This year, on November 24, will mark the 150th Anniversary of Charles Darwin's On The Origins of the Species. This tidbit of information is obviously bringing a bit of grief to many, not limited to Kirk Cameron and "Banana Guy", because they are actually giving away free copies of Darwin's book but with a 50 page "introduction."
You must know who Kirk Cameron is (was). He was the teenage darling of the hit 80's show "Growing Pains." He's since dropped out of mainstream 'secular' television and has become a pusher for idiocracy ever since; even taking lead roles in the post apocolyptic movies based on the bible's end times after the rapture.
If you don't know who "Banana Guy" is, you owe it to yourself to watch this clip that; a fine example of Poe's Law.
Now in this next video, this hot (and well-informed) girl breaks down another one of Kirk Cameron's disingenuous videos and makes some very valid arguments against his Straw Man arguments.
The stupid; it hurts.
As was mentioned, no need to really protest - just get those nice shiny books, rip out the 50 pages of garbage, and hand it out in communities or give to people that otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford the book.
Showing posts with label scientific. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scientific. Show all posts
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Playing Your Dreams Like Video Games
How many times have you dreamt only to awake and wonder why you wouldn't have known it was a dream? Consider that when you dream, you can take flight, and defy laws of physics without really thinking twice about it. So why is it that when you're dreaming, it's often that you don't question your state of reality when what is actually taking place is otherwise pretty damn absurd?
Lucid dreaming is an age-old thing. Dreaming, let alone lucid dreaming, has been a mystery for our ancestors, though scientists believe that dreaming actually plays an evolutionary role in "enabl[ing] early humans to rehearse responses to the many dangerous events they faced in real life." [via] Lucid dreaming has also been researched scientifically though the average person doesn't experience this type of dream so often.
Some time last year, I awoke from a lucid dream and I excitedly scoured the internet for ways to achieve these dreams more easily. There are people that systematically attempt to have as many lucid dreams as possible. This site has a rundown of some good tips, btw.
Lucid dreaming is not to be confused with dream control, which is exactly what it sounds like, but achieving an awareness during your dreams (lucidity) is likely to increase the extent to which you can deliberately influence the course of events; hence dream control.
Without getting into the more technical reasons about why we dream (which I actually began to write about-- not so ironically lulling myself into a comatose slumber), I'll just explain to you my experiences of dream control.
I have lucid dreams pretty often and have actually controlled my dreams like a video game. The down-side to this is that I actually told my friends about a few of the dreams that I had, and they looked at me like I was crazy. In my defense, I was certain I was dreaming and was the only reason I decided to experiment.
To start, there are certain exercises you can do throughout the day to ready yourself for awareness of your dreams when they occur, and hopefully leading you to control them when you know they're occurring. This might mean doing otherwise trivial actions such as turning off the light-switch to see if it actually turns off the light, or looking at a block of text in a book, looking away, and then looking at that very same block of text to see if the words have changed. Another thing you can do is to look at a digital clock and see if the bars that make up the numers are static or if they dance around. You may be wondering what all of this has to do with dreaming. To explain one, it is said that turning off a lightswitch is impossible in a dream because it's nearly impossible for your brain to construct a scene in which it's totally dark.
The thinking goes that if you practice these exercises during the day then you're more likely to question your state of reality in dreams. So I did just that. I woke up and documented some of these dreams, often times right after I woke up; be it 1 AM, 4 AM, etc. I did not want to forget the details. My lucidity sometimes waned from complete confidence in my dreaming state to questioning whether or not I was actually dreaming. When I realized I was dreaming, I tried not to excite myself so much as to wake myself up. When it worked, it worked well. Needless to say, I seemed to be on an endless conquest for virtual ass.
For your reading entertainment (and my utter embarrassment) I'm giving you the exact notes of my dreams that I quickly jotted down in the wee hours of the morning on Notepad, so I apologize in advance for the horrible formatting. You'll notice I repeat some of the things I've already mentioned in this blog because I wrote my notes in preparation to share with some friends via e-mail last June. Enjoy:
Dream (Night of 6/8, morning of 6/9)
2 Woke up. Heard Christian singing in apt in middle of night. Woke up and sang L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole.
I didn't realize it at first, but I noticed that my radio was playing the song as well.
3. I looked at my radio after I wondered why it spontaneously came on as this hadn't ever occured on any
nights before. I looked at the alarm settings and saw that it had two settings: an alarm for Tuesday morning
alone, and a separate alarm for Weds-Monday.
4. Isaac spent the night and got up and asked if I was scared of being alone and left to go upstairs.
5. Strangers walked into my apt to use my restroom. It appears they just came back from a night of
clubbing and they spoke of electricity being out throughout the city.
6. A girl I didn't know embraced me from behind and was hinting at having sex. I was not attracted to her
and passed her off to someone else.
7. I was reading my blog on Myspace and saw that I blogged about some band very recently that I was apparently
very fond of although I had never heard of this band before.
