2012-09-21
On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God : Sam Harris
A great article on capitulation: On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God : Sam Harris.
2011-12-01
2011-02-20
2009-03-22
My Conception of God
Being of scientific bent, I am quite uncomfortable with the word "God" as it is frequently bantered about carelessly by dogmatic religious traditions. Indeed, this discomfort was so great that at one point I had dismissed the concept of god as useless. Today, however, I have found a conception of "God" with which I am comfortable: God is nothing more than the anthropomorphization of one's personal conception of "goodness". Obviously, one's personal conception will be greatly influenced through the repeated lessons of parents and other authority figures.
Indeed, due to dogmatic religious and legal traditions, people may incorrectly reason that their conceptions of god are so similar to that of their neighbors because god is universal.
Looking at the variety of ideas of god (I prefer lower case) and god's will it is obvious to me that what most people refer to "god", they do not realize that this god voice that they hear is internal and not external. This apparent externality may be the result of frontal lobe often giving inhibitions of behaviors that are encouraged/rewarded by the rest of our mental faculties. Much of our mental angst arises from the competition between these brain centers.
While the concept of god is an imperfect one, so is that of self, ego, gravity or other concepts. That does not make god unreal, but simply an imperfect concept like so many other useful, but imperfect concepts. Most of the attacks on god are justifiable attacks on conceptions of god that are the result of an unreflective minds; however, the concept that I put forward is pretty much unassailable.
One may of course argue that the personification of goodness adds nothing to its understanding; however, that is partly due to the preference for saying that our physical brains control our ideas, when in reality our internalized ideas can control our behavior.
Indeed, due to dogmatic religious and legal traditions, people may incorrectly reason that their conceptions of god are so similar to that of their neighbors because god is universal.
Looking at the variety of ideas of god (I prefer lower case) and god's will it is obvious to me that what most people refer to "god", they do not realize that this god voice that they hear is internal and not external. This apparent externality may be the result of frontal lobe often giving inhibitions of behaviors that are encouraged/rewarded by the rest of our mental faculties. Much of our mental angst arises from the competition between these brain centers.
While the concept of god is an imperfect one, so is that of self, ego, gravity or other concepts. That does not make god unreal, but simply an imperfect concept like so many other useful, but imperfect concepts. Most of the attacks on god are justifiable attacks on conceptions of god that are the result of an unreflective minds; however, the concept that I put forward is pretty much unassailable.
One may of course argue that the personification of goodness adds nothing to its understanding; however, that is partly due to the preference for saying that our physical brains control our ideas, when in reality our internalized ideas can control our behavior.
2006-03-31
Oh, Arrogant One
Your ideas seem highly improbable and highly arrogant:
- You are at the center of the universe?
- The sun and stars revolve around you.
- Your group is the greatest and most moral on your planet.
- An omnipotent power
- created your species in his image
- speaks directly to you
- created everything else for the benefit of your species.
- is preoccupied with your actions
- always favors your side in battle.
- will only save other who share your beliefs
2006-01-07
Shindler's List
The German-American woman said it was terrible if it ever really happened.
I felt she was in denial.
I said I was sure that it did happen.
I had seen the photographs.
I had heard the testimonies from survivors.
I had witnessed the collective guilt.
I said it still happens.
I said that her own government is involved in much of it.
I said her own son was going to serve in the military that commits it.
I claimed that if it stopped now, it would stop for all of eternity.
I said we could stop it.
She asked How?.
I said compassion.
I felt she was in denial.
I said I was sure that it did happen.
I had seen the photographs.
I had heard the testimonies from survivors.
I had witnessed the collective guilt.
I said it still happens.
I said that her own government is involved in much of it.
I said her own son was going to serve in the military that commits it.
I claimed that if it stopped now, it would stop for all of eternity.
I said we could stop it.
She asked How?.
I said compassion.
2005-07-13
Why am I not you?
Apparently, I am not the first one to ask this questions, but I think I have some interesting thought experiments that may shed light on this.
