God and the Brain

I was recently at Barnes and Noble, perusing the neuroscience section, and came across a book about studies done on brains during prayer and meditation. The scientists who authored the book did brainscans on meditating and praying people, and found amazing similarities in brain activity in an area of the brain called the superior parietal lobe at the top back of the brain:

"To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else; to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe." When this area is damaged by trauma or stroke, patients have difficulty maneuvering in physical space; when it is extra active, it seems to be a source of an inexplicable feeling of connection to all creation. A meditator describes the ineffable state in terms that are typical: "There's a sense of timelessness and infinity. It feels like I am part of everyone and everything in existence."

This is positive evidence that the experience of "being with God" is entirely self-generated, something that I've speculated on since I was a small child - and first encountered people talking about the experience of God. I experienced a sensation of being connected to the world around me (during sleep hallucination seizures, and to a much lesser extent meditation), but have never felt connected to an intelligent being. I wish that more people would see the rational perspective of the shenanigans their brains are capable of.

Are Humans Violent by Default?

Well, are we? I mean, many people believe violence is learned, but many people also believe that violence is natural. Some just say violence could be either learned or a natural thing. I want you to read my preach about why we are a violent species and comment on what you think.

Here's why...
Come on, people. If humans -deep down- really urned for peace we wouldn't organize Hell the way we do. War is a great example of this, and so is the amount of time and effort we spend on devising ways to kill each other. Obviously, we humans are just not capable of being completely peaceful or completely lacking of violent urges. Can you really blame us, though? I mean, our ancestors (and some others today) lived in a place where they had to kill and hunt to get every meal, and as an American, the only thing I have to do is drive to the local grocery store and pay. I don't even have to know about how my food got there. We as humans aren't made just to drive; we're made to hunt and gather (and grow crops and make tools etc.). We have achilles tendons for a reason. In fact because of those little things we are able to (if your not obese) out-run most of any animal. Not by speed, but by distance; we can run for a really long time compared to the animals that our ancestors hunted. And I don't think that we evolved our ability to run for a long distance just so we could run on tred-mills with them, and sadly, the only way for us to curve these urges of the hunt are to play sports and have wars. All I'm trying to say is that our bodies and minds are made for hunting, killing, and socializing in the most efficient way possible. We are a violent species; that's just the way we came to be.

Finders Keepers Losers Weepers.

I was confronted with this issue today. When you find something that does not belong to you- can you keep it? How much does something have to worth for you to turn it in to the police, lost and found or would you ever turn anything in?

Scenario one: In a restaurant, in the waiting to be seated area, you find a dollar. It is not on the floor, but it is no where near a table. Could you keep it? Could it be a tip?

Scenario two: You are walking in your neighborhood and see 5$ laying near or on (but close to the sidewalk) someones driveway, no one is around. Do you keep it? Knock on the door and then if they don't answer keep it. What if it was more money? Like 100$?

I have trouble keeping any money I find with the exception of stray coins. I worry too much about Karma. When ever I have gotten anything, even with the slightest dis honesty, I pay somehow-someway.

Is the world really live by the value "finders keepers losers weepers"? I hope not.

Bush, his Dad and the media.

It is interesting that in the article that he is blaming the media for how his Dad feels about the war. Does this mean that George Jr. is not talking to his dad and telling him what is going on. Is George Jr.'s dad not really advising him. Boy, it sure would be interesting to be a fly on the wall of the Bush family dinner night.
I guess lying low about any future elections is a good plan for him. It might be good for him to throw his support behind a candidate that he doesn't really like. It would be like a reverse in support.

A Responce to Bush and His Daddy

I didn't know what to do with this one, and I noticed the questions on the last Polly-post, (catchy, huh?) so I'm going to answer her questions like I would on a MySpace bulletin.

Q: Do you think Daddy is disappointed in his son's presidency?
A: Kind of, I think that George Bush senior is proud of some things, but skeptical of others. For example, he's proud of how his son handled 9/11, but kind of skeptical of how he's handling the war in Iraq.

Q: Is Bush blaming the media for how his father may feel about the war?
A: Yes, did you see what he said on the link in the last Polly-post (I just love that name)? If not, here the link is again: link.