I knew I was dreaming - however it was a low-level lucidity state. I woke up and wrote the aforementioned details with an intent to have another
chance at lucidity. I browsed the web for techniques I had read before on how to do so. I've always achieved lucidity without much effort,
but I wanted to try all I could to do it again. I placed the link at the bottom of this e-mail.
dream #2
1 Got out of bed. Saw person next to me that wasn't Christian. Instantly was aware I was dreaming.
Grabbed their face and smashed it to the ground. Got up with the intent to get laid. Walked out of my room and realized I lived in a palace.
2. Walked into a door. Turned around. Created barriers so no one could get in. Tried to make a brick wall but couldn't. Instead Made bars
that covered the room leading into the other room of women.
I walk into the door and there are girls in this area laying in beds encased in this glass room with raised beds in rows, but each bed alternated in
height and the ones adjacent to each other were different planes, being about three feet higher and lower than the next.
I go in to pick my girl. I survey the women and realize that some of them look absolutely horrid and resembled the creature on Harry
Potter that worked at that bank with long, bumpy noses. I eventually decided on three women extremly hot women that my mind created and asked everyone else to leave the room.
For some reason there were men who I think were bodygaurds/security and they questioned my motives. "Why must we leave?"
Judging from past experiences with trying to score in my lucid dreams, I knew this guy would be trouble. I didn't hesistate to put out a gat and shoot him in the face just for questioning me. I then looked to the other side of the room on the floor and created a trap-door, and underneath
there was water. I ordered the other security guy to get rid of the body. He didn't listen to me so I ended up killing him as well.
Next Dream:
I was walking around my apartment and noticed that Ali was walking up my back staircase. I opened the door and told her I was surprised to see her
because I thought she was on tour. She said she was but remembered I told her about a day I was taking off and since she had a break too,
she figured she'd come visit. Eventually Dawn, Ashley, Luis and some other unrecognizable girl was there as well and we were all talking on the floor of my living room
and we were sleeping on the floor in sleeping-bags.
Ashley was complaining about boys and asked me how she should feel when she goes out next time we're out. I told her she should feel
exactly how she's feeling at that moment (because I thought it was pretty stupid to ask how you should
make yourself feel) but I added that she should at least try to be in great spirits. Dawn was complaining
about the curvature of her back and asked me to feel a bump that was on one side of her back. I told her it wasn't noticeable and not to worry.
Later, someone (like an authority figure) arrived home and we were all trying to get everyone to quiet down. Luis was shining a flashlight
and Ali told him to 'shut off that fucking flashlight.' Luis giggled and said 'geez.'
Not sure who that guy was.
Woke up because Christian kicked me.
Dream #3
I am walking around town searching for women again. I instantly know I'm dreaming.
This strange looking Asian girl jumps in front of me as I'm walking and starts giggling.
I grab her face and hurl her into the trees that are about 30 feet away. I walk into this little park area that has benches and a gazeebo
and I begin killing people for no reason at all other than the fact that I don't like the cut of their jibs.
I grab a guy by his face, slam his head on the ground and then step on it. As I step on his face I realize that I was barefoot.
I remember specifically thinking how real that felt for a dream. Then I pull out a glock and shoot this other guy
in the face. I never got around to finding a girl but I thought about what more I could do. I could only think of one cool thing. I wanted to
fly to the moon. I jumped up into the air and blasted off into space. A little into the flight I realized that I might want to put a space-suit
on. (Apparently this is low-level lucid dreaming - where you're aware that you're dreaming, but you don't realize that you aren't completely
in control and you forget that you cannot be harmed. I couldn't make the spacesuit appear so I just gave up on that. I am flying toward the moon at an exhilirating rate, however it doesn't
appear to be getting any closer. So I drastically change speeds. Finally I am almost to the moon but I can't get it to look like the moon.
I could only get it to look like Earth so I bypass it. Then I try again but the moon just looks way too small and doesn't ever look like the surface
of the moon but rather just a bunch of grey images and static.
I end up in a dark neighborhood and I see a car approaching. It's a car full of the women that were supposed to be the three women I picked
earlier. They were all smiles and extremely sexy. I jumped in the car to drive toward my lair to give them each a ravishing. I hear squeaking
from the 'real world' and I realize that something is attempting to wake me up and I fight it at first, but I couldn't any longer. The birds near my
window totally blocked me. That's all I remember.
I have never had that many lucid dreams in a night that I remember. The best tip given on the site is to even question reality
in your 'waking life'. You might want to try this throughout the day but especially at night. Routinely question your reality. Look at digital
clocks to see if digits can be formed. (Usually they cannot on a digital watch.) Also, in my first dream - I didn't understand why my light
didn't come off. Then I remembered this movie I watched (which you should watch if you haven't) called Waking Life. They mentioned that light
are virtually always impossible to turn off. I wondered about that but then if you think about it, if it were totally dark, than means your mind
just went blank. Another thing that was mentioned on the site below, as well as on the movie, was that if you read text you'll find that the
text changes if you read it again. Really, if you've even gotten to the point of thinking to do these things in your dream then you're already there.
