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.

Mental Biases

Examine the list of human mental biases below:

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.

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

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.

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.

Do not believe in something simply because you have heard it or because it has been handed down for many generations, or because it is found written in your religious books, or merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Only believe after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of all, accept it, and live up to it.

- Buddha

Our reason is our best guide to what is true. Authorities usually repeat what they were taught and frequently do not even believe what they profess. I would modify the statement:

Do not believe something simply because you heard it, or because it is written, or because it was handed down for many generations, or because of the authority of its proponent. Believe something only when, after observation, and critical analysis, you find that it agrees with your reason and your cosmology, and make all beliefs tentative, pending further evidence and thought.

-SCM

The Golden Rule Across the World's Religions

Native Spirituality

We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive.

-- Chief Dan George

Baha'i Faith

Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.

-- Baha'u'llah, Gleanings

Buddhism

Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

-- The Buddha, Udana-Varga 5.1

Christianity

In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

-- Jesus, Matthew 7:12

Confucianism

One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct....loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.

-- Confucius, Analects 15.23

Treat your inferiors as you would want your superiors to treat you.

-- Confucius

Hinduism

This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.

-- Mahabharata 5:1517

Islam

Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.

-- The Prophet Muhammad, 13th of the 40 Hadiths of Nawawi

Jainism

One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.

-- Mahavira, Sutrakritanga

Judaism

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.

-- Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a

Sikhism

I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.

-- Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299

Taoism

Regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbour's loss as your own loss.

-- Lao Tzu, T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-218

Unitarianism

We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence.

Print or electronic reproductions must include the following notice:
Guidelines for a Golden Rule Workshop
Copyright © Paul McKenna 2002
Posters and Guidelines available from Conexus Multifaith Media
www.conexuspress.com / tel. 1-877-784-7779

Relativity of Motion

The Gallilean train moving at constant velocity is used as an example of the inability to detect contast motion; however, one can go much further than this and say that we can only detect relative motion. Only relative motion has any reality. Imagine that every particle on the train is acted upon equally by some external force at all times as opposed to the wheels being acted upon by a force, which is then trasmitted to the body of the train and subsequently to the passengers. One can see that even external forces of this type are utterly undetectable. No force would be felt! An accelerometer can detect accelerations only when the motion of the reference mass differ from those of the constraining walls. An accelerometer cannot detect gravity (neglecting tidal effects)! Everything will be in free fall unless acted upon by an external force.

Similarly, no matter what the motion or derivative of that motion, it is utterly undetectable as long as all the particles experience it equally. When an accelerometer on the Earth's surface measures a = g, what we actually detecting is an acceleration upward which is transmitted from the electrostatic forces acting on the body of the accelerometer and, in turn, being transmitted to the reference mass.

Notice that the direction of the acceleration on objects on the Earth's surface is upward, not downward!

Any accelerometer will accurately reproduce the fact that we are accelerating upward on the surface of the Earth. If one tries to tare out this natural value so as to agree with individuals' preconception that we are not accelerating on the surface of the Earth, then flipping the accelerometer over will result in a different value (a = 2 g). This is obviously nonsense because the correct value must be independent of orientation of the accerlometer. Only one value will yield orientation independence and that is a = g (directed upward). This gives us a special reference frame, called the inertial or freely-falling frame in which the accelerometer reading is zero.
_____

Mass pulls on space and space on mass. All masses only react to the local curvature of space (the energy field). This explains action as a distance forces such as gravity. Similarly, charge acts on the electric field that permeates all of space and distorts it and other charges interact only locally with that field.

Man is a Domesticated Animal

Domestication is the act of humankind changing living organisms into more desirable forms through selective breeding and destroying of undesirable forms. Everytime anyone is killed or punished by society, the result is a more domesticated human species (more moral, more civil, etc).

The next biggest type of genetic selection effecting humans is sexual. Can one find a partner who is willing to have and raise your offspring? This type of genetic selection results in more beautiful (defined culturally and genetically) and social people. Sexual selection results in runaway features: deep colorations, complex song, exaggerated features that are otherwise non-functional, mating habits, etc. Example: In parts of Italy, aquiline noses were a sign of nobility. In those parts, the population has very aquiline noses. The birds of paradise are another good example of sexual selection.