Q: What is with this lying low thing? He is president- should he ever admit to lying low on anything? Especially since we are at war?
A: No, he should not have to admit to to anything, it's the United States: Land of the Free, but should he admit to lying low? Yes, because the people want to know as much as possible about him and how he's dealing with the up-coming election and the war in Iraq.

Q: If you were a republican candidate, what would you want the president to do for you(if anything at all)?
A: I'd just want him not to talk about me. I would just prefer it if he would just not bring his studder-style of speech into my campaign. It could make Republicans -as a whole- look bad.

President Bush (George Double ya) and the former George Bush.

I ran across this article on ABC news.

President Bush Concerned About Dad

Very interesting insight onto the relationship between father and son. It is just a glimpse. Do you think Daddy is disappointed in his son's presidency?

Is Bush blaming the media for how his father may feel about the war?

What is with this lying low thing? He is president- should he ever admit to lying low on anything? Especially since we are at war?

If you were a republican candidate, what would you want the president to do for you(if anything at all)?

Replying to Replying

Wow Mar, way to be bleak and Darwinian!

I have to disagree. I refuse to put human life on a pedestal. We aren't that great (yeah, I'm still loyal to the species, but we're not *that* cool). We aren't the smartest species - dolphins are smarter. We aren't the most loving of species - I'm convinced that dogs have a higher capacity for love than us. We aren't even the best killers (why is that a good thing?) - there are viruses that are way more efficient killers than us. We don't even make up the highest percentage of biomass per species on the Earth, far from it. Plus we don't know what lurks out there in the rest of the universe - I wouldn't be so snooty about being human. We've got tools and that's about it.

To answer your question:

What makes a human before it multiplies any different from an amoeba before it multiplies?

The quick answer is that DNA makes it different from an amoeba (which is single cell, but I digress). Different recipe, same ingredients, different dish.

The long answer, it's just information. A single cell human embyro is a lot like an amoeba in structure, but more helpless. The argument I was trying to make in my last post is that all life is similar, related, and can be viewed as a single lifeform in and of itself. Saying that life begins at birth is really meaningless because it's a continuum. You can't make a cutoff for abortion based on what is life and what isn't, because it all is.

As a society of functionally equivalent beings, we need to make practical laws based on the overall good. It's a messy business. Some people will get screwed, and in my book that includes people at the embryonic stage. Our laws and taboos should be made with compassion - the whole do unto others as you would have them do unto you thing, but balanced with practicality.

If the cutoff is based on compassion, I think abortions are okay until the fetus develops a nervous system. If the kid can feel the pain of being scraped out of a uterus, then it's a no-no. Before that, research away :-)

I'll probably never have an abortion, but I don't want some righteous idiot forcing me to give birth against my will. I may never have the chance to use my own embryonic stem cells, but I don't want some righteous idiot forcing me to die if I have an organ fail when it could be replaced by a cloned organ.

I think that all forms of stem cell research should be pursued. The problem on the other end is population control. If stem cell therapies pan out, then people are going to live a lot longer. Hopefully people will choose to reproduce less.

A picture of Mar

Well, here it is. The picture of Mar Rymv'Tnoyt (me). Hope you like it.

Replying

Okay, because I'm tired, I'm just going to respond to Gertie first with my theories and then Polly with how reasonable her argument is.
Gertie - I do believe you have a point with your theory. But that's not to say you "disagree" with me because I took that as kind of a support. I think of what you said about cells multiplying was interesting, and I have a question to ask: What makes a human before it multiplies any different from an amoeba before it multiplies? To me, nothing. Until the umbilical cord is cut that entity shares the same cells, thus meaning that she is one mass, and thus making her one life-form. And this is about humans, so don't go all "but in sea horses, the male nurses the young" or "but what about eggs?" on me because it's different and they're not even mammals.
Polly - I really liked your response, but I'll have to disagree with you on the whole "every other one but this one will work" and the "all life forms are equal" thing. First, I think it's wrong to support only some of the research but not all of it. I mean, that's like being a Christian and not acknowledging Hell at all. Or it could be like being a nuclear scientist and not acknowledging the death that you r invention will dole-out. Second, I don't, by any means, think that all life on Earth is equal. Humans are a cut ahead of all life, because we kill better than all other life, we think better than all other, and we love better than all other life. We are better than all other life in general. And because of that I do think we should try our best to protect our domain. We should hold all life dear, but we should not hold it as equal to ourselves.
(I was tired, okay!?)