Consider that someone drugs you so that you become unconscious, makes a clone of you, and places the two of you in a symmetric room. Would you know that you were the original and not the clone?
Let us first take a classical physicalist approach. In this conception, every conscious reality must be reflected in a neural structure. Note that since you are exact physical clones, all of your neurons are clones, hence all of your memories must be exactly the same. Therefore, you must admit that you could just as easily be the clone as the original "you". Have you lost consciousness with your loss of confidence in your reality? In a sense you have, because consciousness is an awareness of how one relates to the rest of reality. You are faced with the apparent reality of cloning, so the very existence of this technology means that it may in fact be the case that both of you were cloned and the original is elsewhere! In fact, you may be a couple of clones among millions! To insist that you are the original would not only be illogical, but only result in the clone insisting the same because indentical physical systems must evolve identically.
Now let us approach the problem more quantum mechanically. If you create a clone of me, it would also be theoretically possible that we were placed in a superposition of states. Our very interactions would then make us consider ourselves as parts of the same physical system.
Clearly, consciousness involves physical interactions and correlations. For you to be conscious of something there must be a physical interaction between your sensory neurons and me (usually mediated by photons, but also be acoustic waves, touch, etc.) If we were to interact frequently, the distinction between you and me, would become less relevant, like the distinction between our many facets of ourselves (intellectual, volitional, etc). So this is the solution to part of the mystery. "I" is a myth of a unified self from many interacting neural structures. Conflict per se does not exist for neurons, rather thought results from inhibition and reinforcement. Education consists of external inhibition and reinforcement (carrot and stick) as well as providing the means for self-driven inhibition and reinforcement in a sensorial challenging, but safe environment. This is how sensory inputs are translated into actions. If "I" is fundamentally a myth, then "you" is also a myth. Both I and you, however, are heuristic categories whose utility comes from the fact that the neural and other components of the physical "you" are frequently interacting, and the same for me.
Every individual becomes dependent on his components and frequently depression resultS from losing a component of self, if one is aware that such a loss occurred.
Consider that someone drugs you so that you become unconscious, makes a clone of you, and places the two of you in a symmetric room. Would you know that you were the original and not the clone?
Let us first take a classical physicalist approach. In this conception, every conscious reality must be reflected in a neural structure. Note that since you are exact physical clones, all of your neurons are clones, hence all of your memories must be exactly the same. Therefore, you must admit that you could just as easily be the clone as the original "you". Have you lost consciousness with your loss of confidence in your reality? In a sense you have, because consciousness is an awareness of how one relates to the rest of reality. You are faced with the apparent reality of cloning, so the very existence of this technology means that it may in fact be the case that both of you were cloned and the original is elsewhere! In fact, you may be a couple of clones among millions! To insist that you are the original would not only be illogical, but only result in the clone insisting the same because indentical physical systems must evolve identically.
Now let us approach the problem more quantum mechanically. If you create a clone of me, it would also be theoretically possible that we were placed in a superposition of states. Our very interactions would then make us consider ourselves as parts of the same physical system.
Clearly, consciousness involves physical interactions and correlations. For you to be conscious of something there must be a physical interaction between your sensory neurons and me (usually mediated by photons, but also be acoustic waves, touch, etc.) If we were to interact frequently, the distinction between you and me, would become less relevant, like the distinction between our many facets of ourselves (intellectual, volitional, etc). So this is the solution to part of the mystery. "I" is a myth of a unified self from many interacting neural structures. Conflict per se does not exist for neurons, rather thought results from inhibition and reinforcement. Education consists of external inhibition and reinforcement (carrot and stick) as well as providing the means for self-driven inhibition and reinforcement in a sensorial challenging, but safe environment. This is how sensory inputs are translated into actions. If "I" is fundamentally a myth, then "you" is also a myth. Both I and you, however, are heuristic categories whose utility comes from the fact that the neural and other components of the physical "you" are frequently interacting, and the same for me.
Every individual becomes dependent on his components and frequently depression resultS from losing a component of self, if one is aware that such a loss occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)