The ramblings of your webmaster. Take 'em, or leave 'em.
It happens that most of these snippets were generated as parts of cyber discussions with members of the
International Society of Philosophical Enquiry.
Index of topics: Religion -- Intelligence -- Immigration -- Prohibition and Drug Laws -- Cold War --
Presidential Elections -- The Pillow Book -- Time Travel -- Product Litigation -- Scientific Observations --
Roots of Religion -- Religion and Morality -- Affirmative Action -- Heaven's Gate -- Group Interactions
My personal opinion is that all gods were created by men and not the other way around. If this were not so, then we would have to completely disregard the majority of the religions that man has practiced, note that the believers were in total error, and determine that only one of the many religions has the correct story. It seems much more plausible that the many religions were created by the single species than to accept that the single species was created according to the very diverse stories that are accepted as true by the many religions.
In the cases where religions believe that their god created man in the image of the god, we have a likely case of narcism. Why would a god exist in such a configuration as man? Would the god need genitals, eyes, teeth, lungs, hair, DNA, intestines, legs, etc.? What would he do with them?
Arthur Jensen observed that there is a correlation between mental response time to external stimuli (such as lights) and intelligence. This time can be measured by detecting the electrical potential on the scalp after a visual stimulus. The results correlate with results on untimed intelligence tests.
I think it is important to note that P. A. Vernon has demonstrated that, the reaction time and speed variables explain less of the variance of a timed intelligence test than that of an untimed administration of the same test.
Jensen formulated a hypothesis that the reason for the response time/ intelligence correlation is explained by rapid decay rates of short term memory. He said that people whose brains work slowly will forget part of the problem before a solution is found. His hypothesis does not stand careful examination of the magnitudes of the variables involved.
It is well established that faster brains (per the Jensen measurements) have higher levels of myelination. Edward Miller has argued that the myelin layers can be shown to be responsible for more efficient insulation, thus reducing leakage from the intended transmission path to unintended paths. This cross-talk causes transmission errors, which have the effect of causing the brain to stop and wait for retransmission. It is also known that less intelligent brains consume more energy while solving a problem than do intelligent brains. These and many other observations make a strong case that the mechanism of high intelligence is myelination, which causes both faster response times and reduced error rates in transmission within the brain. The faster impulse transmission rates may have nothing to do with intelligence, but will correlate with it because the speed results from the same cause as the improvement in transmission accuracy. Lower energy consumption is explained by the reduced effort required by the brain to complete its tasks (efficient transmission of information).
The intelligent brain will process the information more quickly because it does so with fewer cross-talk errors. The less intelligent brain must deal with unexpected transmissions that result from signal leakage. This problem is compounded by the observation that more error prone brains tend to introduce more errors into the later steps. Jensen's measurements have demonstrated this phenomenon. Leakage of signals across myelin layers is one of the few (possibly only) mechanisms which can account for this observation. {related comments}
Many of the problems in the U.S. and other countries are the direct result of overpopulation. Immigration is attractive to a country that needs additional population for growth or in special instances in which specific skills are needed. The U.S. has no shortage of population and no surplus funds to attract, house, feed, and coddle additional people. Consider the District of Columbia; e the city has no money for the repair of its police cars, cannot pay for road repair, has stopped building maintenance, and does not even have toilet tissue in its city owned buildings. I would respectfully suggest that we deal with our immediate problems (as we find them in our nation's capitol) and consider a 10 year ban on immigration, while we learn how to survive with our presently limited resources.
Adding more immigrants to the pot will not solve our problems.
Prohibition did for organized crime what high nitrogen fertilizer does for a lawn. Current drug laws have accomplished the same thing. The experiment with prohibition showed us that plenty of people wanted to drink and they were not effectively denied access to booze. I don't see any difference with drug laws and drug consumption.
The Soviets never thought they could win a war against the U.S. I think they were well enough informed to understand where they stood and where we stood. As for political stability, I would agree that it didn't work out for them internally, but it did work out that their military strength, set in opposition to that of the US, created one of the few (only?) situations in history where there was a stable bipolar standoff.
Prior to the end of WWII, the world saw a distribution of power that included several nations. This situation was inherently unstable. Wars erupt when a couple of them decided to join forces to overpower another, or when one powerful country decided to "annex" a weaker neighbor. When the US and Russia ended up with "super power" military strength, things changed in such a way that the regularly scheduled large-scale wars in Europe suddenly were canceled. One can make a fairly strong argument that only a bipolar distribution of power is stable.
