Privatization By Any Other Name Still Stinks As Foul

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-experts-congress-193001992.html

I have been criticizing the privatization movement since George Bush Junior was sitting in the White House. We have gone long way down that antisocial road — and look where we are today. This article shows even more successes for the privatization-cutthroat capitalism model. Very few people who love the ultra conservative economist Hayek remember that he predicted that most societies would destroy themselves. He considered that to be a very good thing. He was, after all, an economic Social Darwinist. Survival of the fittest. The strong survive. The weak die.

America is well along on the road to dying.

> “...debt is tearing our country apart,” Seth Frotman, former student loan ombudsman and the executive director of theStudent Borrower Protection Center stated. <

Mainlining Creationism

https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/david-gelernter-is-wrong-about-ditching-darwin/

If you are unfamiliar with the efforts of religious extremists to force their views upon the American public, this is an article well worth reading. The arguments being debunked here are yet another attack on reality. Yet another attack on science. Yet another refusal to acknowledge facts.

Creation “Scientists” are a strange and distasteful mishmash of true believer, outright liar, and astoundingly gullible fool. As with all addicts, one can only hope that eventually they will reach such a wretched level that they finally become disgusted with their acts of self degradation and turn away from their addiction.

It is a sad and forlorn hope.

Nevertheless, I must greatly respect and admire those open minded clear thinkers who continually expose themselves to these diseased minds in the effort to at least prevent the spread of the plague, even if curing those already afflicted is unlikely.

> ...every one of those arguments has been soundly rebutted over the past few decades...I suspect he, like all ID advocates, is susceptible to religious blandishments, immunizing him against the scientific truths that rebut faith. And so he asks us, “How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?” The answer, I suggest, is “We don’t need to.” < And the most apropos excerpt of all, > Rebutting such arguments is a perpetual and tiresome battle, useful only for those sporting open minds rather than religious blinkers. <

Well said, Professor Coyne. Well done.

Absolutism In Science

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

So what has been touted as absolute proof that free will can’t possibly exist appears very likely to simply be an artifact of the way the data was analyzed. In other words, evidence of nothing at all, except the foolishness of jumping to conclusions and of predetermining the outcomes of scientific data.

> ...neuroscientists barged in like an elephant into a china shop and claimed to have solved it in one fell swoop... <

It should be noted that even if it had been confirmed, it could only show that under extremely limited circumstance requiring virtually no rational thought, or decision-making, or exercise of free will, the brain predecides a response without conscious input. Had this been correct (and now appears to be incorrect) it still would not have warranted the conclusion that therefore every single decision ever made by every human being can only be made in this particular non-conscious manner. Such an overreach is simply unwarranted. It reminds me of BF Skinner’s conclusion that since some learning takes place as a conditioned response, all learning must take place in that manner. This is the equivalent of saying that since some people get from place to place on a skateboard, the only way human beings can ever transport themselves from place to place is on a skateboard. Thus, there are no such things as automobiles, cars, trains, rollerskates, or human feet.

This inevitably reminds me of a supposed absolute truth that free will can’t exist which is based in classical physics. For decades it was declared as an absolute that since every single cause has a single effect and every single particle must react to the previously existing conditions in an exactly predictable manner, there was no room for free will or choice. Every thought was ultimately produced by the motions and interactions of atoms and molecules and since these were moved in an exactly predictable manner from one existing state into the next existing state, there was no such thing as original thought or free will. Everything, including our thoughts and our choices were always predetermined.

Then came quantum physics. Suddenly the very same individuals who were loudly (very, very loudly) declaring free will is impossible because of this absolutely perfect proof were insisting that the destruction of their beloved proof was totally meaningless and had no effect on the debate whatsoever. Ultimately, it seems, the perfect and irrefutable argument was composed entirely of sour grapes.

In fairness, we must be remember that scientists are, inevitably, human beings. The public image of scientists as cold calculating individuals who lack emotion or are at least are uniquely objective is nonsense. More than anything else, at the most basic level, a scientist is a human being; and as with all human beings this class of individuals is subject to the same emotional prejudices, confusions, and errors that are inherent to our entire species.

The classical physics argument that all particles follow a rigid and invariable pattern and therefore there can be no such thing as free will since we are completely, including our brains, composed of those particles so that everything is already predetermined was as deeply offensive to me in high school as it is today. Like it’s theological cousin, the Calvinist theory of predestination, the belief that human beings have no control of their own fate was anathema to me. I didn’t know where the fault lay in this particular theory, it seemed to be a perfect proof. Yet I had a deep conviction (one could argue a faith) that it was wrong.

Now that its flaws have become manifest, I feel deeply vindicated, even while those who once swore that classical physics theory was the absolute proof of their correctness now discard it as never having been relevant to the discussion. It should be noted that in the area of quantum physics there are still those who advocate for a theory referred to as the “hidden variables” interpretation. This suggests that there are variables which adhere to the classical physics model which are unknown to us at this time and which will eventually prove (when they are discovered) that classical physics was correct all along. The number of scientists believing this shrinks every year. As an old adage by Max Plank indicates, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

FYI: it was Max Planck’s work on the blackbody problem that caused him to introduce a new concept, that of the quanta. When he first introduced it to resolve that problem, he regarded it as a mathematical fiction, but it grew into a new reality, indeed, into an entirely new physics.