Another thing I did that the site below suggested was that I question reality in my waking life, since you can never be 100% sure, afterall.
I know it seems a bit silly to ask yourself right now if you're reading this and if your existence at this point is real, however, more often than not
you think your dreams are real and you fail to question those as well. Get in the habit of asking yourself about reality and performing several
tests throughout the day and you'll find that it will almost become second nature to do the same thing in your dreams.
It mentioned to chant something like keep telling yourself that you're dreaming as you're falling asleep. What I did instead was I kept telling
myself 'If I see someone other than Christian, I'm dreaming.' 'If I'm somewhere other than my bedroom, I'm dreaming."
I kept repeating that over and over and it got into my subconscious and I had no problem at all becoming lucid. What I also noticed
was that the dreams were like watching HD tv when you are aware that you're dreaming. When you think about it, images are basically constructed
in your mind anyway - so what can create the crispest images than the actual source? Everything seemed so real even when I knew they weren't.
I realize now that the quality of my lucidity was never a constant. Sometimes I didn't realize the full power I had even though I was aware I was dreaming. Other times I realized
I was invincible and that's when it is really fun. I can't wait to try this again tonight.
1. In apt with Christian. Light on. The light would not turn off.
Dream (Night of 6/8, morning of 6/9)
1. In apt with son. Light on. The light would not turn off.
2 Woke up. Heard son singing in apt in middle of night. Woke up and sang L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole.
I didn't realize it at first, but I noticed that my radio was playing the song as well.
3. I looked at my radio after I wondered why it spontaneously came on as this hadn't ever occurred on any nights before. I looked at the alarm settings and saw that it had two settings: an alarm for Tuesday morning alone, and a separate alarm for Weds-Monday.
4. Younger brother spent the night and got up and asked if I was scared of being alone and left to go upstairs.
5. Strangers walked into my apt to use my restroom. It appears they just came back from a night of clubbing and they spoke of electricity being out throughout the city.
6. A girl I didn't know embraced me from behind and was hinting at having sex. I was not attracted to her and passed her off to someone else.
7. I was reading my blog and saw that I blogged about some band very recently that I was apparently very fond of although I had never heard of this band before.
I knew I was dreaming - however it was a low-level lucidity state. I woke up and wrote the aforementioned details with an intent to have another
chance at lucidity. I browsed the web for techniques I had read before on how to do so. I've always achieved lucidity without much effort,
but I wanted to try all I could to do it again.
dream #2
1 Got out of bed. Saw person next to me that wasn't my son. Instantly was aware I was dreaming.
Grabbed their face and smashed it to the ground. Got up with the intent to get laid. Walked out of my room and realized I lived in a palace.
2. Walked into a door. Turned around. Created barriers so no one could get in. Tried to make a brick wall but couldn't. Instead Made bars
that covered the room leading into the other room of women.
I walk into the door and there are girls in this area laying in beds encased in this glass room with raised beds in rows, but each bed alternated in
height and the ones adjacent to each other were different planes, being about three feet higher and lower than the next.
I go in the meet my harem of women and pick my girl. I survey the women and realize that some of them look absolutely horrid and resembled the creature on Harry Potter that worked at that bank. Most of the girls had long, bumpy noses. I eventually decided on three women extremly hot women that my mind created and asked everyone else to leave the room.
For some reason there were men who I think were bodygaurds/security and they questioned my motives. "Why must we leave?" Judging from past experiences with trying to score in my lucid dreams, I knew this guy would be trouble. I didn't hesistate to put out a gat and shoot him in the face just for questioning me. I then looked to the other side of the room on the floor and created a trap-door, and underneath there was water. I ordered the other security guy to get rid of the body. He didn't listen to me so I ended up killing him as well.
Next Dream:
I was walking around my apartment and noticed that my friend was walking up my back staircase. I opened the door and told her I was surprised to see her because I thought she was on tour with her band. She said she was but she reminded me that I told her about a day-off from work I was taking and since she had a break too, she figured she'd come visit. Eventually two of my other friends and my older brother were in my apartment as well and we were all talking on the floor of my living room and sleeping on the floor in sleeping-bags.
One of my friends was complaining about boys and asked me how she should feel when she goes out next time we're out. I told her she should feel
exactly how she's feeling at that moment (because I thought it was pretty stupid to ask how you should make yourself feel) but I added that she should at least try to be in great spirits. Another chick friend was complaining
about the curvature of her back and asked me to feel a bump that was on one side of her back. I told her it wasn't noticeable and not to worry.
Later, someone (like an authority figure) arrived home and we were all trying to get everyone to quiet down. My older brother was shining a flashlight
and my chick friend (that initially showed up) told him to 'shut off that fucking flashlight.' Brother giggled and said 'geez.'