The present situation is that we have lost the bipolar standoff, but we now have several nuclear powers. Perhaps nuclear power will substitute for the prior balance of power between the US and Russia. Nuclear power does for nations what a firearm does for an otherwise weak individual; it doesn't prevent an attack, but it greatly increases the risk to the attacker. So far, no nation has been willing to use nuclear weapons in a situation where it would stand a good chance of having to accept nuclear warheads exploding on its capitol grounds.
Only time will tell if a multinational distribution of nuclear weapons will be stable with respect to their eventual use. There also remains the secondary issue of non-nuclear conflict rising to very large levels. This obviously has happened, even within the cold war, but has been confined to noncentral locations, such as Vietnam, and Afghanistan. The war in Bosnia may be an indication of the trouble that lies ahead in a post cold war era.
China is another huge question mark. What about China???
I think that our system of electing the President was initially devised in a format that could solve our present difficulties in selecting a person to run the country. I propose that we should not allow candidates for the office, we should draft them, in the same way as we have drafted people into military service. We should vote for electors, on the basis of the beliefs and objectives of the electors. The winning electors should then be sent to a convention or connected by video conference, teleconference, or such. They should have a mandate to select a new president, with the stipulation that the selected person meet present qualification requirements and that they have never worked as a preacher or employee of a religious group. When the new president (and vice president) is selected, he should be collected (kicking and screaming) by the Park Police and escorted to the White House, with the instructions that he can leave at the end of his term.
I think my approach is not all that different from what the founding fathers had in mind. The problem with our present system is that anyone who would actually want the job is likely to be exactly the kind of person who should not have it. Colin Powell is one example. He isn't my first choice for the office, but he certainly would bring a considerable amount of integrity that would be a big improvement over the corruption which has accompanied the Clintons. Of course, as an honorable man, he doesn't want anything to do with the White House. Who can blame him?
If we want honest people running the country, we need to track them down and draft them.
The summer movies are advertising their dinosaurs, explosions, car chases, fights, and TV-sitcom-level dialogs to lure in the gum chewing masses. But, hidden away in a few theaters (large metro areas only) there is an artistic jewel: Peter Greenaway's THE PILLOW BOOK.
Until this week, I had only seen one Greenaway film: THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE & HER LOVER. It left me with a favorable disposition towards Greenaway and a desire to see more. After seeing THE PILLOW BOOK, I now (at least tentatively) consider Greenaway to be in the same league with Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, and Russell.
PILLOW BOOK is serious, exotic, and complex. The story line is easy enough to follow, but it was helpful to read it (www.pillowbook.com) before seeing the film. The complexity of the presentation is partly reflected in its use of multiple written and spoken languages (at least 5), multiple countries, multiple races, and multiple sexual orientations.
I don't believe that THE PILLOW BOOK is in the same league with BLOW-UP for mental stimulation, but I believe that it has upped the ante in image presentation. It uses multiple images; black and white and color (nothing new with this); washed (overexposed) color; projected type and calligraphy; and scrolling words to set a very high standard for serious cinematographers. This, combined with an intricate and exotic sound track, puts PILLOW BOOK near the top of my all time favorites list.
Since I have only seen one other Greenaway film, I can only make comparisons to that one reference point. Both THE PILLOW BOOK and THE COOK... are long, but the humor that runs throughout THE COOK... is missing from PILLOW BOOK. The primary similarities I see between the two are Greenaway's bizarre treatment of the dead and his focus on revenge by the female protagonist.
This is NOT a film to be viewed by Puritans. Anyone who might be offended by reading the Lord's Prayer, written across Vivian Wu's breasts, will have serious problems with THE PILLOW BOOK or THE COOK... Much of the costuming in PILLOW BOOK is human skin (on and off the body), with a little paint and ink added here and there.
I think that people have a natural tendency to try to relate every concept to the human level; in the process, they run the risk of making unreasonable extrapolations. Phenomena that exist at the particle level do not necessarily have analogs in the macroscopic human-scale world.
The development of man's understanding of quantum mechanics has given us insight into things that cannot otherwise be explained and understood. It has also directed us to look for things that might not have been sought (such as event horizons). At the scale where quantum phenomena are observed, there has been reasonable work which indicates that there is a meaning to negative time. That does not imply that man or other macro-objects are capable of traveling backward in time. We have experimental evidence that particles can exist in two places at the same time (as a result of diffraction). This particle behavior is basically a wave phenomenon and is no longer surprising to physicists. It is not reasonable to extrapolate that macro-objects can be diffracted or that they can exist in two places simultaneously.
There are lots of other examples of things that happen at the atomic and subatomic levels which cannot be extrapolated to the macro level: tunneling, virtual particles, Hawking radiation, etc.
