Mircelous Grimm's musings: January 2011

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Week 3- The Paradox of Da Free John.

This was incredibly informative! The message itself sort of points to a Scientology "type style" of how, what and how much to consume from a single philosophy and sect view, however, that is (thankfully) about it, as far as that notion goes. Basically, contrary to what we've been taught here in the west,, particularly here in the Untied States is that spirituality and philosophy are NOT "all or nothing" concepts. Generally, we are taught that such concepts are "do or die" "don't and burn for eternity" decisions. We are taught that the messenger and the message are virtually and literally synonymous. Once again, read and expand all you like, but it takes a refreshing discourse to rearrange, if you will, a inherent Western frame of mind.

Prior to reading this article I might have been apprehensive, at best, and certainly reluctant to reading anything with Da Free John's stamp on it; again, it is the western philosophy embedded in the brain. However, upon reading and soaking up the the information here my mind has opened up at least one iota. It isn't about the messenger, it is about the message and the insight from where that message was birthed, or at least processed. This may sound a bit crazy, but this certainly opens a door for some cold readers, or mediums. Some are insightful and do care. Their alleged talent is, of course, in question, but, once more it is about the message. Particularly, those that feed off of logical and psychological intuition. Everyone has insight to offer, no matter the nature of their antics.

It is about the message.

-Mircelous Grimm.

Freeman Dyson.

Freeman Dyson: First off, Quantum Physics is AWESOME!

Freeman Dyson makes a statement I've been waiting to here in the 18th minute of this interview. He states that life could have been possible for any type of life-form, despite the anthropic Laws! This is something that you don't ever really here when listening to any reference regarding life. Interesting enough, I wonder if they ever found anything on Titan? Last spring, there was a report of dissipating hydrogen and Acetylene at the surface of the Saturn satellite. A methane-based life form, perhaps?

However, interestingly enough Dyson seems more of Agnostic, though he "hates" isms of any kind. His belief is based more on philosophy and the fact of "not knowing". He goes as far as to compare the church to art. He enjoys the community of the church and does in fact hint at giving leeway to the strongest of the I.D. argument which lies within the Anthropic Principles. Dyson speaks of the balance and hospitality bestowed upon life in the universe. Although, he did leave it open-ended by even stating that the term anthropy isn't broad enough, as explained earlier by my Titan comment.

31st minute- it turns into a small debate, or more like a friendly disagreement, huh, I'd like to see a full-scale exchange! We are reminded of have outdated, and yes, even ill informed Darwin was in his day. There is a difference in theoretical philosophy regarding genetic information. He (Dyson) hypothesis' that life began WITHOUT replication, or the replication of material suggesting DNA as a parasite.

Amid the objective and Agnostic views held by Dyson, he states, not in so many words, that the universe and it's delicate balance points to an intelligent work (Anthropic?), urging that there is more than meets the eye. I got excited when he mentions gamma-ray bursts! And, I loved the musician comparison, as well, in reference to feeling. The feeling of scribbling bits of equations :), kind of like playing the guitar, I guess.

I liked this piece, it was humbling and definitely gave me reason to re-examine as ll good science and philosophy does.

-Jeremy Watkins.

Critical Thinking Films: 1 and 2.

Critical Thinking Films: I enjoyed the Faqir Chand film, which seemed a parting tribute to him. The film really commemorates what seemed his views on religion, religious leaders and gurus. Right from the opening statement to the very end where it is proclaimed “NO” to all such teachers and teachings.

Nicolas of Cusa, I have to admit I didn’t understand it! The pride of my intellectual being is my gift of perception, but I couldn’t decipher it’s prescribed message, I just didn’t get this film. I saw a flying pirate ship and a quote at the end. I lose!

-Jeremy Watkins.

Beyond Belief.

Levitating Super Turtle. Huh, what a concept within a concept. As much, as I like his analogy I found it to be mundane and cliche. However, I do like his well-placed logic and his "attempt" to propose a co-emergence between science and god, though, you do know where he is coming from and I admit "batting" for the same team I can identify, but I did sense a little bit of a condescending attitude; however, again, I do understand his position. It is a strive for a cooperative existence with one another.

I think my reception of this speaker (name?) was a bit bi-polar all the through. I sensed a little English "stuffiness," but rightfully so, as I did FULLY comprehend his disdainful criticism of the American 'cling' to the concept of God. America is after all , the most guilty party in all of this. However, I'd like to see an American besides Marilyn Manson (a scientist) point this out. At least a scientist wouldn't be blamed for a school shooting! Then again, this America and I just don't know anymore.

Ah! The discussion of fundamentalism and morals! Where do morals come from? This is exactly one aspect of religion that I am fuming on at the moment. In my mind, to quote a wise man and artist- Marilyn Manson, "God is an excuse, god is an excuse god is an excuse!" Comparing the bible to Pride and Prejudice is absolutely ludicrous! The bible, in my mind is comparable to Greek mythology. And, I mean that without prejudice or spite.
Spinoza intends God just as some Agnostics, possibly Freeman Dyson! After all, empirically can we say there IS a God? Empirically, I can NOT say yes. Can you?

