'm not sure if the universe will continue to expand forever, this is one idea among many. Happens to be the best supported idea by the reason and evidence at the moment, but such things are far from decided.<br />
<br />
When you say 'free of the physical', does that mean immaterial? If so I think this lacks coherence.<br />
<br />
If not, you're just meaning something along the lines of energy vs. matter, then sure. I don't think transcending space and time is terribly coherent at the moment, nor is 'deity' really. I agree with the general sentiment though, and I hope we evolve sooner rather than later!<br />
<br />
<b>31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?</b><br />
<br />
Nope. First of all no coherent definition of god has been established here, nor has any likelihood been attributed to an evolution of life to a level where a lifeform could fit said definition. It also doesn't address the Fermi paradox.<br />
<br />
Moreover many rough definitions of god used in major religions today wouldn't support defining god as a being that emerged from any kind of extraterrestrial evolution. Such religions would consider such a being to be at best 'an entity with god-like power', but not the real deal.</div>
</div>
Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-20772399544011128952014-08-13T01:01:00.001-07:002014-08-13T01:01:32.479-07:00Rose Ellen Dix leg bite vlog!You too can share in the adventure between LGBT panels.<br />
<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-C2e8ouEcALorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-75230247959497833092014-04-21T16:38:00.003-07:002014-04-21T16:39:31.950-07:00Powerade Zero flavorsI have no interest in trying the orange or the lemon flavors, but I have tried the others.<br />
<br />
I'd rate them as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Fruit punch<br />
2. Mixed Berry<br />
3. Strawberry<br />
4. Grape<br />
<br />
The mixed berry (blue) is not bad, but its taste is a bit sweet and it gets tiresome.<br />
<br />
The strawberry is not so good. The flavor is very synthetic tasting. It tastes a bit like beer, a non-alcoholic extra watery type beer.<br />
<br />
They really missed the mark on the grape though. I am a huge fan of grape propel which I drink all the time, so I thought this one would be a hit. No such luck. It tastes two parts super synthetic grape flavoring, and one part of something rather 'medicinal' tasting.<br />
<br />
For now the fruit punch is the most tolerable of the lineup that I've tried. I'm concerned though that it's something I could quickly get tired of.<br />
<br />
I've tried the berry and the fruit punch in the non-zero versions, and both tasted arguably better than their 'zero' counterparts.<br />
<br />
I hope to get more chances to try the non-zero ones, but I got these zeroes on a deal, or I probably wouldn't have got them at all. It's unfortunate that the non-zero ones have so much more sugar.<br />
<br />
I'm trying to get an addition for the grape propel though, something a bit heavier hopefully with some calories. I also have dr. pepper, but that is caffeinated so I drink it much more sporadically, and avoid it late at night. It's also supposed to be really unhealthy or w/e.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-77248930554430254982014-04-02T19:39:00.000-07:002014-04-02T19:39:11.628-07:00Magic!I was watching part of a David Blaine rerun with a family member, and they asked me what kind of magic trick would convince me that said person was really "magic" as opposed to just being an illusionist.<br />
<br />
On the spot I said that while I could be <i>extremely </i>"impressed" I concluded that no such task would be convincing, even things like blatant mind reading, causing all green plants to appear red for a day, or causing an interstellar image to appear.<br />
<br />
The problem is that to consider something magic I have to say that what I'm seeing doesn't just <i>appear</i> to break the rules, but actually <i>does</i> break the rules. The rules being the rules of reality, the laws that govern the universe, or perhaps the laws of physics.<br />
<br />
When one sees an illusionist perform an impressive trick they could have the following reactions:<br />
<br />
1. I know all the rules, and what has just been done violates a rule and is therefore magic.<br />
<br />
2. I know all the rules, however what I am seeing likely fits into these rules and only <i>appears </i>not to.<br />
<br />
3. I don't know all the rules, but what I have seen certainly breaks the rules and is therefore magic.<br />
<br />
4. I don't know all the rules, but what I have seen likely fits into the rules I do know, and only <i>appears </i>not to.<br />
<br />
I find #4 the most pragmatic, as #2 has the problem in that if it can be shown that none of the rules are broken, they will either have to conclude that what they have seen is in fact magic, or conclude that they actually do not know all the rules.<br />
<br />
#3 is illogical since how can you know that something breaks a rule if you do not know all the rules?<br />
<br />
#1 is the main path to a belief in magic.<br />
<br />
It's ironic that a magician such as David Blaine could go far back in time to early human cultures and do his magic tricks, and easily convince such early peoples that he has magic powers. Most wouldn't argue that such persons would be quick to believe in magic, and yet this is due to a belief that one understands their reality completely, as opposed to not understanding it.<br />
<br />
While skeptics are often seen as arrogant know-it-alls, their position is one of accepted ignorance and uncertainty over the knowledge they possess.<br />
<br />
This has implications of theism vs. atheism, since a deity would likely possess great 'magic'.<br />
<br />