Don't expect to visit with dinosaurs, or your great-great-great-grandfather by buying a reverse time ticket at your local train station. On the other hand, if you use public transportation here in the DC area, you might think that you are traveling backwards.
The claim that litigation keeps companies in check works both ways. There are cases which demonstrate that companies are motivated to protect their customers out of fear of suit, and there are cases which show that the customers use law suits unfairly.
If you pull out your favorite Purdey, Boss, or Woodward shotgun, you will find a government proof mark on the underside of the barrels. That is the way English guns are checked for safety before they are sold. It is the law. In the United States, we proof test shotguns in courts. For what it's worth, there is no argument as to which group of guns is more robust--American made guns. Both systems, however, work. I have never seen an English gun blow up, but they are so expensive that village idiots don't shoot them. The only American shotguns I have ever known to have failed catastrophically had bore obstructions, which could have been prevented by the shooter.
The U.S. approach has been abused. I received a notification that, as the owner of a Remington shotgun, I was entitled to part of the settlement of a class action suit against Remington. I called the information number and asked if there had been any barrel failures. "No." I asked what the deal was and was told that a small group had alleged that the alloy used in Remington barrels was not strong enough. I asked if this was true. "No." So, why the settlement? It was because Remington decided it was cheaper to pay than fight. I asked it taking any of the money would deprive Remington of funds and was told that the amount of the settlement was fixed and that I would not harm Remington by accepting a check. This is one example of abuse (my opinion) because there have not been barrel explosions and certainly no injuries.
Years ago, you could buy a rifle with a good trigger; some were even adjustable. Today, rifle triggers have heavy pulls because the manufacturers are afraid to sell good triggers. Someone may sue them, claiming an accidental discharge. So, if you want a rifle, you have to accept one that is going to shoot poorly, or you have to buy a target trigger and replace the factory trigger. This is the way law suits have influenced my hobby. There is some good, and probably more bad. Interestingly, American shotguns have been stronger than English guns since before WWII. Law suits back then were not a big threat, when Winchester first marketed the super-strong Model-21.
[The famous M-21 that fired over 2,000 proof rounds without any damage is now on display in the Cody Firearms Museum, Cody, Wyoming.]
It doesn't matter who does the observing and testing; it matters that they do it correctly. The scientific method does not work for only one group of people, it is a sound method that has had a profound impact on the human pursuit of knowledge.
Of course, there is a point here concerning the expertise of the person making the observation. If someone makes inaccurate observations or measurements, he cannot be expected or trusted to draw accurate conclusions. We have scientists because it is necessary to understand scientific work and it is demanding. For the same reason, we have lawyers, physicians, dentists, and accountants to do work in fields that require a great depth of knowledge. Taking "a" course in quantum mechanics does not make a physicist anymore than taking "a" course in law makes a lawyer.
Ever notice how people tend to practice the religion of their parents, their local area, and their country? I'll bet you don't find many Southern Baptists in China, Buddhists in Alabama, or Mormons in Ireland. People are simply brainwashed by their parents and other authority figures when they are young and trusting. When they grow up, many cannot overcome the guilt feelings of denying that early training, whether it is Voodoo, Catholicism, or Shintoism. None is more valid, more verifiable, more worthy, or in any way better than the other, yet the followers of each believe that they are uniquely right and the billions of others who disagree with them are wrong.
Religions people have not demonstrated any greater inclination to behave morally than anyone else. Given the actual conduct of such people, one might more accurately argue that the most vile forms of human behavior have been found among the religious. Morality does not exist because of any religion. Some religions have usurped the claim that they are the source of moral behavior; no doubt, this has been done as a means of self-defense and convenience. Meanwhile, the actual behavior of the leaders and followers in the religions throughout history and throughout the world have shown us that morality within religious groups is often no better than that found in penitentiaries.
For an example of the morality of one religion, consider the massacre of native people in the Americas by Roman Catholic zealots. The only survivors were those who submitted to slavery AND agreed to accept and practice the white man's religion that was being forced upon them. Of course, the victims had histories of religious practice as well. A good many of them involved human sacrifice, as was also the case in other parts of the world. Is one of these any better than the other?
Whatever the intent of affirmative action, its application has been to punish people for something they did not do. Affirmative action has been implemented through such vehicles as quotas. A quota says that you must hire and promote people in such a way as to produce a work force (or student body) that matches the quota dictates. If the company or university cannot find qualified minorities to meet the social demands of the government, they have to lower their standards to whatever point is necessary.