Furthermore, as this portion of discussion moves on, it becomes more apparent that Spinoza had adapted his "faith" based on a philosophy, much like most Buddhists, which is fine, it's fundamental aspect that I have issue with. However, the speaker makes one error, in my foresight pertaining to ethics and morals. Do we need the language of the so-called holy books for any sort of morality? I don't think so, I tend to agree with the speaker in the following video, which was quite astonishing with regard to NATURAL human morality and ethics.

-Mircelous Grimm (Jeremy Watkins).

Freeman Dyson.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Midterm.

1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.

3. The test is due NO LATER than

4. What is your real name? Jeremy Watkins.
5. What is your "user" name? Mircelous Grimm
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? jwwunniner19@gmail.com

7. Name and address for your website. Mircelous Grimm's musings,

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3614880217245267434&postID=7440426608151490417

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks? Yes.

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes.
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them)

The Hymalayan Connection.

The Himalayan connection- First off, what are these “-piano” derived terms, and what do they mean?

I certainly am enjoying, further, the blue print nature of philosophy. This one, is indeed a blue print of the human perspective, consciousness and belief. I thoroughly enjoyed the accounts of, both, Jean Lyotard who dispels a certain long-held image of those who believe in the paranormal, and that of the seemingly humble Faqir Chand. Further on, into this work my western mind is exposed for what it inherently is- western. As much, as I am opposed to the western train of thought, and despite physical disdain toward such a mindset I am, in fact, a product. This becomes apparent when Lane describes the aspects of translation. The explanation is fascinating and I am able to grasp the concept, but it took a second look to really make it my own. The notion of reducing transformative events as explained from the Wilber/Smith point of view is fascinating, yet, common sense, but, unfortunately it is sense we in the west don’t posses unless, of course, we seek it; but, as Lane points out, the west is seemingly a culture “psychological reductionism,” and my favorite “persistent materialism” what makes that statement funny is that that was 1994, I wonder what Mr. Lane thinks of western civilization now? Fortunately, I have the opportunity to ask. Mr. Lane, what do think about western civilization now, as opposed to then? And, just to touch base translation is just a shuffling around of ones’ conscious frame of mind such as perception, beliefs and ethics, whereas, transformation would be a complete overhaul. Like, from one extreme to the other? In context to this piece though, we are relating it to an experience. A questionable experience requiring substantial backing. So, I guess we’re speaking wholly of perception from the minute during and after the experience is received. When taking in the message we’re in an initial state of translation where pieces of info are moved about. The patterns of where and how far, meaning that if we’re using the Wilber/Smith figurative consciousness model (eight story building) where on the floor or on another floor, is how our consciousness is transforming the new info in real time. Lane concludes this portion speaking in terms of a third element “Up form Eden”, also called Transfusion, which goes into pre/trans rational, and an aspect I’ve waiting for since I signed up for this class, fallacy.

The last couple paragraphs in regard to objective and empirical methods of investigation is exactly what I’ve been alluding to in these past few readings. In my opinion, we began with a couple speakers, namely Feynman and Miller, who seem to adhere similar approaches, at least in their attitudes; and, some who, again, in my own opinion are a little more bias in their beliefs. The approach is one that should be utilized today by all, especially, in a time such as this when religion seems to play such a key role in ones’ politics, which for the most part is usually just when it’s convenient. Religion is among that that should be subject to such observation to be fair to both sides. We can learn valuable lessons about one another, our world and universe and our selves. Perhaps, we can become a little more bit more conscious of our thought process and adopt the same state when approaching that process. Rather than, taking all the emotion out of thought and perception, we learn to balance emotion and logic. That is the difference, right there, between a believer and a skeptic, logic vs. emotion. My vantage point suggests that David Lane’s proposal is, in layman’s terms, a balance of the two.

-Mircelous Grimm (J.W.)

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Physics behind Four Amazing Demonstrations.

The Physics behind Four Amazing Demonstrations- This demonstration was great! Finally, I have some answers to these so-called phenomena. I had seen them demonstrated, on television of course, as some mystical or metaphysical means by whom ever possessed such ability. Shamans from villages in exotic places to suit and tie motivational speakers had been my only source for such things. And, although I didn’t put much weight into these feats, I didn’t how to explain them. Another funny thing is that already being a fan of Physics, which is pretty broad within it self, I’ve never seen it this way.

This was definitely a refreshing and fun article to convey the message of the critical thinking skeptic. Wiley does a great job of publishing the specifics behind the work (a in a j= work), and walking through it in, both, demonstrative and scientific terms. The term kinetic energy alone get’s me fired-up! I don’t really watch much network T.V. (or much T.V. at all), but I’ll give the “Mad Scientist” his due!

-Mircelous Grimm (Jeremy Watkins)

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking- Falsifiability is a highly appropriate concept that aligns perfectly with scientific process. What it allows for is an honest and open value of skepticism that maintains logic while not declaring any absolute, one way or the other. The concept allows us to ponder, bur most of all to be logical and objective while utilizing methodology. The idea itself surely banishes any notion of an absolute, or at least the honest ability to declare any theory, no matter how strong, as such.