My picture.

This is a picture of me Polly. Let me know what you think! I drew it myself, so be nice:)!

Stem Cell Research- every life IS important.

There are three types of stem cells- Adult, umbilical, and embryonic. Not all stem call research is controversial.

Adult stem cells- This is where stem cells are harvested from the person who needs them. They are extracted from bone marrow. They can also be harvested from the brain someone who has died. Research in this is on going and is relatively free of controversy.

Cons
Adult stem cells are not as versatile, often the person who needs them are very sick and extracting them would be a painful procedure.

Pros
Extracting stem cells from the person who needs them makes there no possibility for rejection of the stem cells.
On going research is showing that these cells are more versatile than they once thought.
They are not linked to cancer as embryonic stem cells are.


Umbilical cord blood stem cells- These cells come from the umbilical cord. This is also not very controversial either.

Pro-
The baby that the stem cells are saved for can have them grown and use them for the rest of their life.
No problem with the stem cells being rejected.

Cons-
Possibly only can be done for those that can afford to have it done.
Adults at that are already born can not benefit from this.

Embryonic- Stem cells are extracted from a blastocyst (an embryo) and the blastocyst must be 100 cells or more. This one is the most controversial. It is also the most promising. It is not with out its draw backs however.

Pros-
Cells are the most versatile and pliable.

Cons-
Human rights issues.
Has been linked to cancer.

Of course life itself originated a long time ago. I do agree with that. I am all for stem cell research. It is important research that can change the face of medicine as we know it. I am just not sure that the debate should be over. There are too many unanswered questions.
Every life is precious and I mean EVERY LIFE. Whether it is a cockroach, an ant, a dog or a human. When a life is created, in whatever form, we as humans should do everything to protect it. If we can't save it we should shield it from pain, if we can. The reason I give this responsibility to humans is because they are who I can communicate this to. We are also smart enough to know when some one or something is in pain (usually).
If I were an embryo in a test tube and someone was not going to implant me into a uterus, then at least use me. I can see the logic in that. Making embryos just for this purpose- that gets a little dicy for me. If we do decide to use stem cells in treatment, it will happen in order to produce matches. This is similar to a family having a baby for their other child that needs a bone marrow transplant. That child has rights.
My other problem is- before cells can be extracted from a blastocyst- it must grow to at least 100 cells. While at this point it may not look human and we are assured that they do not feel anything- what if some irresponsible lab accidentally grows them bigger? At what growth point is it unethical to harvest cells, or kill it, or grow it more? Should that be regulated? Could there be a point in which cells could be extracted with out destroying a life?

Every human, with the exception of devout Hindus or Buddhists, puts human life before other forms. If you have used a product that was tested on an animal, )we all have whether we know it or not, ignorance is no excuse), you put your life before those animals. If we stepped on a bug, sprayed poison to kill a bug, laid mouse traps, ate chicken, fish or beef -we put one life or human life above another. Most people do not kill a person they live with because they are annoying or dirty, we move away or put up with it. Humans kill other species for that very reason. All humans do it. Other species will also put themselves over other lives as well. Lions attack and kill their pray. A mother moose will attack humans that come to close to their baby.
The difference is that we know that we have the ability to know better. We do not know if other species do, but we KNOW that we do. We can only project what animals are thinking.
How do we as the human race acknowledge the importance of all life? How do we show our devotion to every life born or unborn? Should we all become vegans?

I might be straying from the original discussion but, this might take us to another interesting place.

A bug's life

Sometimes when I see a fly, I think about the fact that it probably will only live about 24 hours. I get to wondering how long it has and when it became a fly. What has it been doing? What is a full life to a fly? It makes me feel guilty about killing it. I do normally try to catch them and set them free outside. They really don't have much time and they only get one life and only one day or maybe two. I hope for a flies sake, there is reincarnation. They deserve more than one life.

One time, my kids found a moth cocoon in our back yard so, I put it in a jar so we could watch it. About a week later it opened only, I didn't notice right away. By the time I saw the moth (in my mind it was a him) his wings were all broken from flapping around in the jar. His little precious life was ruined. I didn't know what to do. There was nothing I could do. I couldn't bring myself to kill him either. I probably should have. I ended up making him a little habitat on a table outside. I didn't think living in a jar was a full life for a moth. I let nature take its course. He stayed on the table for a few days and then disappeared. I still feel guilty about that.