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. ClarkeLorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-8447197840785221312013-06-15T19:44:00.000-07:002015-12-12T01:09:10.523-08:00Brett Keane's Atheist ChallengeI thought I'd give a response to Brett Keane's atheist challenge from here: http://atheistsneeze.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/brett-keanes-atheist-challenge/<br />
<br />
<b>1. Where do you get your morality from? Please explain your morality.</b><br />
<br />
I see morality in general coming from 5 sources, of which I personally derive something from each of them. I'll talk a little bit about each source and how they relate to me personally:<br />
<br />
<u>1. Instinctual moral intuition</u><br />
<br />
Non-sociopaths will find murder/assault/theft/hypocrisy unpleasant. We have evolved this way so that we can use cooperation in order to survive.<br />
<br />
Moral intuition has its faults however. For example, a child receiving an injection might think his parents are wronging him by insisting his skin be pierced with a needle, despite their intentions being truly compassionate.<br />
<br />
I believe I make some use of this intuition. I am naturally upset over harming others, seeing what I perceive to be injustice, and I am uncomfortable around those that I believe have harmed and/or will harm me or others unjustifiably.<br />
<br />
<u>2. Upbringing</u><br />
<br />
Many people get moral lessons from their upbringing usually from their guardians, siblings, or various other adults.
Our parents and grandparents try to teach us right from wrong. Our teachers enforce rules in school. Interactions with friends and peers establishes boundaries and consequences. The social atmosphere that one is raised in has an undeniable impact on a person's moral values.<br />
<br />
I believe that I personally was given a reasonable set of moral values from my parents, relatives, friends, and teachers.<br />
<br />
<u>3. Stories</u><br />
<br />
I use the term "stories" rather generally, but these are the morals that we find in books, movies, television, in stories told by others, and our own stories as well. They very often include moral lessons and cultural ideals.<br />
<br />
Almost all TV sitcom plots are based on deception, which makes it clear the perils of not telling the truth. Villains almost invariably do immoral things, and the heroes do moral things to try and stop them.<br />
<br />
I was born in the early 80's, and growing up I watched a great deal of children's shows on television, movies in the theater, and read many children's and young adult books which often included moral lessons. At this point, the amount of 'media' that I've been exposed to is extremely likely to have influenced my moral outlook. It would be naive to think otherwise.<br />
<br />
While the media shouldn't be trusted outright to impart good moral values, I see what I have taken from its lifelong influence as being mostly positive.<br />
<br />
<u>4. Logic</u><br />
<br />
Logic is a powerful tool in assessing moral questions, and one that I feel is often used but rarely mentioned.<br />
<br />
Logic can be used to calculate the impact of one's decisions on others and I believe that most if not all morals can be arrived at logically given the right initial premises.<br />
<br />
I personally use logic extensively in assessing moral questions. Once simple premises are established, many questions can be resolved. Premises such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or "Turn ignorance into wisdom, greed into generosity, and ill-will into loving kindness."<br />
<br />
<u>5. Religion</u><br />
<br />
Obviously many people derive their moral values from religion. It may seem counter-intuitive but atheists can do the same. The term "atheism" simply refers to the number of deities a person believes in, which in the case of atheism is zero. It says nothing about what kind of religion that person participates in if any.<br />
<br />
They may for example believe the Christian bible to hold moral values they agree with and adopt for themselves, even if they do not believe in its deities.<br />
<br />
I personally have found many beneficial values from Buddhism, in fact the quote above (the 'ignorance into wisdom' one) is Buddhist in origin.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Why do you accept evolution? Explain how you came to your conclusions.</b><br />
<br />
There is nothing about 'atheism' that states that an atheist should accept evolution. I find this an erroneous assumption given atheism's definition.
However, I myself do accept evolution as a fact of nature. As to why goes to my epistemological orientation.<br />
<br />
***********************************************************************************************************<br />
<br />
First of all, I want to explain how I view mind. Mind is a <i>simulation</i> of reality. Reality contains mind and not vice versa. As such we are trapped in our simulation and cannot touch reality itself. We are not completely cut off though, since our senses allow us to gather information about the reality we're in. Our senses could be tricked of course, meaning that we are in yet another subset of reality (another simulation), but we cannot know this for sure if no evidence for it presents itself. So for now, I will assume that our minds are in fact submerged in "the" reality.<br />
<br />
We can <i>reflect</i> reality analogous to the way a mirror reflects light. We do so by constructing mental <i>models</i>, which are then verified against reality via evidence. Models form sub-models, and grow in complexity and breadth as their descriptive and predictive powers increase. At the most basic level certain assumptions must be made. These are:<br />
<br />
<u>1. Reality exists.</u><br />
<br />
This can also be stated as I exist, or that the universe exists. Same sort of premise.