All I can say about the “Multiple Out” is that it has been used on us since childhood, an example is that Santa Clause, “If don’t go to sleep he won’t come” or “If you don’t believe in him, then he won’t bring you presents.” These are all similar in sentiment to what we’re told about “God”.

What I enjoyed most from this piece was the conclusion. At this point, I had begun to realize why philosophy is a popular degree to possess prior to law school; and, I enjoyed Jett’s definition of skeptic where he concludes his sermon on critical thinking by stating that such pragmatic ways of thinking apply to the duty and necessity of being a responsible adult. I happen to agree, I just the world, especially voters, did too.

-Mircelous Grimm (Jeremy Watkins)

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Eleven.

The film evoked one emotion in me for two reasons. It injected anger for the ignorance of the perpetrators, which is a-typical of like minded meat heads, and 2. the fact that the film maker ripped off American Beauty, and as an artist I find that insulting!

I'm not familiar with the story or it's origins, but I am aware of similar stories throughout the U.S. that have occurred after the incident in 2001. The fact that these people can't differentiate, never tried or cared too is just ignorant. They are prime examples of the fruits of the weeding out process of evolution.

-Jeremy Watkins

Expert lecture- Miller/Maynard-Smith

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design- Unaware of who Ken Miller was, but being aware of the title and then informed of his religious affiliations my expectations were low! To make matters worse, or more challenging I became more dreadful upon gazing the numbers at the bottom of the video screen 1:57:16! So, I decided to view this video and not the seemingly more interesting one, or so I assumed, to get the torture over with. However, this video turned out to be one that not only had me fooled, but, it gave me insight into the mind of a truly objective esteemed scientist, and it is a video that I plan on viewing with my wife tonight!

Miller gives us a highly objective look at why evolution is a credible scientific theory. This theory even today is having to overcome many biases that are unfounded within their scientific bases. Intelligent Design (I.D.) is the new moniker of the prior labeled hypothesis of Creationism, a hypothesis that suggests that a creator engineered and crafted the world and all it’s inhabited life forms therein. Although, having been able to provide some seemingly plausible argument with relative scientific basis, intelligent design has according to the present science community in the audience, as well as on-stage lost any of it’s legs that it might have had to stand on. Just within the last decade many arguments such as the split chromosome between primate DNA and ours showing a direct link, as well as the disproving of other equivocal discoveries that I cannot remember at the moment.

What deserves recognition in every facet of this video and to Ken Miller’s overall credibility is his objectivity in his chosen field of discovery when considering his faith. He (Miller) really puts to ease a fear and annoyance driven into me by his account of the cases concerning this issue in the public school system in the recent Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Kansas cases. His projections, news of further progression in the exploration of evolution, as well as his non-emotional approach to science is a sigh of relief!

John Maynard Smith on Evolution- It wasn’t until the last 20 minutes that this interview caught my attention. The topic of evolution as a Marxist view, or having a link to this ideal is one that I’ve been with in the past 12 months. Although, I haven’t viewed it in such terms, I have been looking at it and it’s process in a naturalistic manner that perhaps some could, if so pressed, deem as such. Fundamentally, I think evolution to be a process that, in fact, weeds out. When looking back into history, anthropology, biology and real life in real time (people watching) I feel that the process and it’s direction is clear! Any type of weakness can be a potential factor in the elimination of ones blood line. Although, some weaknesses are more costly than others. Our main objective in the fundamental sense is to survive, bread and further our blood line. The key factors that underline this objective are the natural ability to survive, the ability to learn to survive, natural appeal to the opposite sex, or a learned ability to appeal to the opposite sex for breeding. To put it bluntly, there must be a need for you and your blood line. Is that to say that there isn’t a need for certain individuals of people in the world, or that their continued existence is obsolete? Yes. Is this a view stemming from an extreme form of elitism? No, at the moment, and in this wrinkle in time I have little reason to be needed in society and the great cycle of life. I am fairly intelligent and physically pleasing to the opposite sex, but in the current cycle of human evolution I am missing one key ingredient- economic status! According to the Discovery Channel documentary The Science of Sex Appeal, a conducted research study had concluded that women are more attracted to money and ‘toys’ (cars and income were the prime example) rather than his looks, which slams the door on delving deeper to scan for internal qualities such as intelligence. The “hunter and gatherer alpha theme” still at large, but with a no less evolved theme.

Fortunately for me, I came across a female that was drawn to my physical appearance and my will to succeed which is, more or less, based on a promise to provide for her brood. However, there are a select few who weren’t, genetically speaking, so fortunate. Those who aren’t so attractive tend to breed with other less attractive people, thus, producing more unattractive off-spring having to endure the same challenges, or they don’t have chance to breed in time (biological clock), or at all. People with low levels of intelligence tend to have lower paying jobs, less drive, and poorer diets which make them more prone to illness such as diabetes. You can also tell a poor diet on a persons skin and physique whether thin or fat, thus, making them less appealing to a higher quality mate, or possibly any at all. They also tend to live undesirable neighborhoods pitting them with higher prospects of various addictions, disease and sudden circumstantial death. Sexual abuse seems to be more prominent among these individuals. Once upon a time in our human history humans lived shorter life spans, thus, breeding and marriage were permitted at a younger age, where it was typical for an older man to wed and breed with a girl of an adolescent age. Today, with advancement in modern medicine and possibly human evolution, we now live longer and therefore breed a bit later which is also due in part that we have found (I haven’t confirmed this) that child birth at is more dangerous for a female of that age. Today, we have evolved and such practices are now deemed morally wrong, inappropriate and criminal. It is possible that those desires live on in genes and those who carry them actively are being weeded out in society through isolation, public scrutiny, jail-time, murder and few if any attempts to breed with a fellow human being of an appropriate physical breeding age.

