No one can say it more clearly, more plainly, more concisely than Carlin.
June 29th, 2008
George Carlin: A wake-up call
Business, Education, Free Thought, Government | 
5 Comments »
June 28th, 2008
Plastic Brain Outsmarts Experts
Training can increase fluid intelligence, once thought to be fixed at birth
Training a person’s working memory may increase his or her general intelligence.
Can human beings rev up their intelligence quotients, or are they stuck with IQs set by their genes at birth? Until recently, nature seemed to be the clear winner over nurture.
But new research, led by Swiss postdoctoral fellows Susanne M. Jaeggi and Martin Buschkuehl, working at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, suggests that at least one aspect of a person’s IQ can be improved by training a certain type of memory.
Most IQ tests attempt to measure two types of intelligence–crystallized and fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence draws on existing skills, knowledge and experiences to solve problems by accessing information from long-term memory.
Fluid intelligence, on the other hand, draws on the ability to understand relationships between various concepts, independent of any previous knowledge or skills, to solve new problems. The research shows that this part of intelligence can be improved through memory training.
“When it comes to improving intelligence, many researchers have thought it was not possible,” says Jaeggi. “Our findings clearly show this is not the case. Our brain is more plastic than we might think.” (Read More…)
There is no pain
There’s only gain
When you can train
Your plastic brain.
June 24th, 2008
“Mind Control Made Easy or How to Become a Cult Leader”
By Carey Burtt (2000) Thanks, Mark Frauenfelder (BoingBoing)
One of the more interesting periods of my life occurred when I was in the Army, the Army Security Agency to be precise. The ASA was, on the military intelligence (no, not an oxymoron, but I appreciate the humor in that old joke) side of the Army what the special forces on the infantry side. I was assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA, also known as No Such Agency) at Ft. Meade, Md.
This was in the 1970s, when intelligence in the U.S. was divided into categories, and there were agencies under the State Department, Department of Defense and cabinet-level departments, each responsible for a particular category. There wasn’t supposed to be much overlap, and as a result there was little inter-communication. So while the CIA was supposed to run the HUMINT (human intelligence; spies, defectors, traitors, blackmail, social instability) side of intelligence the NSA was tasked with the COMINT (communications intelligence; phone taps, line traces, listening devices) and SIGINT (signal intelligence; radar, data communications, internet) sides. Now, thanks, rather no thanks to the Patriot Act, the agency’s tasks have all been reorganized, so the above is quite dated.
Because the agencies didn’t share much of anything, each tended to duplicate the efforts of other agencies. This sometimes worked to our advantage, but more often than not it was just a waste of time and effort. So NSA, while primarily focused on electronics, also made sure we knew as much as reasonable about the HUMINT aspect of intelligence gathering. So I believe I know a bit about the application of them.
The video above is generally true. It accurately outlines the more common tactics of cult groups. Upon further consideration, though, it should be obvious that it can also be applied to religious groups (any of them), the military itself, hate groups, environmental organizations.
Another factor to consider is that these methods can be adapted to work in positive ways. The goal needn’t always be evil. Still, I suspect the number of instances where these behaviors have been misused far outnumber the instances where they’ve been applied with a noble intent.
The goal of all these “tricks of the trade” is to get you to think like I do, or at least as I want you to. It’s in direct contradiction to the goals of free thinking. Awareness of the attempts made every day to manipulate your thinking is the first step toward defending yourself against them.
Think for yourself.
June 20th, 2008
My group thinks, therefore we are
It’s unfortunate that many people prefer to let their religion or their nationalism or any sort of group think community (any group, including rationalist and humanist groups) tell them what to think.
Neither I nor atheism is a religion. I do not think that my particular point of view is superior to anyone else’s nor is it going to apply to anyone else. It has developed, evolved, over the course of my life in response to the experiences I’ve had. I am aware that I hold several contradictory opinions. I make no apology for them.
Telling others they should think as I do is as anathema to me telling them what they can and can’t think. None of us has the right to tell another what to think. We explain our point of view as best we can and leave it for them to ponder it or ignore.
I’ve had other atheists insinuate, and in one case come right out and say, that I’m not atheist enough. Their attitude is that there’s a right way and a wrong way to be atheistic. How absurd. I could disbelieve in gods but believe that stuffed teddy bears were alive and be an atheist. That’s one of the things that separates atheism from theism, the lack of a standard statement of belief. There’s no atheistic dogma to which we all pledge our allegiance.
