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.