Not sure who that guy was.
Woke up because my son kicked me.
Dream #3
I am walking around town searching for women again. I instantly know I'm dreaming. (Damn, I'm getting good at this shit.)
This strange looking Asian girl jumps in front of me as I'm walking and starts giggling. I grab her face and hurl her into the trees that are about 30 feet away. I walk into this little park area that has benches and a gazeebo
and I begin killing people for no reason at all other than the fact that I don't like the cut of their jibs. I grab a guy by his face, slam his head on the ground and then step on it. As I step on his face I realize that I was barefoot.
I remember specifically thinking how real that felt for a dream. Then I pull out a glock and shoot this other guy in the face. I never got around to finding a girl but I thought about what more I could do. I could only think of one cool thing. I wanted to fly to the moon. I jumped up into the air and blasted off into space. A little into the flight I realized that I might want to put a space-suit on. (Apparently this is low-level lucid dreaming - where you're aware that you're dreaming, but you don't realize that you aren't completely
in control and you forget that you cannot be harmed. ) I couldn't make the spacesuit appear so I just gave up on that. I am flying toward the moon at an exhilarating rate, however it doesn't appear to be getting any closer. So I drastically change speeds. Finally I am almost to the moon but I can't get it to look like the moon. I could only get it to look like Earth so I bypass it. Then I try again but the moon just looks way too small and doesn't ever look like the surface of the moon but rather just a bunch of grey images and static.
I end up in a dark neighborhood and I see a car approaching. It's a car full of the women that were supposed to be the three women I picked
earlier. They were all smiles and extremely sexy. I jumped in the car to drive toward my lair to give them each a ravishing. I hear squeaking from the 'real world' and I realize that something is attempting to wake me up and I fight it at first, but I couldn't any longer. The birds near my window totally blocked me. That's all I remember.
I have never had that many lucid dreams all in one night that I remember. The best tip given on the site is to even question reality in your 'waking life'. You might want to try this throughout the day but especially at night. Routinely question your reality. Look at digital clocks to see if digits can be formed. (Usually they cannot on a digital watch.) Also, in my first dream - I didn't understand why my light didn't come off. Then I remembered this movie I watched (which you should watch if you haven't) called Waking Life. They mentioned that lights are virtually always impossible to turn off.
Another thing that was mentioned on the site below, as well as on the movie, was that if you read text you'll find that the text changes if you read it again. Really, if you've even gotten to the point of thinking to do these things in your dream then you're already there.
Another thing I did that the site below suggested was that I question reality in my waking life, since you can never be 100% sure, after all. I know it seems a bit silly to ask yourself right now if you're reading this and if your existence at this point is real, however, more often than not you think your dreams are real and you fail to question those as well. Get in the habit of asking yourself about reality and performing severaltests throughout the day and you'll find that it will almost become second nature to do the same thing in your dreams.
It mentioned to chant something like keep telling yourself that you're dreaming as you're falling asleep. What I did instead was I kept telling
myself , "If I see someone other than my son; I'm dreaming. If I'm somewhere other than my bedroom, I'm dreaming."
I kept repeating that over and over and it got into my subconscious and I had no problem at all becoming lucid. What I also noticed was that the dreams were like watching HD tv when you are aware that you're dreaming. When you think about it, images are basically constructed in your mind anyway - so what can create the crispest images than the actual source? Everything seemed so real even when I knew they weren't.
I realize now that the quality of my lucidity was never a constant. Sometimes I didn't realize the full power I had even though I was aware I was dreaming. Other times I realized I was invincible and that's when it is really fun. I can't wait to try this again tonight.
So I told some people my dreams and they jokingly (maybe) think I'm pretty fucked up in the head. Hey, I just knew I was dreaming, right?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Happy 40th, Apollo 11.
It's pretty fucking mind-boggling to think that we have actually been to the moon and back. Come on, you jaded bastards! The moon; the fucking moon! Then again, there are those that somewhat dogmatically maintain we haven't been there. I've somewhat already uneloquently addressed that in a post in late 2007, as have many others; not limited to Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait in this well constructed argument on his blog.
Of course if you're a Flat Earther, you still believe that we never landed on the moon because if but for no other reason, (though I suspiciously surmise there are) it would mean that people have actually seen for themselves that the world is, I dare say, not flat.
In honor of this day, I went to see Moon which was not exactly what I expected it to be because of some elements I didn't see coming. I can't talk about it too much without giving much away; but I recommend it if you can avoid thinking a movie's a waste if by the opening credits you're not incessantly bombarded with some really fake CGI explosions and the odd areola or three.
Given the scientic progress we've made this past century or less, it's a bit aggravating that there are many who still want to keep us in the dark and those that willfully choose to remain in it. This isn't just about the moon landing, this is about science in general. More to the point, science that is mostly ignored or refuted because it conflicts with what their momma and dadda told them was so.