Some atheists contend that a philosophy of life that doesn’t include gods alone is insufficient reason to be an atheist. A true atheist must also believe that Jesus was an allegory based on preceding models. A true atheist must also believe that it’s significant whether or not Hitler was a Catholic (and that it mattered to him). If you don’t present an argument every time you see a theist mention that Hitler was an atheist you’re not really “one of us”. And you have to mention that Einstein was at best a deist as were the founding fathers. I’m sure I’m missing a few other examples of the articles of the unfaith.
It wouldn’t matter a bit if it were discovered that Adolph was a raving atheist. It wouldn’t matter in the least if Alfred was an Orthodox Catholic. I don’t consider myself an ambassador for the non-existent Christ. It’s an interesting historical mystery, but in the overall scheme of things it matters not if Jesus was a guy who got the best postmortem PR of any man in history or if he was nothing more than another god-man story based on earlier mythology. My rejection of the arguments theology offers has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed or not. Was Moses real or myth? Who cares?
Do you see my point? Even atheism can turn into a system similar to theism if it starts to add point after point of commonality to the bare-bones definition of an atheist. Those who attempt to do this are being unreasonable. Atheism is the product of being able to think for yourself. I can say with near certainty that no one comes to the conclusion that they don’t believe in gods until they reach a point where they change their own minds about theology. They have started to think for themselves and are learning how to ignore the voices coming at them from every side trying to tell them what to think. It’s not easy and the rewards dubious. I recommend it, but with reservations.
Think for yourself. And I’m just saying that. You have to decide whether or not you’ll pay attention and give it some thought.
June 17th, 2008
Puppy Killer
<originally posted as a reply in this forum thread at Volconvo. com regarding a Marine accused of killing a puppy. I thought the preceding comment, which mentioned trained killers and innocent civilians, was inconsistent in my experience.>
In defense of those of us who have served in the military, I feel a need to object to this bit of hyperbole.
Yes, soldiers are trained to kill. They are also taught how to injure without killing and how to disengage from a situation without injury to anyone. They’re also taught first aid skills so they can tend to those who are injured, even if they’re the enemy.
Soldiers are taught how to recognize the enemy and to only direct fire at them, but when insurgents disguise themselves as citizens and use children and other innocent civilians as defensive shields, they increase the risk that our soldiers will kill innocents. Is that the soldiers fault or are the insurgents to blame? Soldiers in the field are never taught or lead to think that killing civilians is approved. It happens all too frequently in this current conflict, but in the vast majority of cases where it does I have no doubt that it was both accidental and deeply regretted by the soldiers responsible. Collateral damage is to be avoided whenever possible, and minimized when it isn’t. Anyone who enjoys killing others is an anomaly, whether civilian or military. They are malformed humans. They contribute nothing to the advancement of our species.
Now this guy sounds like one of those guys. And those guys are a threat to their own species. It’s not uncommon among animals for a small percentage to “loose it”, to turn on their pack mates without apparent regard. It’s perhaps the ultimate betrayal of trust in a group, the greatest threat another can face, the threat of death.
It’s the pleasure taken in the killing of anything that offends me. It also offends me that the military appears more upset over the publicity than the actual offense.
Perhaps if our perception of death were different our reaction to those who enjoy killing their own would also be other than it is. But that’s not the case. In general our species fears death; it’s the great unknown, the trip everyone makes and no one (we personally know in the flesh, which in the end is all that really counts) ever returns from, an absolute change from what we know and are comfortable with to another state, be it nothingness, judgment or virgins. At the very heart of the matter is that death means the end of this personality I’ve come to know so very well (if I’m delusional I still would think that I know myself well, though subjectively and oblivious to the persona I project to others). I know of no religion, new age group or stoned guru who suggests that after death life just picks right back up and we carry on as if nothing happened. Everyone agrees that the thing I’ve been calling [I]me [/I]for my whole life will in large part or its entirety cease to exist. I’ll either be something or someone else with no memory of this life, or I’ll be nothing. Either way, I won’t be the me I am at this moment.
And there’s no escaping it.
You can’t hide from it, you can’t elude it, you can’t buy it off, you can’t impress it with your talents and you can’t ignore it.
It’s slightly worse for non-believers. Death sucks. If what I strongly suspect happens after death is proven out, this ride will be over. I got my quarter’s worth. No second rides. Get off now, let the other kids have a chance. I happen to be a selfish little bastard. I think I deserve a few rides. Too bad. Wish all you want. Make up stories to make yourself feel better about it. None of it matters. You’re still going to die. Your cells will decide when and from what. Blindly, according to natural laws they aren’t even aware of. Your cells don’t care what happens to you or me. They’ll go on.