It is not possible to prove existence, non-existence is non-causal rendering it an assumption (A cannot be justified by B if B does not exist).<br />
<br />
No progress can be made without this assumption. What can be known about something that does not exist?<br />
<br />
<u>2. Reality is capable of being understood.</u><br />
<br />
We can "reflect" reality in our simulation like a mirror. A bad model being analogous to a distorted mirror. At best, mind can be the clearest of all mirrors.<br />
<br />
However, we must assume that our manipulations of the mirror are not completely futile in ending its distortion or our motivation is lost.<br />
<br />
Alternatively, I think this second assumption can also be expressed as "Our perceptions of reality are sometimes correct", since we use our perceptions to gather information about reality.
No proof can be provided here since we cannot be 100% certain that everything we know about reality isn't wrong. This is a side effect of mind being a subset of reality.
By claiming that we are incapable of understanding reality no further progress could be made.<br />
<br />
<u>3. Physical evidence is a valid way of justifying beliefs.</u><br />
<br />
Like #2, no proof can be provided for it since we cannot be 100% certain that everything we know about reality isn't wrong, so we cannot ultimately evaluate the strength of this ideal.<br />
<br />
This assumption is necessary since one cannot learn about reality without gathering information from it.
From this third assumption, an important philosophy is derived, and that's that:<br />
<br />
<u>3a. Models with predictive capabilities are more useful than models without predictive capabilities</u>.<br />
<br />
Predictive power is the mechanism for correcting the mirror of our model/simulation. To use an analogy think of an arm in a wavy mirror (wavy like a flag) looks like 3 limbs, one upper arm, one forearm, and one hand. When we see that each "piece" moves with the other we can create a model that hypothesizes that these are one, and that actually the way the mirror should look is more or less a straight line (a single limb). We can then correct the mirror (model) accordingly, and when the mirror is straightened we may even see some things we didn't know about, leading to more evidence and more models.<br />
<br />
We value correct predictions, and define a useful model as one that not only makes predictions of importance, but also predicts correctly.
We test whether a prediction is correct by taking actions and considering if the results of said action are in line with the prediction. In this case the "models" are analogous to beliefs, and the results analogous to evidence.<br />
<br />
This is really the only mechanism known with which to verify that our models reflect reality accurately, and is therefore the "how" for the assumption that reality can be understood.<br />
<br />
Another result of mind not being able to 'touch' reality is that mind cannot escape beliefs. As close to having knowledge of an absolute fact of nature can come within mind would be a representation of it, a shadow of the real thing.<br />
<br />
Note: Internal consistency appears to be necessary condition for useful models, since it would appear that our reality is also internally consistent.<br />
<br />
***********************************************************************************************************<br />
<br />
So, when I said earlier that I accept evolution as a fact of nature, here I mean fact as a sufficiently justified belief. It is justified due to the large body of evidence supporting it, and due to its internal consistency.<br />
<br />
Even if I chose not to trust scientific articles and text books on the subject, my own observations would lead me to a model similar to evolution. I know that children have some features of both of their parents, and their children so in turn will have some features of them. I see similarities between myself and my parents, so it stands to reason that some traits are inherited.<br />
<br />
I see countless adaptations in nature: the long neck of the giraffe, the sleek hydrodynamic body of the dolphin, the eyes of a cat.
I have seen defects, such as mental retardation, mental illness, deformities, propensity towards disease, poor eyesight, and I have seen advantages such as high intelligence, low propensity towards obesity, long life, and high energy. Without heavy research, I might hypothesize that mutations that lead to survival and therefore increased chances of reproduction have an increased chance of being passed on.<br />
<br />
Evolution is consistent with my own personal observations and ideas, on top of being internally consistent, with a large body of supporting evidence and the backing of science. So I consider it a justified belief and a strong model.<br />
<br />
<b>3. What is the meaning and purpose to your life?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I think that I share the same meaning and purpose that nature has, whatever that may be. It could be anything, or nothing. Perhaps meaning and purpose are entirely mental concepts, only useful when applied to specific scenarios and not so generally.<br />
<br />
<b>4. What is the greatest thing that you have done for others?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I find this question a little unfair, since just about any statement I would make would seem arrogant, and make me look as if I believed that thing to make me altruistic and saintly. I choose not to answer on these grounds.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Would you kill for atheism? </b><br />
<br />
I assume this means to kill another human being.