Affirmative action means hiring the incompetent at the expense of the competent. It means unfairness and bigotry. It means that the government is practicing (with force) what it says (by lies) it is trying to eliminate. The result is more resentment and high inefficiency.
Affirmative action is designed to give advantages to one class of citizens at the expense of another. It is not based on merit, but is solely based on sex or race. The entire basis of affirmative action is discrimination, backed up by the force of law. The victim has no right to appeal his fate.
The U.S. has a history of discrimination that has been written into the law. At various times it has denied people the right to freedom, the vote, and the right to marry a person of another race. It has also denied people fair treatment in college admissions; fair treatment in hiring; fair treatment in promotions; and fair treatment in obtaining government contracts. Besides that, present laws punish married people by taxing them at higher rates (where it previously punished single people by taxing them at higher rates). NONE of this is fair nor is it properly the business of the government to discriminate against any citizen for any reason. Affirmative action is blatant discrimination.
From what I have seen in print and on TV interviews, the Heaven's Gate people strike me as deluded religious followers. Their choice to die was unusual, but was theirs and was not something forced on them.
The press loves stories involving unusual behavior, especially if there is death involved. But, I wonder if the Heaven's Gate people are THAT different from the followers of other "respected" religions. On the very positive side, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that these people were involved in any forms of hate, persecution, or intended harm to others who did not share their beliefs. This is in contrast to the willingness of Christian, Muslim, and other religions, who have had distant and recent-past histories of violent treatment of "the others." For starters, we can look to Northern Ireland and the Middle East for recent examples and to the Inquisition, holy wars (the whole worldwide collection), and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals in the name of religion. And we have present "leaders" such as Jerry Falwell railing against gays, and "Minister" Farrakhan against Jews.
Heaven's Gate believed in celibacy, something presently imposed on the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of its members were castrated, apparently by choice. If we look at other past and present religions, we find that it is common practice to hack up male and female genitals. I don't see such practices as different when done by Heaven's Gate than other religions.
The HG team believed in spiritual life as something that extends beyond life on earth; this same concept is preached by any number of large religions and is just as strange when endorsed by the Pope as when it comes from Mr. Applewhite.
HG believed in life existing in spaceships and in a physical heaven. This is essentially what lots of other religions believe, including the Christians who reside all around us. I personally think that the HG people were no more deluded than Jerry Falwell or the Pope.
HG believed in an Apocalypse. Is this any different than the rhetoric of Southern Baptists?
HG used the Internet to spread its vision. If you do a search or two with an Internet search engine, you will find that this is not unique. Not only is it not unusual for religions to use the Internet, I discovered that they even use ham radio, as in the "Liberty Baptist Church - Ham Radio Ministry." We all know that religions have long used radio and TV for the same purposes.
HG was lead by a man who was held in very high esteem by the followers. Virtually all religions have similar leaders, who are just as rational as Mr. Applewhite.
We have a First Amendment to protect the rights of people to believe any kind of nonsense they choose, including all of the tripe offered by religions of all kinds. At least HG did not harm or threaten nonbelievers. I see them as no better or worse than anyone else and much less harmful than those who seek to forcibly impose their ideas on others.
There seems to be a natural law which governs the cycle of human group interactions. I see the cycle as formation, success, growth, chaos, bureaucracy, and decline. It happens every time, whether the group is formed as a business, a club, or a coffee klatch. I have lived through the complete cycle of each of these.
Let's look at the history of the Hypothetical Society of Coffee Connoisseurs, a serendipitous group of three people who find themselves having coffee together on Saturday mornings. They have a great time talking about anything and everything. One of them asks a friend to join the group and it only gets better. Before you know it, more friends are asked to join in. Things start to get complicated. One member wants to move the meeting to a cafe closer to his home, so they agree to alternate Saturdays from one cafe to the other. Then someone is offended by the shabby dress of one attendee, so they establish a dress code, which leads to a code of conduct.
The group reaches a size where order is lost, and some members do not have a chance to speak. In fact they notice that, if everyone speaks at each meeting, there is only one minute available. They set dues, and buy egg timers to regulate the speaking time. Then they raise the dues to buy a PA system, so that everyone can hear. Robert's Rules are adopted. Disgusted members begin to leave, often in a huff.
The coffee drinkers persist and elect a president, apply for state incorporation, devise bylaws, and more rules of conduct. Politically motivated members begin to seek office and demonstrate their enthusiasm for devising more rules to regulate the unruly mass that now drinks instant coffee from Styrofoam cups in a local high school football stadium. Meanwhile the disgruntled former members are meeting at the Triple Espresso Bar and discussing how horrible the former group was.