Anyway, people who glorify death, celebrate death, cause death with pleasure scare atheists. They threaten the only life I get.
June 15th, 2008
Fine Tuning, debunking ID
Probably the most important conclusion we can draw is that even if the universe were intentionally created, we can discern nothing about that creator that we cannot discern of the physical universe. We cannot say anything about this supposed creator other than it is the sort of creator who would create this particular universe in all its details.
We cannot determine if this being wants to be worshipped or ignored. We can’t tell if it is friendly, hostile or completely indifferent to human, or even terrestrial life. Just believing that such a creator exists gives us absolutely no additional justification for believing that any religious scripture is inspired by this creator. (Indeed the idea that a being capable of creating such a vast universe, of actually creating physics itself, would choose to communicate with its creation by the agency of schizophrenic prophets and parasitic priests in some a remote corner of the ancient world seems vastly less plausible than that all religions are entirely human social constructs.)
We cannot even determine that the existence of life itself was a goal of this creator or a side-effect. Indeed, the relative insignificance of terrestrial life argues for the side-effect interpretation. The mold in the grout in my bathtub is more “significant” by many orders of magnitude to all of human civilization than is terrestrial life to the ~9.2×1021 light-year3 observable universe: that specific patch of mold has more justification for believing that all of human civilization has been created specifically and intentionally for its benefit than we have for believing that the entire observable universe has been created for the benefit of all terrestrial life.
In short, the Fine Tuning argument is speculative, probabilistically meaningless, and, even if true, doesn’t establish anything interesting. I think it’s safe to say that, after Pascal’s Wager, it’s the second worst apologetic ever. (The Barefoot Bum)
A well written and thought out exposure of one of the major weaknesses in the arguments for Intelligent Design. The whole concept of ID is poorly supported by any kind of evidence. It displays its religious roots by being illogical and internally inconsistent.
My primary argument against ID is that no one can provide an objective, absolute standard for the concept of “design”. What appears to one person to be a design appears to another as simply a pattern or even a disorganized mess. Until the ID crowd can suggest what they mean by design and offer examples of absolute design, their suggestions can be dismissed easily as nonsense.
June 10th, 2008
Why are we here?
Trying to extract meaning or purpose from nature is what philosophy is all about.
Trying to impose meaning or purpose on nature is what theology is all about.
June 9th, 2008
Insecurity with reality
I hang out a lot in Volconvo, a debate forum. Triad, a member of the forum and atheist, used the phrase “insecurity with reality” which I thought was both profound and thought-provoking.
The phrase “insecurity with reality” really resonates with me. I think it’s what motivates so many people to invent elaborate scenarios with personified gods, angels, spirits, prophets, all keeping humankind in the dark about the truth about reality. The obvious reality is too uncomfortable.
Stuff happens all the time that isn’t under our control, doesn’t seem to be under anyone’s control. Nature appears to be unaware of the special creation status we’ve granted ourselves. Indeed, natural processes treat humans as if we just another part of itself. What audacity. Why, it’s almost like nature doesn’t like us, and that could only happen if nature were like us, sorta/kinda human, but not like us…therefore must be bigger and better than us. Once you personify nature, you’re only a small step from humanizing that personified nature. Then nature becomes a god, gets a name and a backstory, and history repeats itself yet again.
Yet it’s not just theists that suffer from this insecurity with reality. Societies in several countries are trying to edit reality. The old Soviet Union was a master of denying reality. So was Germany. Some would say the U.S. is now. There are certainly indications that some in power have divorced themselves from our reality.
Further I’d contend even atheism allows for an insecurity with reality. It has no opinion on what atheists do believe. There are metaphysical beliefs that, while not invoking gods, still push the envelope of credulity. I’m thinking of beliefs in crystal power and dousing in particular.
All of us contend with an insecurity about reality. Just not all to the same degree.
June 7th, 2008
Why our brains are so clumsy
Free thinking, indeed any kind of thinking, is dependent on the abilities of our brains. Learning more about our brain can give us insight into the process and products of thinking.
In his new book, Kluge: The haphazard construction of the human mind, Gary Marcus aims to take the human species down a peg or two. We might like to think of ourselves as sleek and perfectly-adapted products of evolution, but Marcus instead describes the brain as a clumsy collection of spare parts. If evolution is so powerful, he asks, how did we end up so flawed?
Why do you think that the mind is a kluge?
There are two answers to that. The first is a general argument about evolution: that if you look at evolution it makes a lot of kluges. Evolution tends not to optimise things; it simply tinkers with what’s already there. So it tends to make things better but there’s no guarantee that it will make the best.