This past year or so I've really seen the world in a different light. I don't want to say that I'm becoming unromantic towards things, but maybe more realistic, which I suppose has the side effect of making me unromantic in some things! But at the same time, Richard Dawkins said it best that Christianity, or any religion that tells you that your real life is in the next life, is sort of cheating you of your once in a lifetime chance of living here and now. We should be living life to the fullest now and appreciating this one life we've got. Think of all that had to come to fruition for you to even be reading this right now!
Anyway, some may see me as dry in certain areas because of my mindset. It's to the point that I don't even feel obligated to say 'bless you' when people sneeze because there's no longer any reasonable chance to deduce that the sneeze was actually a spirit escaping their body. I'll say it because of the cultural expectation, and truly, I don't think most people think twice about that phrase anyway. I try not to be militant with my remarks; and I'd like to say that it's not just religion I am turned off by, it's superstition in general. I'll do a ouija board in a heart beat. I'll summon the devil all day long because I don't believe in it either. That show TAPS? Yeah. It's a fucking con. It's in the producers best interest to keep shit interesting and the proles will eat it right up. Think about it all the things that are riding on your shoulders if you're a TV executive: advertising revenvue, appeasing your shareholders, among other things. What are you gonna do, walk into a house, sit there and not be dramatic about it? I'm pretty unsuperstitious. I'll even change my underwear despite the fact that I might have worn them the past five or six times I won in poker. Superstitions make us feel as if we have a semblance of control in an otherwise uncontrollable world. Talk about a psychological pacifier. I feel that if I must be superstitious in one thing, I shouldn't pick and choose which ones to believe, yet everyone does that.
I don't recall how I got off in this tangent. I started talking about the moon landing, after all. I suppose if I'm gonna have my head in the clouds that I have it farther in orbit. Weaning yourself from ritualistic, superstitious habits doesn't come about overnight, but it comes if you aren't afraid to feel a little vulernable. Some might say that if it doesn't hurt anything to be superstitious and makes someone feel a little more comfortable, then why bother? Well, I don't need that crutch, and it's a little arrogant to think that I'm good enough to get along without it but others aren't. That's pretty much my point. Anyway, Happy 40th, Apollo. I have to admit though that it's kind of a bummer that it revealed the moon to not be made of cheese. I still refuse the believe that.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Mexican Influenza
I haven't been feeling very energetic lately as evidenced by my lack of updates. I haven't kept up with too much news and I feel pretty disconnected from the world. I only heard about the Swine Flu last night and that's because I happened across a blog about it. Fuck, I probably have the disease right now.
So I was browsing about the web trying to get more information on it (I mean, shit - I just came from Mexico) and I came across this little article which mentions that many Jews and Muslims want the flu to be renamed Mexican Influenza "in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork."
Hey all you *fundamentalist* religious nutcases. We're trying to be logical and use science to figure this shit out, so in the meantime, will you please SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.
Oh, and here's a swine flu Public Service Announcment from the 70's:
So I was browsing about the web trying to get more information on it (I mean, shit - I just came from Mexico) and I came across this little article which mentions that many Jews and Muslims want the flu to be renamed Mexican Influenza "in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork."
Hey all you *fundamentalist* religious nutcases. We're trying to be logical and use science to figure this shit out, so in the meantime, will you please SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.
Oh, and here's a swine flu Public Service Announcment from the 70's:
Monday, October 13, 2008
Columbus Wasn't Only a Hustler, but...
I don't know why I get Columbus Day off. I wish they'd just give us the day off after Thanksgiving instead like we had before our last merger. We'd work on Columbus Day and in exchange we'd receive the day off after Thanksgiving in addition to Thanksgiving day. I've been through about four mergers with my work since I've been there, and it appears we adopt the shittiest parts of the other company's business structure during each transition.
I am a little indifferent about Columbus, I already mentioned before that Columbus was 'a hustler', but I didn't realize he was a straight up thug!:
And apparently, Google isn't a fan - they didn't acknowledge Columbus Day in their logo as they do for many other holidays or anniversaries. Instead, they have up for today a picture commemorating Paddinton bear's 50th anniversary.
TranformColumbusDay.org
I am a little indifferent about Columbus, I already mentioned before that Columbus was 'a hustler', but I didn't realize he was a straight up thug!:
- Columbus is responsible for the murder of millions of indigenous people.
- Columbus was a slavetrader in Africa before invading America. He began the slave trade in the Americas. He deserves no holiday, no parades, no statues.
- Columbus Day celebrates the doctrine of discovery – the legal process that stole Indian people's territories, and that continues today.
- Columbus brought a philosophy of domination to the Americas that persists today – domination of other peoples, domination of the environment, domination of other belief systems, domination of women by men.
And apparently, Google isn't a fan - they didn't acknowledge Columbus Day in their logo as they do for many other holidays or anniversaries. Instead, they have up for today a picture commemorating Paddinton bear's 50th anniversary.