The only circumstances in which I could envision this happening are:<br />
<br />
<u>1. Via a freak accident</u>.<br />
<br />
The most likely place for this to occur being in traffic, since I do not handle firearms, go hunting, or work with dangerous materials in which I could theoretically endanger a co-worker's life. The traffic accident example in this case would have to result in a death, and the accident would have to be decidedly my fault. Of course I hope that this never happens.<br />
<br />
<u>2.If I agreed to be an executioner for the state.</u><br />
<br />
I don't foresee myself doing this.<br />
<br />
<u>3. In self-defense of myself, someone I care about, or someone I believe to be unjustly threatened by lethal force of another.</u><br />
<br />
I hope never to find myself in such a situation.<br />
<br />
<u>4. If I was in the military and it was my duty to kill enemy combatants.</u><br />
<br />
In this case I would be killing for my country. I am not in the military, and I do not foresee myself joining it (I have nothing against, and the utmost respect for those who do though).<br />
<br />
<u>5. In an extremely hypothetical circumstance in which the exact ramifications of a person's death become known to me, and it results in the saving of many lives and/or is of enormous benefit to the human race.</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This is essentially the same as #3, but the "attack" is less direct and less clear. To know the exact ramifications is likely impossible, so I don't foresee anything like this actually happening.<br />
<br />
<u>6. Killing someone to relieve their extreme, ongoing, endless, and verifiable suffering.</u><br />
<br />
I would have to somehow find myself in the profession of assisted suicide to do this, which I do not foresee.<br />
<br />
Those are the only circumstances that come to mind in which I would kill another human being. Since "atheism" is not one of them, the answer to this question is "no."<br />
<br />
<b>6. Why are you an atheist and consider your position valid?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I'm an atheist because I place a high value on holding only beliefs that are justified or necessary, and my epistemological orientation finds that a belief in a god or gods to be unjustified.<br />
<br />
<b>7. If you died and discovered that a god exists, what would you say to he/she/it?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>Why would words be necessary?<br />
<br />
<b>8. What religion is the most dangerous in your eyes, today and in the past?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>This is very difficult to quantify given the vast area it covers.
It might very well be an ignorant opinion, but Islam feels particularly dangerous in this era.<br />
<br />
As for the past, all the major theistic religions have committed many atrocities. Perhaps these would have still occurred if they were not present. There's no way to know for sure.<br />
<br />
<b>9. Name three peaceful religions that you have no issue with.</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>This task is problematic, since within any large group of people you will find those who have and make use of poor moral judgement, and those with strong moral judgement, whatever that may mean. Religion does not necessarily render a person peaceful, nor a lack of it render a person disruptive to peace.<br />
<br />
I know that Jainism and Buddhism have peace as their core tenants, however I can't say that I have no issue with them. Nor am I without issues towards the irreligious.<br />
<br />
Really no group or individual is perfect and given enough information I'm likely to take issue with some action they've taken or some ideal that they keep. I subject myself to the same criticism. I think this is an honest and healthy approach.<br />
<br />
<b>10. What would it take you to believe in a god?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>To be suddenly exposed to what appears to be an intelligent being that could read my mind, appear to have complete control over matter and energy, and also claim to be a god, or even <i>the</i> god would not convince me that a supernatural deity exists since I would have to consider that I may be encountering an entity that is sufficiently superior technologically such that their abilities appear as magic, or that my mind is being manipulated in some way.<br />
<br />
If such a being were to yield to some predictable models, I might consider them to be of "godlike" power and may loosely refer to he/she/it as "a god". However, as long as "I" remain "myself", I don't see any way that I could be convinced of the kind of god that is found in popular monotheistic religions, and the more anthropomorphic the god figure the more absurd the idea becomes for me. Panentheism (god as nature/reality) might be easier to accept but as to how that would be conveyed in a convincing manner is not clear.<br />
<br />
As an agnostic atheist I do not believe it impossible that there could be a god, but that there is not sufficient evidence for a belief in one to be justified. It very well might be the case that such evidence is impossible, but I feel that to be a separate, debatable issue. Perhaps such evidence does exist, but without encountering it I have no conception of it.<br />
<br />
<b>11. Would the world be a better place without religion?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>This is impossible to quantify given the vast area it covers.
I don't think religion should be totally eliminated, nor do I believe in laws against religion.
Everyone should be free to have and practice their own religion, and only not permitted to do so when it impedes on the rights of others.<br />
<br />
As the world is right now, I believe that it would benefit tremendously from less religion.