This leaves the questions of, what is conscious, what is free will, unanswered. While we continue to seek the truth, we must wonder if it will ever be found. A very interesting article suggests that a single ultimate answer may not be possible. It presents a very interesting concept. One, I think, especially in the context of this post, is well worth consideration. See the link below.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pluralism-beyond-the-one-and-only-truth/

When Is A Human Human?

A pair of posts which, put together, are worthy of being moved from Facebook to this blog. The point of both being that as medical science advances we more and more find ourselves in need of careful ethical considerations before performing many types of experimental research.


https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/brain-waves-detected-in-mini-brains-grown-in-a-dish

> The EEG recording of a 28-week-old mini-brain mimicked the recordings of a pre-term infant at 35 weeks’ gestation. < Does anyone else find this deeply disturbing? I was worried about something along this line occurring when they first created these “mini brains”. At what point does this become a form of an actual human brain? At what point does this experiment require informed consent? Remember, that’s the consent of the mini brain. https://nextshark.com/chinese-scientists-human-genes-monkey-brains/ As if mini brains that artificial intelligence identifies as having brainwave patterns indiscernible from those of a premature baby, now we’re implanting human brain cells in monkey brains. Science-fiction horrors are looking more and more like nonfiction horrors. > “To humanize them is to cause harm. Where would they live and what would they do? Do not create a being that can’t have a meaningful life in any context.”<

The Church Of The Numinous

Saturday

What fine visit I had with my friend Bobby. As always, he brightened my day and made me feel so much better. We lunched at one of our favorite spots, the Ono Hawaiian Barbecue.

On the way back home, Bobby and I were talking. He pointed out that it seemed as if something, a sense of community, a sense of belonging to something greater, was difficult to find in the skeptical world. I noted that the Church of Satan presents itself as a church for atheists but it’s really more about being an in-your-face answer to Christian fanatics. That’s not a bad reason to have a church, but it’s not what I would consider the best reason.

I said atheists should have a church, and he and I should found one. We talked about it for a while, partly joking and partly serious. I observed that Einstein loved the numinous, though he certainly didn’t believe in any kind of God to whom you could pray or who was an actual person with a personality. Wouldn’t it be possible, I asked, for humanists and skeptics to identify and revere such concepts as morality, a sense of purpose, the numinous, and our mutual humanity?

Bobby noted that Nietzsche was identifying our loss of God as a symptom he was describing, not as a desirable thing. In fact, the philosopher felt that this loss had seriously harmed humanity. I noted that was something that Christian extremists simply do not understand about Nietzsche. They think he wanted to kill God when he was actually mourning His loss. Bobby went on to note that we humans endow things with sacredness. I liked that, and asked him why we couldn’t endow things with sacredness without God necessarily being part of the process? Isn’t that what humanism is about? Can’t we control that as we control so much of our spiritual, emotional, and personal lives?

In the end we decided we just had to found a genuine, actual church for atheists. It would be up to members of the church to endow it and its principles (no room for infallibility or doctrine, sorry) with sacredness. Then the question became, what should we name it? I proposed that he and I should both become the Prophets of Probability, since the universe is probablistic from the humanist-athheist view point. He liked that idea and then added that we should be the Non-prophets of Probability. I think Bobby and I make a great team.

In all seriousness, I think atheists and humanists should do exactly this. We humans can and should endow certain principles with sacredness. Traditionally that term is utilized for that which is created by or dedicated to a god or gods, but the humanist in me doesn’t see why we humans can’t take Bobby’s advice and endow sacredness by ourselves.

During the conversation I did say to Bobby that such a church should be able to include theists like me; one who was always a born skeptic and a dyed in the wool believer, one who dislikes the rigidity of doctrine and the tendency toward fanaticism and mindless faith inherent in organized religion, yet who finds himself divided between rationality and mysticism

That’s a church I could believe in completely. Among the principles which I would endow with sacredness are tolerance, the unity of all mankind, the sense of the numinous as we gaze upon the world and universe about us, and a deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world.

Everyone would welcome to join If they adhere to these principles, but because of the sacredness of those principles; the intolerant, the irrational, the angry, and the arrogant would be excluded, not because we think of ourselves as superior, but because we see our principles as genuinely sacred and they do not.

Also: Our church symbol could be the lazy eight or symbol for infinity, but made with a Mobius strip.
Without the Mobius element, the symbol has been used since ancient times. It symbolizes infinity, of course. It also means something everlasting, the worm Ouroboros with its head biting its own tail, enduring love, and more. The Internet adds that, >Arabic artists used it to represent eternity, wholeness, and completion.<
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs authorizes the symbol as one which is acceptable on veterans headstones, but does not identify it as associated with any particular religion, merely stating that it represents “infinity”.