TranformColumbusDay.org
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
High At First Sight: Your Brain on Love
"Love consists of overestimating the differences between one woman and another." - George Bernard Shaw
"The heart has its reasons which reason knows not of." -Blaise Pascal
"Parting is all we need to know of hell." - Emily Dickinson
"You call it madness, but I call it love." -Don Byas
Why do humans love? What causes it? Is it a choice? An emotion? A feeling or a decision? Throughout the ages, there have been songs written about love, poetry, novels written, temples erected. Myths have been told, myths recited - people have killed and died for it. There have been numerous studies on the subject, and some of the findings might even surprise you. You might even come to realize that you are addicted to love. Do you want the cure? That's up to you (though not always).
In the jungles of Gautemala, in Tical, lived a grand Sun King, in the grandest city, in a grand civilization of the Mayas. His name was Kasa Kitchari (though I'm positive I've misspelled his name). He lived well into his eighties and the Mayan inscriptions on his tomb profess that he was deeply in love with his wife. There was a temple built for her facing his that at exactly every Spring and Autumn equinox, the shadows of each temple would fall on the other. Every evening, the sun would set behind hers, and shadow of her temple would touch his. Even after 1300 years, the lovers still touch and kiss from time to time.In over 170 societies that have been looked into, there has never been one that hasn't left behind some sort of evidence of love being a pervasive force. (Poetry, artifacts, etc.) Love is universal, and doesn't belong to a specific group, and it is even said that animals feel love. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/B-LOW.html)
In 1992, anthropologist Helen Fisher, in her ground-breaking book the Anatomy of Love, postulated three main phases of love:Helen Fisher, as an anthropologist, has worked on the topic of love for over thirty years. Her most recent efforts consisted of carrying out an experiment where they placed 32 people under a MRI brain scanner. Some of those were currently in love and accepted - another portion of those people felt they were in love but were rejected.Generally love will start off in the lust phase, strong in passion but weak in the other elements. The primary motivator at this stage is the basic sexual instinct. Appearance, smells, and other similar factors play a decisive role in screening potential mates. However, as time passes on , the other elements may grow and passion may shrink — this depends upon the individual. So what starts as infatuation or empty love may well develop into one of the fuller types of love. At the attraction stage the person concentrates their affection on a single mate and fidelity becomes important.
- lust - an intense longing.
- attraction - an action that tends to draw people together.
- attachment - a bonding progression. [Enough to put up with each other long enough to raise a child together]
Likewise, when a person has known a loved one for a long time, they develop a deeper attachment to their partner. According to current scientific understanding of love, this transition from the attraction to the attachment phase usually happens in about 30 months. After that time, the passion fades, changing love from consummate to companionate, or from romantic love to liking.
As further research eventually demonstrated, there are areas in the factory ventral portion of the brain that light up by those that are in love. Not so coincidentally, this is the same region of the brain that lights up when a person experiences a rush from a cocaine high. There are cells in the brain, (a-10 cells) that produce a natural drug called 'dopamine' that gives you those feelings you experience when you feel a romantic bond toward someone. These A-10 cells actually this region of the brain, and flood it with this natural drug. This region of the brain--the caudate nucleus and the ventral tegmental--is below our consciousness, and part of our reptilian portion that feels wanting, motive, focus and craving.
It is closer in its neural profile to drives like hunger, thirst or drug craving, the researchers assert, than to emotional states like excitement or affection. As a relationship deepens, the brain scans suggest, the neural activity associated with romantic love alters slightly, and in some cases primes areas deep in the primitive brain that are involved in long-term attachment. (nyt)
Love has also been compared to an addiction. It certainly has the components of one. It often can distort reality, lead to tolerance, withdrawals, and perhaps eventually relapse (when you're trying to 'get over' someone).
Helen Fisher sat down and spoke with some of the subjects her of study and there are several common themes among those in love.
Craving. There's a sexual craving, but especially and emotional craving. You obviously want to sleep with the one you love, but you'd almost prefer a phone call simply hearing that you're loved, wanted and missed.
Motivation. You're motivated; you want this person and want nothing more than to be wanted by them.
Obsession. The people were asked what percentage of the day they feel they think about their love. Most of them said almost all day and night. When asked if they'd die for their love, all of them answered yes, almost as effortlessly as one would answer when asked if they would please "pass the salt."
As Helen mentions, though - you can at least come down from a cocaine high. Love is more potent and addictive than cocaine, and is by far much more powerful than the sex drive.
After all, it's not often you hear of anyone killing themselves, or committing crimes of passion when they are turned down for a one night stand - but this is all too common for a lover scorned and rejected.
So what of love at first sight? Is this possible. Sort of. But you might be more like 'high at first sight.' Our ancestors in the wild didn't have much time or see much importance in courting a mate for three weeks. Instinctually, it's possible to feel that you are in love with someone in order that you may mate right away. It seems we were wired for this, and it's only that much more complicated because our culture doesn't seem to be built around this, but rather our instinctual desires are built around our culture.