An Acceptably Abstract God

My "God Issues"

Medical Bidding

A medical website should be setup in which people post there symptoms and others compete to give advice. The individual giving the advice that works gets the current payment price, which would slowly increase from a minimum to a maximum at a specified rate. The system would automatically show related advice and prevalence of symptoms by age, gender, and location.

Example:

Generalized chest pains that occur during winter. Age: 30. Gender: F Location CA Starting Reward: $15 Current reward: $35 Maximum reward: $150

Why Legitimacy In Iraq Matters

Why Legitimacy In Iraq Matters

Legitimacy is a matter of degree. It seems that Bush's venture in Afghanistan will be much more sucessful than that in Iraq because

1. Overthrowing a regime that is protecting an organization that attacked you is much more legitimate than overthrowing a regime that was neither threatening nor capable of attacking you.


2. Karzai is much more legitimate in that he genuinely seems concerned about the future of Afghanistan. His position does not seem to be a reward for supplying false information to the U.S. or working as a covert operative.

"Legitimacy" in International Affairs: The American Perspective in Theory and Operation

"Legitimacy" in International Affairs: The American Perspective in Theory and Operation

There are two recent case studies involving Iraq where the legitimacy question has emerged most sharply. First is the question of the authority for -- and hence the legitimacy of -- the U.S.-led Coalition’s recent military action in Iraq. Let me say immediately, for those who wonder, that we had ample Security Council authority under Resolution 678, which authorized the “use of all necessary means” to uphold the relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the region. Resolution 687 provided for a formal cease-fire but imposed conditions on Iraq, material breaches of which left member states with the responsibility to enforce those conditions operating consistently with the underlying authorization contained in 678.

So, you are implying that the UN is a legitimate body. If so, then there ruling that our attack on Iraq constituted an illegal aggression is also legitmate. Futhermore, any ruling that is based on doctored information (as our WMD claims unquestionably were) cannot be considered fully legitimate.

Resolution 1441 contains the Council’s specific decision that Iraq was and remained in material breach, and provided a final opportunity, which Iraq clearly failed to avail itself of.

Significantly, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has specifically said, “Unless the Security Council is restored to its preeminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force, we are on a dangerous path to anarchy.” But these sorts of statements, which the Secretary General and others have made repeatedly over the past several years, are unsupported by over fifty years of experience with the UN Charter’s operation.

Of course, Kofi Annan was right. We have proven that we have an anarchic position relative to other states by our willingness to do whatever we want. I don't have a problem with anarchy as long as the particpants are principles (and punished when they are not), but who is going to punish the US. Nobody? Then we not only have international anarchy, but also thugish and opportunistic behavior by the current regime inhabiting the White House.

What's the point of the UN, if you only listen to it when it confirms what you want to do. The fact that the UN was even approached indicates our believe that it would confer some legitimacy by approving our action. The fact then that it did not approve our action necessarily means that the UN conferred illegitimacy on our actions.

The case of Kosovo in the previous Administration alone proves this point. Since the decision to use military force is the most important decisions that any nation-state faces, limiting its decisions or transferring them to another source of authority is ultimately central to a diminution of sovereignty.

Do you consider Kosovo a success or failure? And if you consider it a failure, then how is it any more of a failure than the Iraq imbroglio.

Sovereignty implies anarchy, which I do not have a problem with, but I do have a problem with saying that we had to go in to enforce UN resolutions that the UN did not even want us to enforce! I especially have a problem with attacking a country that did not threaten us, did not wish to make war on us, and did not have any credible means of attacking us! This is called aggression. The UN was formed to fight such aggression so that there would be peace. What we have done is proven that we are driven by greed, but quite creative in generating self-serving rhetoric, and "evidence" to reconstruction of the world in our highly-flawed) image.

Importantly, there is no doubt in light of the October 17, 2002 Congressional resolution supporting the use of American force that the President had full authority, and therefore full legitimacy, to disarm the Iraqi regime under the Constitution. We should not shrink from the debate on legitimacy through concern that following our own Constitutional procedures on the use of force is somehow not “enough” to justify our actions. Indeed, there is a fundamental problem of democratic theory for those who contend, implicitly or otherwise, that the proper operations of America’s institutions of representative government are not able to confer legitimacy for the use of force. And make no mistake, not asserting that our Constitutional procedures themselves confer legitimacy will result, over time, in the atrophying of our ability to act independently.