I think where this becomes political is when you get away form the naturalistic process, and you begin to see some of what appears to be blatant attempts from man to take it upon himself to weed out those that he may not deem worthy of survival and biological continuance. I do believe this happens and I thoroughly opposed. This is where Darwinism, in my personal philosophy becomes depressing and seems to convey little to no true meaning to the life or the human race. Man should never take it upon himself to conduct such tyranny. Nature and the will of man on his own existence can do that on his own. While, I’m not stating that all people have hope, I am stating that some, even most do if they see the big picture and desire the change to progress and make their mark on the world for years to come, possibly throughout the existence of mankind.

-Jeremy Watkins (Mircelous Grimm)

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Cargo Cult Science- Feynman, once again, catapults himself onto my people to research list with his illustrated words from the 1974 Cal Tech commencement speech he gave, apply dubbed Cargo Cult Science. The ideas that Feynman conveys aren’t new to me, however, it is the context by which he illustrates his points and core objective that captivate my attention. Once more, I happen to agree with everything he had to say.

What makes this work ever more refreshing is the fact that I feel that I myself am trapped in a year, decade, century and era when human beings are so close, yet, so far from utilizing objective thinking particularly when it comes to their core values and principles. For clarity sake, I’ll make a quick reference as to what I mean and how it relates to Feynman. I feel, hypothetically speaking ( in scientific terms), that based on the evolutionary clock we human beings as a race are either in a “teenager” state, or in a “post-teenage” state in our general evolution with regard to our logical thinking. Either way, we have yet to relinquish the presence of Mother and Father (the idea of “God”), yet, we are in some ways seeming to let go of it’s parental grasp, or we’re at least rebelling; thus, the human race is either in a young adult stage cumulating it’s own ideas and coming out from under the parental wing, or we’re mere teenagers just searching for our true colors and displaying them in moments of defiance. I hope it is the former. The rapid advancement of man driven science and the like-minded logic of it’s pioneers such as Feynman are evidence or at least hope that this type of objective thinking is soon to be prominent within the human race. After all, without it we’d still “cave-dwellers” so to speak.

Feynman’s greatest point from the speech was an idea derived from not fooling yourself, which was not to fool others. No matter how objective one is forming their beliefs, they shall never publish only one side, their own, in any argument, research, conversation, debate or study. It is best to remain a scientist in forming, maintaining and publishing these beliefs. A true scientific mind, as a human being, should always look at both sides and test old results as well in their period of discovery. When all possible facets have been utilized, it is then that the real answer be known, and the results can speak for themselves. Oh, and always cite your sources!

Critical Thinking in an Online World- I happen to agree with the direction of society and our new roles as “Literary Information Seekers,” and the need for literacy for such a task. The role that Debra Jones mentioned is one that I see to a point in academia, however, having work in Los Angeles County library system for almost two years, it is one that I hadn’t witnessed in experience, nor, did I see the opportunity, need, or the desire from either the patron nor the librarian while employed there.

The concept that Jones describes is well thought out, but is one-dimensional in it’s design and scope. The illustration speaks volumes of the imperativeness of the librarian and the history of the position leading to a new modernized role set for today’s information seeker; however, in my mind, it’s projected effectiveness is limited to academia and even that idea seems an exaggerated fact from the perspective of a librarian. I have benefited from this type of design here at MSAC, but mind you this is the only place (academia) where that type of instruction is warranted and it is limited to an hour reference guide walk-through session per class, where such research is required. Once again, I never saw the need from the patron, and nor did I ever see a librarian in the public system with Debra Jones’ passion, I wish there were more like her!

What is cold reading?- Having read this article, I have this to say. I came from a family who not only believes in the spiritual, the mystic, and all that goes with it, but I also come from a family who has gone to a medium and currently sees one that is a close family friend. My wife’s mother, although conflicted by here Roman-Catholic Mexican guilt, occasionally reads tarot cards. I was one of those kids who, like mentioned in Dawkins essay “Viruses of the Mind” was one of those children afflicted by the spiritual parasite. When I began to come of age I started to question things, including but not limited to what I was told. During this period of maturing, I was one of those kids, as the saying goes in pop-culture, that was raised by Marilyn Manson. A very logical man, who is atheist by the way, that teaches and preaches such virtues. Soon after, I discovered Hawking, Dawkins, Aristotle and a grand host of others. Today, you have my modern commentary on this subject.