As shown above,there's Lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust is more that general fe
eling you get when you're out and about -- it doesn't necessarily have to do with any particular person. Attraction is a little more personal; it drives you to get involved with a particular person--but it's attachment that keeps you there long enough in order to raise a family as a team.
However, these three things aren't mutually exclusive. They need not always present at the same time, but actually can, and do, exist independently. For instance, you can feel attachment for someone who is simply a one-night-stand because orgasms release oxytocin, vasopresson, and dopeamine. This is why some people may feel a 'cosmic union' to someone they may have just slept with.
However, even with all of the insights into what happens to the mind on a chemical and biological level, I don't think should cheapen it for you.
I believe you can still appreciate love for what it is, though it raises questions about the role of antidepressants for use in the long-term. Surely, if one feels they want to commit suicide or harm another and feel that these drugs help them cope, then so be it. But much more has been raised on the issue of long-term dependence on antidepressants, and its effect on forming bonds...essentially the capacity for love.
Anti-depressants raise seratonin in the brain, suppress the dopamine circuits, kills the sex drive, the orgasm, and thereby blocks the flood of drugs associated with attachment. When any part of the brain system is tampered with, it trickles over to another.
Maybe some people would rather live with that than the depression that sets in when they relapse from the drug they call dopamine.
As Virgil said, "Love conquers all"--often times whether you like it or not.
----------------------------
Additional links:
Helen Fisher on Wikipedia
NYT article
Video on Ted.com
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Big Bangs Happen All of the Time...
..only they're not actually BIG, nor do they actually bang. You need air for that, remember? Get your act together, people.
Cosmology, Physics, the Big Bang, and what the bloody hell does this all have to do with this thing: The LHC (Large Hadron Collider)
There are very BIG questions still looming around and plaguing the scientists of today that have also plagued those of yesteryear. Some of these questions will hopefully be answered if the LHC is, as expected, able to actually reconstruct, "on a micro-scale, conditions that existed during the first billionth of a second of the Big Bang." It's going to smash particles together at speeds %99.999 near the speed of light in order to accomplish this task, and they need this big fucker to do it:
I hate to say it, but it may be hard to fully appreciate the scope of this without realizing the mind-boggling questions the LHC may answer, and the new ones it may give rise to. So in an effort to expend the information that I have only recently begun to appreciate within the past year or so, I am writing this blog so that it will hopefully ignite the curious being within you - the inner philosopher and explorer that I think our distant ancestors must have had within them, yet that we may take for granted these days. (Edit: I didn't finish, but I wrote enough in time before the LHC is powered up within hours at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland on 9/10/08.)
So...What the fuck is this thing ^...and why?
The Beginning of the madness
Newton
I was surprised to learn that Newton had lain the foundation for differential and integral calculus [1], mainly out of necessity in order to determine the motion of falling objects, which includes moons, and in Principia, he had given an account of the laws of mechanics, laws of motion, govern the celestial bodies, as well as our very own planet. This did much to to demystify the celestial bodies in space, and his contributions, laid out in Principia, did much to pave the way for the Industrial Revolution. Many of the modern day marvels we see today (skyscrapers, rockets, bridges) would not be possible without Newton's laws of motion.
As Michio Kaku points out in his book "Parallel Worlds", thanks to Newton's Principia, "the stage of life was no longer surrounded by terrifying celestial omens; the same laws that applied to the actors also applied to the set."
Newton, the Rockstar of his time, is going down.
However, to say that 'the set' (the universe) followed the same laws that the actors (us) did inevitably brought up many questions about 'the set'.
Newton believed that our Universe was static, and undynamic. He had his reasons, but he also had his dissenters.
Bentley's Paradox (An argument against an infinite, static universe: Is the 'set' (our universe) infinitely large and limitless? If gravity is always attractive, and never repulsive, that would mean the heavens should give us a display of fiery cataclysms everyday as stars would naturally collapse into themselves. So why doesn't this happen then? If the universe were infinite, Bentley wondered, then wouldn't space on either side of a star be equally as strong and rip it to shreds. This would mean that our universe is extremely unstable, like a house made of a deck of cards.
Newton's answer: Newton was plagued with all of the paradoxes brought forth by his theory. However, he found a loophole in Bentley's assumptions. Newton simply replied with the answer that the universe is infinite but it is completely uniform. Therefore any tugging that was applied to a star by an infinite number of stars on one side was canceled out by the same amount of tugging of an infinite number of stars on the other side.
That was enough to quell the argument for the time being, and only for the time being. The problem with Newton's answer to Bentley's Paradox is that it paints a picture of a very delicate and unstable universe, that if it were ever to lean ever so slightly in either direction, it would disrupt the perfectly assumed equilibrium, and set a chaotic chain reaction in motion that would put an end to all of life as we know it. He ultimately attempted to compensate for the fragility of his argument by stating that perhaps God was keeping things perfectly balanced, and had to, on occasion, tweak things so that they wouldn't send the delicate house of cards tumbling. This was tantamount to Newton grasping for straws by retrofitting an explanation to keep his theory intact. This explanation didn't hold much weight for long. Enter Olber's Paradox.