This is like saying that if a soldier kills an innocent, the soldier is justified if he is following orders from his superior officer because the legitimate procedures have been followed.

If a Republican congress grants a Republican president authorization to make war whenever he feels like it then we should be happy because of the constitutional legitimacy of the action. First off, only Congress can declare war, so there abrogation of their responsibility is illegitmate. Secondly, the legitimacy of results coming from constitutional procedures should be highly insubordinate to the motives of those players within the system.

Second is the fundamental issue, still in dispute, of where the legitimacy of the next government of Iraq will come from. (I distinguish here “legitimacy” from actual political power or political impact. They are two separate things, and one can certainly have legitimacy without power, and vice versa.) For Americans, the basis of legitimacy for governments is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence: the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. It is, therefore, unequivocally the U.S. view that the legitimacy of Iraq’s next government must ultimately derive from the Iraqi populace, and not from other individuals, institutions or governments, not from theologians, not from academics, not from the United States, and not from the United Nations. This is a fundamental precondition for understanding the legitimacy of the use of any governmental power, and yet it has been fundamentally misunderstood in the UN system.


We certainly do not have the consent of the governed now. So the current Iraqi puppet government is not (yet) legitimate. It may obtain some legitimacy, but that is on

Many in the UN Secretariat, and many UN member governments, in recent Security Council debates, have argued directly to the contrary. Increasingly, they place the authority of international law, which does not derive directly from the consent of the governed, above the authority of national law and constitutions.

Affodable Audio

Affordable Ways of Getting Good Quality Sound

1. If using a laptop get a quality 24-bit external USB adapter. One of the following is recommended:
   
   • Creative Labs Audigy 2 NX 102 dB SNR!
     
2. Connect your speakers with SPDIF if that is available, if not, use RCA, if not, use the 3.5 mm TRS connectors.
   
3. If using RCA or TRS connectors, wipe the plug with a thin coating of baby oil or stabilant.
4. If your speakers are amplified, use the line out jack, instead of the headphone jack.
5. Do not get excessively powerful or oversized speakers. Match the power and size of the speakers to your preferred listening distance and volume. Logitech X-230 speakers have sufficient power for listening within 1-2 m from the speakers and have a very high SNR of >96 dB!
6. Get a system with a separate woofer to save cost. Low frequencies are not localizable
   
7. If possible, move the speakers away from any reflective surface, shape the acoustic surface, or acoustically insulate with foam or cork.
8. Position the tweeters just above your ears and the woofer just below.
   

Creative Soundworks

Is That a Plate or a Bowl?

Here is your plate of cereals.

That's a lid, not a plate.

Maybe it was made to be used as a lid, but it makes a perfect plate. So I am using it as a plate.

It may serve as a plate, but it is not a plate, because it was made to be a lid.

Maybe it was intended to be used as either a lid or a plate. How do you know it was made to be just a lid?

I don't. But the picture on the shipping box, showed it as a lid for a bowl.
Maybe, you were viewing the picture upside down, so that the bowl was the lid for the plate.

No, because there was a picture of a flower in a vase with the top of the flower on the side of the lid, not the bowl. The flower or water would not have stayed in the vase if the bowl were pictured on top of the lid.

Fair enough, but what does it even matter whether it was intended as a bowl or a plate? If I am using the object designed to be used as a lid as a plate, it is a plate to me as long a I intend to use it as a plate.

What is relevant is not your intentions, but rather those of its designer. If someone were using a an object designed to be a pencil as a swizel stick would you say that they were using a swizel stick as a swizel stick or a pencil as a swizel stick? The user's intent is to use the swizel stick as a swizel stick, but the designer's intent was that it be used as a pencil.

Well, you would not say that a "swizel stick is being used a swizel stick" because that statement has no content; however, you might say that the user has a very unusual swizel stick, implying that it has an existence as a swizel stick. Besides, an object designed as a pencil does not make a very good swizel stick because it could add a bad taste to your drink, but in the case of the object designed as a lid, it makes such a good plate that if you did not reason that it was intended to be used as a lid of a bowl, you might think that it was designed to be used as a plate.

So, I suppose that in most cases things are used for their intended purposes, so that their existence as objects designed for a purpose is the same as the existence as objects used for a particular purpose. In that case, there no distinction needs to be made between the two types of existence, but in these cases a distinction needs to be made for the conversation to make any sense.

Right!