Although, there is a fine line to toe, I am a self-proclaimed logical being not wanting to be a gullible Gulliver, nor wanting to portray a smug angry atheist. The balancing act, as I said toeing a fine line can be tough. This subject is one that challenges this objective. I, myself, am very perceptive when it comes most anything especially reading people! It comes naturally and it comes without invitation, it is like breathing I cannot stop it. Sometimes it is overwhelming and I need to get away from people. I can feel their anger, I can see their anxiousness, and I can read their lies. I can even tell you, to a fault, their past and base on their speech patterns and/or choice of words I can even tell you their future, more like whether or not they’re going to accomplish a goal or finish a task. My accuracy is off the chart! Am I psychic? NO! I attribute this gift (yes, I said gift) to logic and nothing more. Since, I mentioned the Dawkins essay, allow me to compare people to computers, as he did, but for my own example. No one computer is the same, nor are they equal. There are gaming computers, business, music, super and probably more that I failed to mention. They all possess different capabilities. People are the same. Am I defending mediums, psychics, witch doctors, or nuns? No, I am not. So how does this all tie in? We cannot possibly know why one claims to do or know certain things when in fact they may not. However, are all mediums trying dupe idiots out their hard earned money in exchange for the extra-ordinary? No, but some probably do. Maybe, most of them. Is it possible that some possess these abilities? Probably not, but then again we don’t really know. Some of these people may be extraordinarily perceptive an mistaken it for psychic power, some may have it and use it to take advantage of eager morons. Others may be as perceptive as a door-knob. However, in science isn’t there a possibility of using otherwise stagnant brain power and capacity, or receiving impulses or waves from another human being? Are our bodies not comparative in composition to the stars in the sky whose residue lives on in the distance for thousands to millions of light-years?

Once again, am I defending these practices? NO! I am merely upholding the objectivity of the consummate scientific mind. Remember, in science even if you find a tangible solution it is still just a theory. I don’t see a real threat with this practice anyway. Until, it gets to the point of being, or becomes the new religion that is when I’ll be concerned. So until these practices begin to interfere with people’s civil rights, education, ethics and morals, and jeez-Louise voting habits! I’ll be standing by letting the people have their fun and blowing their own money ( Although, there can be a positive psychological value won like in grieving and making the process a little less painful) I will remain balanced and not a smug angry little atheist until then.

Viruses of the Mind- Charles Dawkins, a man that I have admired for a couple of years now, gives his take on life which sums it up best- Life. This is what we encounter and it sets the tone for which we live it. Dawkins’ selected subject matter is by far the core issue pertaining to human life today and throughout our very history. The effects are stemming from therein are what determine each perennial shift of direction, power and attitude in human life. All of the aforementioned affect more than one may or can ever fathom. Among the many elements that come to mind are death, population, climate change, poverty, basic rights, survival, and just to save space I’ll mention one more taxes, yes, even taxes it is all somehow, directly or indirectly, affected by morality.

As a parent of a beautiful, trusting, and age appropriated impressionable 2 year-old that is the apple of MY eye, I can definitely relate to Dawkins’ astonishing discovery that is seemingly the driving force behind this essay. His vehemence is apparent within the rich substance of his sublimated points. I, being a man of logic myself, would be infuriated at the blatant disregard for my rights as a father and a parent if my daughter was being subjugated by such company without my consent and against my wishes. Once more, I am a man of logic and if my daughter chooses to believe in such teachings, then she’ll do it after I have educated her about the alternatives, and really ‘knowing’ what it is that you believe with logic and reason; not even I would push my beliefs down her figurative throat. My wish is for her to make objective, but independent judgments based on her own informative conclusions.

That said, Dawkins makes one error in my book, which isn’t simple for me to say, but he presents science as infallible, thus, it is not! Science at the hand of scientists has made poor self-serving judgments. One such judgment includes the falsifying of information in a 1999 and 2002 study of MDMA (Ecstasy). The two studies in question were conducted by virtually the same research team at the respected John Hopkins University, led by Dr. Richard Recaurte and his wife Dr. Unna McCann. The two studies were government funded and both concluded results that serve today as a scare tactic to the general public. However, conclusive results from non-governmental agencies in England and Germany, both published in the prestigious medical journals the New Scientist, and the Journal of Nuclear Medicine respectively showed opposing lab results using more extensive double-blind research. A campaign was lead by leading psychiatrists, neurologists, and chemists most notably the U.S. based MAPS for Recaurte and his team to explain the drastic difference in the results of his test subjects. Recaurte and his team, one by one, wrote and published one retraction letter after the other. Recaurte first admitted to flimsy data, then sloppy methods, over dosages to his squirrel monkey subjects, and later a “labeling” error which caused him to give his subjects methamphetamine and not 3, 4 MDMA. Also, the alleged “holes” in the brain have been founded to be areas of temporary restricted blood flow found in subjects who had either taken the methamphetamine or abuse MDMA. Recaurte has been quoted as recent as 2009 (or so), as saying “MDMA may be a very useful drug someday.” That very quote is perhaps in connection with recent and conclusive results that have consistently stated both it’s useful (as stated by revered therapists in the field) and ‘miracle’ type therapeutic component that successfully and quickly battle against Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Parkinson’s Disease and various forms of therapy including marriage and most notably for survivors of sexual abuse namely rape. Results that according to many in the field, may otherwise take years of extensive therapy.