Reason and evidence are the best tools we have in changing the world for the better, and current religions very often reduce their use.<br />
<br />
<b>12. How do you feel about government/politics?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I am not sure how to answer this. I'm glad governments exist as opposed to anarchy.<br />
<br />
As for my political position, I tend to vote democratic although I am an independent. I have voted for republicans when I have considered them the best candidate for the position. I tend to be more liberal than conservative, but I'm rather middle of the road when it comes to libertarian vs. authoritarian. I suspect that I lean more towards the libertarian side.<br />
<br />
<b>13. If you could go back in time and kill Hitler or Stalin as babies so they never kill the millions in the future, would you do it if time travel was possible?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>No.<br />
<br />
Besides the moral issues surrounding the killing of an infant who has yet to do anything wrong, these actions would have unknown consequences that may be very far reaching. It's incredibly arrogant to consider that someone could know the complete ramifications of such actions and be able to weigh them morally.<br />
<br />
Not just that but there may be a separate albeit very important moral issue solely related to the changing of past events.<br />
<br />
Although it's not relevant to question the feasibility of the hypothetical, I have a lot of problems with the validity of time travel to the past. Remember, any change made to the past invalidates the future from which it came.<br />
<br />
<b>14. Why is stem cell research so important?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>From them we could learn techniques to feed the hungry and heal the sick:<br />
<br />
Stem cells are special types of cells that can be used to regrow damaged or lost parts of the body such as organs or brain tissue.<br />
<br />
They could also be used to grow food normally generated from the death of animals, and generate this food more cheaply.<br />
<br />
Stem cell research holds great promise in these areas and is therefore important.<br />
<br />
<b>15. Is abortion evil?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>It is not inherently evil.<br />
<br />
There are circumstances in which it is wrong, and circumstances in which it is right.
The option of course needs to be available to address the circumstances in which it is right.<br />
<br />
<b>16. What would the circumstances be for you to approve of torture?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>A. There is a great deal of certainty that the person being tortured has information that can save lives in the very near future.<br />
<br />
B. There is a great deal of certainty that the person being tortured is guilty of crimes that could arguably warrant the torture being used.<br />
<br />
C. That the torture last for a short time.<br />
<br />
D. Incidents of torture remain few and far between, to be used only in the most dire of circumstances.<br />
<br />
E. That the torture be documented, and be considered by an external body capable of evaluating and reevaluating the future use of torture.<br />
<br />
Even with these reasons, I struggle with this question quite a bit. To voluntarily induce suffering to another in a way not intended to help them (no tough love) seems like it should be wrong across the board. I have yet to reconcile these differing positions.<br />
<br />
<b>17. Should we try to save animals from going extinct?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>Of course! Any time that we can reduce our parasitic nature and lessen our negative impact on the planet and its life I think we should go for it. Since many animals go extinct due to our impact, we should try to save them.<br />
<br />
<b>18. Do you approve of capital punishment? Explain.</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I think it is an appropriate punishment <i>in this era</i>. In the future if we become a post scarcity society, or become able to neurologically rehabilitate someone then I would consider it immoral, which is to say that I consider it <i>inherently</i> immoral.<br />
<br />
In our pre-scarcity society where resources are important, and one individual can do a very large amount of damage to society I see the death penalty as a reasonable option.<br />
<br />
<b>19. Do you believe in aliens, ghosts, spirits, souls, or any kind of supernatural forces?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>Given the available information, I believe it is extremely likely that extraterrestrial life exists, perhaps even with an intelligence comparable or superior to our own. However I am also of the position that unless our technological level is such that we are both searching for one another with faster than light travel then we will not have a reasonable likelihood of meeting.<br />
<br />
I see no evidence for the typical definitions attributed to ghosts and spirits, nor any plausible mechanism by which they would operate.<br />
<br />
The term soul can refer to a person's electrochemical state that is their mind. I do believe this exists. I believe that it is theoretically possible for it to also exist on some other substrate than the brain, although this falls within the realm of science fiction for the time being. I do sometimes entertain the Buddhist idea of reincarnation, but more of as a thought experiment than a belief.<br />
<br />
I have not encountered sufficient evidence for "supernatural forces". I am sure that there are forces not yet understood or encountered yet, and perhaps these would currently fall onto the supernatural spectrum, however in this case they would not be inherently supernatural.<br />
<br />
<b>20. Would you sacrifice yourself for a loved one, with the chance that you may end up in hell because you are an atheist?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I would sacrifice myself for a loved one.