A few suggestions as to the “structure“ of the church:

The Framework

Doctrine: None
Hierarchy: None
Sacred Items: Our Principles
Diety: Optional
Authority: The Self
Philosophy: Skeptical Rationalism
Inspiration: The Numinous
Beliefs: Personal and subjective

The Sacred Principles

* Tolerance
* The unity of all mankind
* The sense of the numinous as we contemplate the world and universe about us
* A deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world
* Non evangelicalism
* We are part of the universe, seeking to know itself
* Sentient beings should not be made or allowed to suffer
* Each sapient being’s experience is personal and subjective within the framework of the objective universe

Another principle of the church (though unofficial and perhaps even a personal addendum of my own) which I suggest we should endow with sacredness is one of my top five most favorite quotes of all time. The original quote referred to what happens when humans attempt to understand the nature of God, but one could easily extend it to what happens when one tries to understand this vast universe of which we are a part. “A dog might as well contemplate the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.” —Charles Darwin

Finally, I decree (with approximate infallibility) that I shall be the non-Pope in the West and Bobby the non-Patriarch of the Eastern Church.
Sounds good to me. Is that O.K., Your All non-Holiness?
(Remember, I only get to be His non-Holiness. You also get the All.)

More coming?

A Fire Bell In The Night

https://time.com/5672506/hitler-art-activism/

Sorry Mary Lane and Time magazine, but you should check your facts a little more carefully before reporting them. It’s a way to avoid embarrassment. I really that recommend you should try it.

In the magazine she reported that  > When Adolf Hitler took charge of Germany 85 years ago this summer, he did not, contrary to popular belief, “seize power.” Rather, Germans elected him their Führer, or leader, in a referendum on Aug. 19, 1934...<

But as I already was aware, Hitler seized power. No doubt about it. I didn’t know all the details, but they are easily found online, as in Wikipedia, for example.

> The referendum was associated with widespread intimidation of voters, and Hitler used the resultant large “yes” vote to claim public support for his activities as the de factohead of stateof Germany. In fact, he had assumed these offices and powers immediately upon von Hindenburg's death and used the referendum to legitimize this move, taking the title Führer und Reichskanzler.<

We all should check our facts before we post.  It’s excusable that those of us simply posting for the interest of ourselves and friends can occasionally make an error. Professional journalists and Time magazine have no such excuse.

This is not to say she doesn’t make an excellent series of points. The United States should take a very close look at what’s happening in America today as religious groups more and more surrender their moral and theological positions to political expediency and power.

>In his 1926 painting “Pillars of Society,” the then-33-year-old artist warned his fellow Germans that, if petty government sniping and extremist Christianity were not nipped in the bud, Hitler’s rise would be the likely consequence. Grosz further warned against radical far-right religious views in 1927’s “Shut Up and Do Your Duty,” a work that shows Jesus Christ nailed to the cross wearing combat boots and a gas mask—a criticism of politicizing Christianity that drew praise from pacifist Quakers in the United States.<

“...petty government sniping and extremist Christianity...” that seems to sound very familiar for some inexplicable reason.

STEM And Sex

https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/girls-are-just-as-good-at-stem-study-finds?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=76e3a61790-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3f5c04479a-76e3a61790-180555153

Social justice warriors and radical feminists have a habit of becoming frantic (dare I say hysterical?) when it is suggested that anything other than cultural differences and patriarchal prejudices can explain the differences between the performance of males and females in STEM performance,  this type of irrationality is wrong for several reasons. 

The two most important are that answering one mindless prejudice with another mindless prejudice is a malfunctional way of thinking and does not do anything to solve the problem, it only makes the problem more complex and difficult to resolve.

The second is that denying that reality is real because of your ideological or religious prejudices completely shuts out the possibility of finding out what is actually happening in the real world.  To deny even the possibility that one should study why males and females perform differently as a sort of patriarchal suppression is madness. A properly constructed study would uncover patriarchal suppression while refusing to conduct that study leaves the true nature of the problem obscured and probably unimaginable.

If the results of this particular study are born out, it shows that there is in fact a difference in the structure of male and female brains which does not mean females are inferior at STEM activities, but rather that they process their thinking in a slightly different manner.  A very small adjustment in the strategy of administering tests could be all that is required to eliminate the imbalance. No outrage needed. No protest needed.  Only careful studies, and an open mind.

Being offended, being oppressed, being the victim, and so many other maladaptations to life in a society with our fellow human beings are becoming the norm on both sides of the political landscape. (I must add that it is the absolute default position of conservatives and Republicans while Democrats are beginning to experiment with this tool.)  This is a very serious mistake.It inevitably leads us to a fatal flaw, replacing our facultative capacity to reason and actually solve problems with our obligate capacity to become irrational and emotional.

We each are empowered to make the choice for ourselves — use the capacity our brains have to think clearly and actually solve problems or simply allow our emotions to drown our rationality.

That’s the kind of empowerment I prefer.