I do realize that, hypothetically (of course), the weighty check of government funding which (allegedly) may have been inspired by an expired patent for the MDMA recipe alongside the moral policing right may have well had more to do with this, however, one may allude that at that moment in time science became infected with a virus.

-Jeremy Watkins (Mircelous Grimm)

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Karma.

The film seems to present the idea of Karma in a real world setting fitted with real world causes. The idea it seems, is that Karma is real world force based on a "you reap what you sow" type principle, rather then the result of some mystical force or cycle.

Each example mirrors the next in it's given context, one such instance being that of a revenge killing, or a 'defense' killing in the heat of passion. A girl is struck by her boyfriend, and in the heat of the emotion that was brought on by her abuser, she comes back armed, and with her head probably still stuck in the prior moment she fires to assure that no future like-incidents occur again. Would the young man who struck her have succumb to this instance of Karma had he not done such a thing? According to my perception of the film's message, a resounding probably not comes to mind.

-Jeremy Watkins aka Mircelous Grimm
Subject: Karma.

11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of the
mind? Do you agree or disagree?
Substantiate your view.

Yes, I do agree with Richard Dawkins' view. Religion has substantiated it's likeness to cults in the way that it has murdered, such as with the Spanish inquisition. It has wiped out, or nearly wiped out entire civilizations such as the Native American, and sub-cultures such as the Heretic in Europe. Religion has hindered the progress, thus, more than likely has stunted the advancement of others such as the Latinos, Blacks, Middle-Easterners, and closer to home, the American people and the United States as a whole!

Religion like prohibition, has done more damage than good. Today, we find ourselves debating whether or not to allow our own fellow man to enjoy the same equal rights and civil liberties as we do based on his/her sexual orientation! All in the name, or so the EXCUSE goes, in the name of "God". Masses are being killed in sneak attacks throughout the world, all in the name of Allah, or "God".

Religion has infected our being, hindered our progress, induced mass paranoia, and all but given us as an entire world an expiration date, much like a virus!

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyze
it from a scientific perspective? Hint:
think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming
evidence to support it.

I’ll choose one- Santa Clause. It is impossible scientifically for a man of any age, stature, level of physical and mental health to do what Santa Clause presumably does, let alone a man of his age and physicality. What we are told as children is that this man enters international airspace without so much as communicating with any type of ATC (Air Traffic Control) agency while flying around the world within a 24 hour span with magical flying deer in tow, or rather the reindeer do the flying with him in tow. The journey itself is improbable on a list of any aviator’s list of aspirations, let alone for this man, a man of a senior age and a BMI score of 30+ makes stops at virtually every “good” child’s home while that child and their family are sleeping and breaks in. Every year, we (children) wait for this date on the calendar to arrive so that we may reap the benefits of our, and the strange thing is not so much that this man has eluded paranoid gun-touting men, crack-heads, suicide bombers, NORAD (North American Aerospace Command), fatigue, heart attack, gravity, Aerodynamics, temporary psychosis from sleep deprivation, cocaine addiction, but, I am appalled at all the “bad” children that still get presents. Kind of like Christianity (as an example for ALL religion) it’s funny that amid all other logical and falsifiable evidence NOT in favor of it, what is seemingly more unraveling in it’s case is the fact that EVERY funeral you go to, no matter how far removed this person’s lifestyle was from their presumed faith, they still manage to get into heaven!

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why is
this form of science so important to
human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one's
appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give
YOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).

In the beginning of the video documentary he gives mention to an artist friend and their view of a flower. Feynman can appreciate his friend’s point of view, but doesn’t quite relate to it. Feynman, being a physicist has a different vantage point than his friend and their perception of what makes the flower beautiful. My understanding or recollection of his take on how one “does” science stems from both the documentary and the speech he gave for the 1974 Cal Tech Commencement. What I understand of his (Feynman) take was that one must have a passion for finding things out, and to maintain an unbiased mind set in doing so. Most important is to seek the truth and to test new hypothesis, as well as retesting previous ones. Seek the answer, not your desired result and publish both sides.

I find beauty in mathematics, and how it is the answer to virtually ALL of life’s questions. I find beauty in aerospace and aeronautic technology. I find beauty in how fighter jets and helicopters gracefully sore through the skies, and especially when the realization of the mathematic blueprint that it took to make that possible. Aerodynamics, physics, mathematics, and human hand-eye coordination coming together to accomplish one of Man’s greatest feats!

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."

Karma is a film which, at least how I perceived it, to be a real-world view on the reality that is Karma. However, the Karma that we encounter in life, thus, expressed in the film is one of "you reap what you sow." Simply put, it is a matter of action/reaction.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard
Smith's contribution is important in
thinking differently about survival of the fittest.