Since I don't believe in hell the rest of this question is not applicable.<br />
<br />
<b>21. Explain in detail the process of death.</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>Death is defined as "the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a particular living organism. The death of an organism also results in a permanent absence of consciousness"
Death itself is not a process, dying is. Death is a state of existence, or rather non-existence.<br />
<br />
For a person to experience consciousness after being decidedly "dead", would be supernatural. There are no verified cases of a person returning to a state of life after having been dead, unless birth is considered to satisfy this criteria. However in this case it can be said that this person was <i>not yet</i> alive, and therefore is not 'returning' from a state of death.<br />
<br />
It would appear that the process of dying involves a loss of consciousness to which there is no restoration. As far as its experience is concerned, it would appear no different than a permanent, dreamless sleep.<br />
<br />
<b>22. Have you ever been dead?</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>I often joke when people discuss events that took place before I was born that I was 'dead at the time'.<br />
<br />
The closest "experiences" I've had to death were times when I've been unconscious such as in a dreamless sleep, the few times that I've passed out (once from dehydration, once from being very sick from a virus, once when trying to hold my breath as a silly stunt), and the few times that I was put under anesthesia.<br />
<br />
Other than that the question is a bit silly, since once I am dead, "I" cease to exist permanently, so I could not <i>have been</i> dead.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-50617262257548320112013-04-20T18:31:00.001-07:002013-04-20T18:31:55.541-07:00I got leg bitedJust saying..Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-20088376903075809872012-11-15T22:19:00.000-08:002012-11-15T22:19:00.107-08:00Doc Martin..is a really awesome show!Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-9449737331377937562012-04-07T06:40:00.003-07:002012-04-07T06:40:39.410-07:00Lorfas don't die..they just fade away!Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-24807923935827171782012-02-28T17:37:00.001-08:002012-02-28T17:39:12.501-08:00Lie on the ground before the lightning strikesJust don't drown in the floodLorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-44485088323690320472011-12-02T22:07:00.001-08:002011-12-02T22:07:58.426-08:00Have you noticed....that Ramona Marquez looks a lot like Jani Schofield?Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-33416169385831922152011-05-29T18:39:00.000-07:002011-05-29T18:39:03.449-07:00Candy Cereal EuphoriaThat's what it's all about.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-8166423279699575022011-04-22T07:41:00.001-07:002011-04-22T07:41:16.684-07:00Wow I really let this blog goAll 0 of my subscribers must be really disappointed!!Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-67667790825473336532011-01-08T22:08:00.000-08:002011-01-08T22:13:16.322-08:00Lunatic at the supermarketAs I'm sure you have heard by now, Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others were shot at a Safeway supermarket. This actually happened about 10 minutes from where I live, and is in fact just north of a drug store I have worked at.<br />
<br />
I looked at the shooter's youtube accounts, along with some other things he has written that were dug up by the media. I've come to the conclusion that he is a complete lunatic. I know what you're thinking, that you have to be crazy to do such a thing, but I've heard many mass murderers and perpetrators of horrendous crimes offer up about as rational of an explanation for their actions as could be done. Not the case for Mr. Loughner who is makes no sense of any kind.<br />
<br />
First of all, he talks about "conscience dreaming" as a hobby of his. There really is no such thing as "conscience dreaming". "Conscious dreaming" maybe, "Lucid dreaming" certainly, but as far as I know Loughner is the only one to use this term with the exception of people using "conscience" in place of "conscious" by mistake and are unfamiliar with the proper term. Ironic that "conscience" refers to the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, something that apparently did not have a say in Loughner's waking life!<br />
<br />
The other thing he talks about is grammar. He insists that grammar is extremely important, yet he has very poor grammar himself. He even talks about inventing his own grammar, one that differs from the grammar "invented" by the government. Maybe he thinks the government is trying to control our minds with some kind of special grammar they made up. Perhaps I could as a stretch consider that he's talking about "legalese". This really isn't a different "grammar" though, and inventing a new grammar wouldn't help the problem of the average person not completely understanding the law as it is written.<br />
<br />
He also speaks of inventing a new currency. I suppose he doesn't trust any of the currencies that are currently used. However, it's not a currency unless it is exchanged between more than one entity, and he never elaborates on what he means exactly. Maybe he was mad because Safeway wouldn't accept rocks in exchange for groceries.<br />
<br />
Oh well, trying to make sense of the opinions of a mad man is never an easy task, if their opinions made sense they wouldn't be crazy right? I am pretty sure he will be found competent to stand trial, but he's crazy enough to raise some doubt about it.<br />
<br />
My heart goes out to all those that were hurt by this loony.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-26548789341305454082011-01-07T18:20:00.000-08:002011-01-07T18:31:14.682-08:00Questions, questionsThis post is a bit of a rant about a disturbing phenomenon that seems to have cropped up without my knowing, and that is this mysterious issue of when asking questions became tantamount to bad manners.<br />
<br />
If you read my previous post about the Lorfa, I mentioned the problem of human ignorance and how it is a major source of conflict, and that communication is an essential tool in not just eliminating this conflict, but furthering our understanding of the world. I'm a curious person, and I ask plenty of questions. In the past couple of years though a lot of my questions have been met with "dirty looks", as if I had committed some kind of faux pas.<br />