The second is an empirical argument. I look to see whether there is anything clumsy about the human mind, and I find lots of examples.
But we tend to think of evolution as something that produces the best possible solution to a problem.
And that’s just not true. Darwin didn’t actually say “survival of the fittest”; I think that was Huxley, but people take that as their crude approximation to evolution. They think that must mean that the fittest thing that could possibly be will survive, but really it means the fittest of the available options. Evolution can’t take a step back and ask what the best option would be; it just works with what it has. And that’s what leads to tinkering and ultimately the kluges.
You’ve said that we tend to think of evolution as a single slope but actually it’s more like a rocky terrain.
Absolutely. You can think of evolution as a process of hill climbing, but it’s a blind process of hill climbing. It can take small steps and it may get higher on the particular mountain peak that it’s on, but it might not realise that there’s a much higher peak off in the distance.
I think that happened with memory. Our memories work reasonably well, but there are much better solutions that evolution just never stumbled upon.
Couldn’t you argue that we are well-adapted for the environment that we evolved in, when we were living in small groups, looking for food? So there’s no problem with our minds, it’s just that the environment has changed.
There are some cases like that. For example, our desire for fats and sugars is mostly tuned to an environment where McDonalds wasn’t around and you couldn’t get these things so easily. But I think that with the memory system, evolution just made a mistake. Probably all creatures would be better served if their memory was better organised, but evolution just happened to go in this one direction. It’s very difficult for evolution to start from scratch and do something completely new.
What’s wrong with thinking of ourselves as perfectly designed, rational beings, when actually we’re not?
Economists make that mistake. They assume that humans are rational, but they aren’t necessarily. And I think that people almost always overestimate their own abilities. They overestimate the quality of their memory, and how careful they are at reasoning. That contributes to political polarisation, for example, where everyone is convinced that they know the truth and nobody else does. I don’t think that’s a very good thing for the species.
What can we do to make our minds work better?
In the long term we may be able to take control of evolution, to adopt new technologies or something like that. In the short term, what they say in Alcoholics Anonymous makes sense – recognition is the first step. We have to see what the limits are and try to work around them.
A good example is that we have this thing called confirmation bias, where we notice evidence that supports our own theories. You can counteract that by forcing yourself to systematically think about alternative hypotheses, and about the perspective that somebody else might take. We don’t do that naturally but we can train ourselves to do it.
Scientists are forced to do that to some extent. But everybody could do with a little bit more humility about their own intellectual powers, and realise that, if somebody disagrees with them, maybe they’re looking at the evidence in a different way; it’s not necessarily that they’re stupid and you’re smart. The more we can recognise that other people are working as best they can from their evidence, that could make us more sympathetic and perhaps we can get along better.
(Source)
June 1st, 2008
Guerrilla gardener movement takes root in L.A. area
Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times
Scott planted the garden on the median early in the morning to avoid detection. He continues to weed and clean. Residents encourage his work.BRIMMING with lime-hued succulents and a lush collection of agaves, one shooting spiky leaves 10 feet into the air, it’s a head-turning garden smack in the middle of Long Beach’s asphalt jungle. But the gardener who designed it doesn’t want you to know his last name, since his handiwork isn’t exactly legit. It’s on a traffic island he commandeered.“The city wasn’t doing anything with it, and I had a bunch of extra plants,” says Scott, as we tour the garden, cars whooshing by on both sides of Loynes Drive.
Scott is a guerrilla gardener, a member of a burgeoning movement of green enthusiasts who plant without approval on land that’s not theirs. In London, Berlin, Miami, San Francisco and Southern California, these free-range tillers are sowing a new kind of flower power. In nighttime planting parties or solo “seed bombing” runs, they aim to turn neglected public space and vacant lots into floral or food outposts.
Part beautification, part eco-activism, part social outlet, the activity has been fueled by Internet gardening blogs and sites such as GuerrillaGardening.org, where before-and-after photos of the latest “troop digs” inspire 45,000 visitors a month to make derelict soil bloom.
“We can make much more out of the land than how it’s being used, whether it’s about creating food or beautifying it,” says the movement’s ringleader and GuerrillaGardening.org founder, Richard Reynolds, by phone from his London home. His tribe includes freelance landscapers like Scott, urban farmers, floral fans and artists.
“I want to encourage more people to think about land in this way and just get out there and do it,” says Reynolds, whose new handbook for insurgent planters, “On Guerrilla Gardening,” is out this week.
Stealth growers seed or plant on land that doesn’t belong to them. The result? Plants that beautify or yield crops in otherwise neglected or vacant spaces. (Source)
Feedback