I hate to say such a thing, baring in-mind that John Maynard-Smith was a much wiser man than myself, but I have to disagree to him. I feel that his view that presented stemmed from a generous (A good man) politically correct point of view. I must agree wholeheartedly with Natural Selection and all it's implications. Yes, evolution is a "weeding-out" system, and yes, we see these weeds everyday! He (Maynard Smith) mentions Marxism, which isn't as bad as it's attached stigma sounds, but in this case we need to leave the emotion out of this, and be thankful for such a system.

I also must disagree that Darwinism, or certain aspects of Darwinism leave "little to no" meaning to life. That is false, because look at life and all that has meaning to it. Who gave off-spring, sports, social stature, and love, to name a few, there meanings? We did.

16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universe
or the purpose of humankind?

His sentiment mimics that of a Francis S. Collins' type ideal. The two can be synonymous. Dyson also states that Human's must find their or make their reason for being here. That is philosophy that I agree with to the fullest. We ultimately decide anything related to consciousness.

17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religion
and its founders?

The secret is there really isn't a secret, or rather it's been made to seem as if there is. Even today, such thinking is radical, though seemingly less so!

Chand reveals many things into this secret, the first being that a man and his religious "leaders" are no more enlightened than the other. The connection is all a matter of concentration. Chand defeats many notions and their esteemed champions! I love the video from week three, NO NO NO and NO to all those religious leaders!

18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?
In other words, what is the underlying message that the
director is trying to convey?

Eleven really had a connection with the ironic. The meat of the story is that a stereotype failed in his attempt to avenge an event that he was clearly out of touch with. The stereotype ignoramus "They all look the same to me" targeted his "guilty" targets by means of stereotype, and was wrong both times. He was too full of hate and ignorance to be able to differentiate.

19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?
Use the Da Free John article as your context.

A thirst for knowledge, or ANSWERS, could end up garnering the results you DESIRE in between bouts of misinformation. Like so many, an eagerness for answers, rather than an objective quest for knowledge could warp what you may hearing.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?
Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL
ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).

Russell sites philosophical discontent with Christianity, namely the concept of such an angry god, and the lack of a foundation for such an entity to exist in the first place. And though, I feel (even though I agree) that, that "who created god?" argument is a bit of a cliche in nature, I do his reasoning, and again I do agree.

There are so many issues with the existence of god in my mind. One concept is the "Alpha and the Omega," in biblical literature most text, this included serves as a "two-edged sword." The bible suggests that the universe has a "beginning and an end", but according to the astrophysicists and a portion of the Hubble Square Law, the universe is expanding with no end in sight. Given that by most churches' interpretations we are in the end times with rapture right around the corner, and with the universe only being about 10,000 years-old, not 4.2 billion, then why haven't we seen even a near-cease in cosmic expansion? How is that stars and the human body are similar in composition?

And, yes, such a hateful evil and spiteful god! He'll punish you if you don't behave. You won't go to heaven, your crops will sour and you must believe with every ounce of faith without any type of tangible evidence whatsoever! I'm sorry, but I gave up on Santa Clause a long time ago!

21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (in
your own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like a
letter
to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett's
numerous points.

Falsifiability is the ability to let go of what you were told, and to open your mind to other possibilities. However, it can also be a way to return or even maintain your prior beliefs, but with a stronger support system to better uphold them. A concept such as this will make you stronger in your belief, if you choose to uphold, not just by mere faith, but by a broader knowledge of your belief system and the concepts around you to make it logically possible to harbor such ideas. On the other hand, if you choose to adopt views other than those that were handed to you this is concept serves as a great model, by which to challenge your prior beliefs and effectively seek knowledge. Your mental range will be broader in scope and you will be better equipped to make a solid choice away from the confines of emotion, and instead judge with great validity by asking questions and dissecting prior knowledge without fear. Falsifiability is a concept that mirrors the scientific model in it’s very concept and allows the scientific notion that all things even if widely accepted and valid, are still falsifiable, thus, making everything falsifiable in nature due to our lack of knowledge and understanding. Even the best hypothesis and the most solid theories are just merely falsifiable. It may seem a bit paradoxical (Yes, as stated by Lett, but I couldn‘t find a better word/term to describe it), but that which isn’t falsifiable is, and that which is, is as well. The objective in it’s critical thinking concept is that, figuratively speaking, the more layers you can take off of it the more false it is, the less layers you can take off of it the more true it MAY be; however, you must be able to dissect it’s layers, thus it must have them or it is just a mere fallacy!

22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to
religion? Do you agree or disagree?

I must have missed something, because I have to be honest I thought Kurtz was alluding to the notion that religion wasn't worthy of Skeptical observation. So, I'll just be honest here and carry on with my point of view to complete the question.

Skeptical observation in regard to religion is a must! First off, to be objective and fair, as Feynman said, "publish both sides." The fact remains that the only way to really defeat, along with any other hypothesis or theory lacking substantial evidence is to thoroughly test it out, both fairly and objectively. Lest we forget, we aren't 100% certain if we're correct! Science is based on theory, not absolutes!

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book
or an argument. Provide your own example.

Balance must be achieved here. While I do agree that a dissection must be made to read between the lines, at the same time, I don't believe in getting to "heady". Over-analysis can "superficially" cheapen the text, and I know we're referring to mostly to the "art of arguement", but a balance must maintained when giving thought to a body of text. On the other hand, yes, breaking down text, thought and a conceptual objective is infinitely important for understanding what you're debating.