<br />
Now I can understand how questions could be insulting, especially some rhetorical questions such as "Are you crazy?", "Are you dumb?", "Why don't you shove this up your rear end?" etc. Common sense will tell you that these questions will often not be received well. However questions that are designed to simply understand the world around me are often received badly nowadays.<br />
<br />
I asked a software engineer who was on a development team, how large his staff was and he got extremely insulted. I did not ask in any way that I would find rude; I always try to put myself in the shoes of the person receiving the questions to check and see how I come off, and I do this even more if someone received a question badly. I think he interpreted my question a long the lines of "you guys don't do any work you lazy slobs". However nothing in my question indicated this.<br />
<br />
Normally I would just chalk this up to a unique event involving one particular individual who may have been having a bad day or is actually just a jerk, but it happened again numerous times with different persons over different mediums. The majority of them were american though, so hopefully it is only an american phenomenon.<br />
<br />
I believe it is a problem of reading into a question too deeply. A lack of objectivity I suppose, and this relates to my previous post as well. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the day when a question such as "Are you stupid?" could be taken at face value and answered yes or no, even though that particular question is a bit problematic (if the answer is yes, are you qualified to answer?).<br />
<br />
The way I see it close-ended questions have six possible answers: Yes, No, I don't know, Maybe (it depends), Mu, and I can't tell you. I suspect that a lot of folks would find that last answer a bit unsettling, but I do recognize that there are many situations in which it applies. Of course, often times when a person wishes to conceal information they will use the "I don't know" instead of the "I can't tell you", which makes it even more secretive. This wouldn't be acceptable in all circumstances however as in some cases it is obvious that the person does have the information.<br />
<br />
In case you aren't familiar with Mu, it means "void" or absolute negation. This applies to questions such as "Do you still beat your wife?", Assuming that either you have never had a wife, or do but have never beaten your wife, neither "Yes" or "No" would be acceptable. Unacceptable as well would be "I don't know", presupposing the person would remember taking such an action, and if they wouldn't they are probably too crazy to be having such a conversation with.<br />
<br />
"Maybe" would be bad as well, as would be "It depends", because this would indicate that with some minor clarifications the answer would be "Yes" or "No", and we established our scenario as this not being the case. The "I can't tell you" answer would be rather difficult to apply here, as again the same problem exists in that it indicates a "Yes" or a "No" being the correct answer, even if there is a barrier of secrecy in the way.<br />
<br />
So, the appropriate answer here is "Mu", meaning that the question is inherently flawed and cannot be answered with any of the typical answers applied to close-ended questions. A lot of folks will just say "I don't beat my wife, and have never done so", or "I have never taken a wife" to take care of the prankster asking the question. However, this is an open-ended answer to a close-ended question, something I find inaccurate even though it is acceptable and used in many cases (and abused by politicians). It is probably polite to include an explanation after you answer "Mu", as this might perplex many.<br />
<br />
With these six answers at your disposal, I don't see any reason to take offense to a close-ended question, barring obvious rhetoricals that are designed to insult. I'd say that you can even answer "I don't want to talk about it", after all the person asking the question is asking you for a kind of favor, to answer their question. I would be happier to hear this answer than a lot of the negative responses I get.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it is a matter of ego, if you ever saw Star Trek V where spock's brother and the crew meet who is supposed to be god. "God" asks to be taken away from there on the Enterprise, which provokes Kirk to ask "What does god need with a starship?", and bones eventually says "Jim, you don't ask the almighty for his I.D.":<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpcGPPoawo"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpcGPPoawo</span></a><br />
<br />
Of course the entity refuses to answer Kirk's question, instead opting to shoot at him with some kind of lightning. Maybe people feel intimidated by skepticism, and would prefer some kind of absolute faith. I'm opposed to faith in cases in which it fuels ignorance though, if for no other reason than because ignorance gives rise to conflict.<br />
<br />
I guess I'll just keep asking questions and hope that the trend disappears, and that most will understand that I do not have malicious or dishonest motives. Someone told me that perhaps I am not asking such questions as diplomatically as I could, but you can only be so diplomatic before you aren't asking the question at all. Then there's the other issue where excessive diplomacy becomes dishonest/phony, as you will know if you have seen just about any sitcom. The eightfold path of Buddhism includes a category called "Right speech" which explains this quite well:<br />
<br />
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Bookman Old Style', Bookman, Times, serif; font-size: 15px;">The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Bookman Old Style', Bookman, Times, serif; font-size: 15px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I have also seen it phrased as "speak from the heart", which could also be extended to questions. "Question from the heart" I suppose.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So, if it will please your majesty, and if it's not too much trouble, please leave a comment for this blog entry. Thank you for your time. </span>Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-60741036978813141112011-01-06T22:42:00.000-08:002011-01-06T22:42:17.421-08:00What's a Lorfa?A "Lorfa" is a nonsense word that I use to name the life form that is to be the successor to humans. It also happens to make a good nickname and is often not taken, so I use it just about everywhere.<br />