Stem Cells - When Does Life Begin

Had some technical difficulties, but am finally able to post. There are several things I take issue with your opinion on Mar, but I'm only going to tackle the big one: When Life Begins.

I disagree with you. But then again, I disagree with pretty much everyone on the issue. I don't believe that life begins at birth. No magic switch is thrown to make the baby "living". I don't believe that life begins at conception - again, no magic switch thrown. I see it differently.

This is going to require a major perspective shift to understand.

Ready?

Life began 3.9 billion years ago, and hasn't stopped. Yes, that's right, it started billions of years ago, as the Earth cooled and developed an atmosphere. Molecules bumped into one another, liked what they saw, and decided to make more. Basic organic chemistry (the primordial soup) led to RNA, RNA led to DNA, DNA found it's way into cell casings, cells ate other cells then assimilated the prey DNA, these compound cells glued themselves to one another to create a collective, the collectives multiplied, diversified, and adapted. 3.9 billion years of evolution later, we're here debating about stem cells.

Pretty mindblowing, right? But wait, there's more.

All of the individual lifeforms are little endpoints on the tree of all life. We know from mapping DNA that all life on this planet at least, had a common ancestor. We and the rest of the lifeforms are part of a continuum of life. In some circles, people believe that the Earth itself is a single organism.

Now it's time for the Ginsu knife.

If life is a continuum, how is it immoral to piece apart an embryo? So the embryo is no longer an embryo, but the life is not gone. It still exists in the cells. Since that life is to be applied to extend other life - how is that destroying life?

The only way to destroy life is to incinerate the planet. But there'd still be microbes on the Moon left over and frozen since the Apollo missions. That's a really difficult task.

What most people get hung up on is that they like to put people up on a pedestal. We really aren't that special. I'm sure that someday, something will evolve beyond us and replace us.

Stem Cell Research

Okay, this post will be about stem cell research. And to set the mood of stem cell research I'm putting a picture up.

(It's from http://www.scienceinpublic.com/bio21/stemcells.htm)
There you go, a picture from a place were they discuss stem cells.

*I disregard what I just said* I personally am for stem cell research.
I think that the good things about it:
1. It could (will) lead to major medical achievements.
2. It could be the ultimate cure to a whole ton of illnesses.
3. It has shown it's usefulness, so we know it's a good investment.

...Out-weighs the bad things about it:
1. Saving more and more lives may lead to overpopulation.
2. Is it murder?
3. Is it anti-moral?

*Yet again* The entire back story behind stem cell research being bad seems to be that we destroy life and kill when we collect stem cells. It eventually boils down to "when does life begin?" I say life begins at birth; when that baby's head first pokes out into the world, that is life. In fact, the definition of life is "the period from birth to death" (birth to death) or "a specific phase of earthly existence". That is "earthly" existence, so until being born the not-yet-existent life has not been on earth yet, it has only been in the womb. That is to say that it is not life yet, thus meaning that we do not kill -nor waist- any life because there is no life to be killed or waisted.
And, even we are wisting chances on Earth, it would be worth it. I mean, all the knowledge we would acquire, would make us twice as efficient than any one human, or any ten, fifteen, twenty humans. If we invest the life, we'll get it back with how much of it we cure.

So what?

Sorry for the late post... Anyway I'd like to just point out that even if the Harry Potter books and movies convert children to Wicca, it shouldn't matter. There's nothing wrong with Wicca.

And other than that; Harry Potter is just a children's fantasy book, and it is just as religion-converting as "Beauty and the Beast" or "Snow White".

Everybody that is afraid of Harry Potter and Wicca -I think- are just a bunch of up-tight wannabe super-Christians and Catholics that need to open their eyes and minds.

A "super-Christian" would be accepting of all things; including Wicca.

So what?

Sorry for the late post... Anyway I'd like to just point out that even if the Harry Potter books and movies convert children to Wicca, it shouldn't matter. There's nothing wrong with Wicca. And other than that; Harry Potter is just a children's fantasy book, and it is just as religion-converting as "Beauty and the Beast" or "Snow White". Everybody that is afraid of Harry Potter and Wicca - think- are just a bunch of up-tight wannabe super-Christians and Catholics that need to open their eyes and minds. A "super-Christian" would be accepting of all things; including Wicca.