The example of the Great Gatsby is a great one, or any story for that matter. An author writes with an objective in mind, and it's not always conscious though much of may (or not) be. The same can be said for philosophy.

24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author of
the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine
extraterrestrials?

Transformation is a complete overhaul of ones' ideas, rather than just a mere shift. So transformation must be a complete transfer that takes place within the mind when intaking information or an event. This, I believe comes in connection with the author's (Mr. Lane) view on UFO's which is to say, "no." The author seems to spell out that such sightings, while plausible in scope are just events of a stark transformation of the mind.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?
(hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your
views.

The modern “literary information seeker” is better utilizing the art of research to narrow a certain field and obtain their desired information. This is done in accordance with a system that is linked to the modern day search engine. From jobs to schools, homework to resumes and even the absurd and irrelevant, the modern day researcher is better able to track down resources without the help of a professional aide.

26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree or
disagree?

Steve Weinberg’s atheism, to me, has a grounded basis. He basis his belief on a more comparative factor, that is that science is better equipped to explain that which needs explanation. Science presents facts, not ultimatums in faith. However, he (Weinberg) goes on to mention that neither one (science nor religion) can be proven! Once again, I agree wholeheartedly in that I admire this logic, as it mirrors my own. Falsifiability is key here! It is all about picking which makes the most sense.

27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue
against his views? If so, how?

Sam Harris is a person, who though I agree with him I have to question his reasons, or at least his initial reasons behind his atheism. It seems that a little bit of rebellion is evident in his structure or system. What I refer to as the “angry little atheist” mentality. Although, his views are substantiated now, I wonder what if someone a little more knowledgeable came along and ‘one-upped’ him in a debate, would he turn to be one of those church “casualty” stories?

For the most part, I see Harris as being disappointed, as he poses a lot of what I call the 'cliche' questions in reference to god and his/her existence. He points to the universal base questions of "who can prove god?" and "If there was a god then why is there so much pain, suffering and despair?" Again, I wholeheartedly agree, but using these questions as logic or a means to disprove god, to me, is a juvenile in nature and is a poor representation to the god-heads.

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker
did you find most persuasive? Explain why.

First off, I have to say that though I am NOT a believer in God. I loved a part of one of the opening statements by Steven Weinberg. He mentioned, briefly, Francis S. Collins a self-professed Christian and Evolutionist. He is a scientist that I have much respect for, and in my opinion is the poster-child for the direction that I.D. needs to head to. In the past, I.D. had a scientific argument particularly within the confines of physics (specifically, the law of entropy and it’s principles); however, those points were quickly dissolved as displayed in the Miller/Behe example. And, I’m glad that he mentions Galileo and Copernican theory, because it was truly a defining moment for religion which only became evident in the later years of human history with the evolution (pun?) of our education.

Weinberg makes mention of biblical references that suggest the world if flat, and not the sphere that we know (visually) it is!

He (Weinberg) also goes on to mention that “today’s students understand general relativity better than he (Einstein) did,” pointing to the fact, that as a hero and not authority figure, even Albert Einstein’s 70 year-old work is outdated and not a current source for physics. A statement of “heroes but NOT profits.” Although, he maintains neither , science nor religion, can justify itself. And, neither can be argued rationally.

Second speaker condones BALANCE. Respecting faiths, but being objective of the facts. He spoke of fusion and that homosexually occurs naturally in certain species. He spoke of enriching faith by specifying what is non-sense. He is a great representative of the happy “medium” by admitting faults within the sciences (personnel) and the religious, but giving the most blame to his own field. His objective seems to be in the middle and really uphold the scientific method. He produces a ‘new’ focus. He even gives an alternative view to that of Richard Dawkins, who is well known for his theory that the world would be a better place without religion, which I agree, but not a good first-forward approach.

Sam Harris makes some really good points, particularly pertaining to ‘real’ issues behind religion to former President Bush’s first veto to stem cell research; however, he seems so young and angry “I’m smart and you’re not” though he seemed to try to be neutral.

GOING ON, I'd have to say it is, and not just because he IS a HERO of mine, but "hands down: it is Neil DeGrasse-Tyson! He gave the most objective speech there!

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreducible
complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he
right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.

Ken Miller is correct because, for one thing, Behe's arguments are based on old and (now) unfounded data. Miller's argument has updated and thorough information on his side.

30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to
be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.

The lady in the beginning of the third video, I don’t recall her name and I don’t care, she was weak, nervous and had absolutely no right to be up there with the likes of Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, for example.

31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley?

Being mostly self-taught and a bit of naturalist Huxley believed in natural observations to better understand the science of life.

32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers

Wilber seems to side step the scientific model and the rule (at least in logic) of falsifiability when considering his logic on certain things. At times, I was unsure if some of Wilber’s logic stemmed from a strong belief, a certain type of “faith,” or sheer arrogance. I sense intelligence without substance in some regards.

33. Give a review and an reaction to the three magazines that you read listed above.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Friday, January 28, 2011

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Tuesday, January 18, 2011