<br />
I see human beings as a kind of half breed, half non-human primate and half something else. George Carlin said "we're barely out of the jungle" and I agree. The hope is that if someday we become 100 % something else instead of only ~50 %, that the disappearance of our more primitive side will take with it the more troubling aspects of human nature, such as greed, ill-will, violence and impulsiveness.<br />
<br />
I often like to speculate about what this next evolution might be like, be it brought on by nature or engineered by us (transhumanism). I've come up with some attributes that I find interesting:<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Nonduality comes naturally.<br />
<br />
2. Greater objectivity.<br />
<br />
3. Greater average intelligence, especially spatial.<br />
<br />
4. Smaller average ego.<br />
<br />
5. Assertiveness, instead of passivity and/or aggression.<br />
<br />
6. Less bacterial, less viral in nature.<br />
<br />
7. Greater sphere of understanding.*<br />
<br />
8. More powerful communication, that also comes with greater ease.**<br />
<br />
9. Substantially stronger memory<br />
<br />
Some Physical Ideas:<br />
<br />
1. Greater myelination up through adulthood.<br />
<br />
2. Acquire nourishment from surroundings (energy everywhere).<br />
<br />
3. Waste in the form of heat.<br />
<br />
* Human individuals have what I would describe as two mental 'spheres' of information: knowledge and understanding. The sphere of knowledge is larger than the sphere of understanding, since we understand only a percentage of what we know. The problem is that in both cases these spheres are too small. With intelligence, maturity, and study one can widen these spheres but only to a certain extent.<br />
<br />
The result of this is that human progress is slow in many areas. It often takes teams of persons throughout long stretches of time to make scientific and civil progress, and often only after much conflict. In fact many human conflicts begin on exactly this lack of knowledge and understanding.<br />
<br />
Although it would be great to improve both of these, simply improving our understanding of what we already know would help considerably.<br />
<br />
** Communication is one of the only resources humans have to combat the small size of our information spheres. It is only natural that a successor would possess substantially stronger communication abilities.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-59950465626866772172011-01-05T17:22:00.001-08:002011-01-05T17:28:17.507-08:00Here I am againI actually considered naming this a "journal" instead of a blog, although as it turns out a journal can indicate a daily entry, and I did not want to commit to daily entries. It looks like it might be going that way so far though. We'll see.<br />
<br />
Anyways, I've recently come to the conclusion that my mind operates in 3.25 channels. The 0.25 because one of them is comparatively narrow in its capacity, closer to a "quarter channel".<br />
<br />
These channels do not simply contain/process mental information, but can also be used by the body. Here's an explanation of what each channel is typically used for.<br />
<br />
One channel is what I would consider "main", and includes what I'm focusing on doing at the moment. For example writing this post. This is where the "personification of my own intuition" makes its voice heard.<br />
<br />
The second (auxiliary?) channel can be used for just about anything, but often it is a source of distraction. So, what I often do when I am focusing on something is move my body a bit. I shake my leg, or make some other simple motion that kind of "silences" it. That way my main channel can go about doing what it is doing without having "noise" on the line. I've found that typing satisfies this minor kinetic operation, which allows my intuition to flow on to the page naturally.<br />
<br />
The third (tertiary?) channel, and what it is often used for may surprise you. It plays music. Almost omnipresently some song is playing in my head and it is often on this channel. Often the same tune remains in my head for 1-2 days, and it's not even the complete tune. It's usually 1-4 parts of a tune played over and over again. Right now it is playing parts from "Love sic pt. 2" by Nujabes ft. Shing02. You might think this would drive a person insane, but as far as I can tell I've been like this for my entire life, and unlike the second channel, the third has the peculiar property of not interfering with the first two. Of course the song can be changed by simply listening to music, but it usually takes listening to two different tracks to change the song, and I have to enjoy the song sufficiently for it to take hold. It has to at least be "catchy".<br />
<br />
Which brings me to the last channel, the fourth, or quaternary channel. This seems to be a narrow one, as it is seemingly overshadowed by the first three. In times of great focus I no longer have music in head, as the third channel's tunes get pushed into the 4th and their mental volume gets turned down greatly. When I'm not focused this channel contains information that kind of exists at the border, or "periphery" of my awareness.<br />
<br />
Right now, my fourth channel appears to be concerned with the person whose computer I'm using at the moment coming home and wanting me to sign off. Part of this last channel's information seems to go into my unconscious mind where such information is manifested in all sorts of ways in dreams. Certainly "back of the mind" anxieties have a way of finding themselves into my dreams.<br />
<br />
Having realized this I wonder what I can do with it. Certainly an improved understanding of one's own mind is bound to have some value.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8974853806624888149.post-70652954565584833182011-01-04T17:42:00.000-08:002011-01-04T17:42:12.482-08:00I find myself staring at a blank window.Too depressed to write much of anything at the moment I suppose. I'm curious to see how this system works though.Lorfahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983110805677255777noreply@blogger.com0