Olber's Paradox and Edgar Allan Poe?
Another argument against Newton's 'static' (unmoving) infinite universe was that if it were true, our night sky should be illuminated by the infinite number of stars within it. In other words, the sky should never be black at night in an infinite, static universe. This paradox has been a riddle to scientists for centuries.
There were several attempts to solve this paradox, some of which appeared to have amounted
to people grasping for straws who were seemingly attempting to assemble solutions around the outcome they desired n attempts to explain away the invoncenient notion of this paradox. Some suggested that dust clouds in space obstructed the light, and others attempted to just do away with the 'infinite' part by suggesting instead that the universe was finite, thus limiting the amount of light from stars that would reach us. However the 'dust cloud' theory was put to rest because it was said that this would light up the dust clouds as well, and in an infinite universe, the light would still reach us.
You might be surprised to find out that the first person to really put a logical explanation behind Olber's Paradox was Edgar Allan Poe. In his poem, Eureka, he said:
He had it exactly right. Light travels at an extremely fast rate. It is often called 'the ultimate speed limit.' But the speed of light is still finite. Our universe is so immense that even with light from the stars traveling at 186,287 miles per second, not all the light in all the universe has reached us. Additionally, the lifespan of stars is not indefinite - even if they can live for billions of years. The farthest we can see is only as far as light has traveled since the Big Bang, which is 13.7 billion years. It has later become known that the sky really isn't black at all - but is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation from the Big Bang itself fills up the sky! If our eyes were wired to see radiation, they would, and we would see a lot more than we're currently able to see.
As Stephen Hawking stated this in response to many saying the multi-billion dollar cost put toward this is a waste of time and money:
Cosmology, Physics, the Big Bang, and what the bloody hell does this all have to do with this thing: The LHC (Large Hadron Collider)
There are very BIG questions still looming around and plaguing the scientists of today that have also plagued those of yesteryear. Some of these questions will hopefully be answered if the LHC is, as expected, able to actually reconstruct, "on a micro-scale, conditions that existed during the first billionth of a second of the Big Bang." It's going to smash particles together at speeds %99.999 near the speed of light in order to accomplish this task, and they need this big fucker to do it:
The collider is contained in a circular tunnel with a circumference of 27 kilometres (17 mi) at a depth ranging from 50 to 175 metres underground. Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I hate to say it, but it may be hard to fully appreciate the scope of this without realizing the mind-boggling questions the LHC may answer, and the new ones it may give rise to. So in an effort to expend the information that I have only recently begun to appreciate within the past year or so, I am writing this blog so that it will hopefully ignite the curious being within you - the inner philosopher and explorer that I think our distant ancestors must have had within them, yet that we may take for granted these days. (Edit: I didn't finish, but I wrote enough in time before the LHC is powered up within hours at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland on 9/10/08.)
So...What the fuck is this thing ^...and why?
First some background. Around 2,500 years ago, the Greeks debated over what the Universe was made from. One philospher, Democratus argued that the smallest bit of matter that couldn't be broken down anymore than it was is the atom. (The word 'atom' is derived from Greek from 'atomos', meaning indivisible.)
It's widely known now that atoms can in fact be split. This is how we get nuclear power, afterall. However, the thing is, when scientists went about trying to get the atom down to the smallest it could get, into its simplest form, they discovered that it only got more complex, creating all kinds of subatomic particles; quarks, quasars, etc. Here to save the day and make sense of the madness (while actually only creating more madness) is a relatively new theory of physics; String Theory.
String Theory doesn't think of particles as we tend to think of them; as point particles. Rather, String Theory gets it's name because of the scientific assumption that these particles aren't 'point particles' at all - but actually one dimensional 'strings' that account for all of the particles simply by vibrating at different resonances.
The thing about String Theory is that the math implies some pretty wild shit. It comes with some baggage, to say the least. What is this baggage?
Well - it leaves us with the inference of there being eleven dimensions if the math is to work properly.. (Think parallel worlds, that branch from the same bubble, creating mult-verses. ) If String Theory were to be observed and finally proven somehow, that means we could undoubtedly once and for all say that we are one big bubble in a lake of bubbles with 'big bangs' occurring all of the time, even as you read this. String Theory is an attempt to unify all the forces, many a cosmologist has tried making their life's work. A Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail.
What are scientists attemtping to do? Destroy the world?
Contrary to what some alarmists believe, (some of which have filed lawsuits in an attempt to stop this program), no. It will not destroy the world. This is the biggest misconception. There are cosmic ray collisions that occur daily which deliver "equivalent to one hundred thousand (or one billion)times the total number of collisions expected over the duration of LHC experiments. Analogously, in the whole Universe, the equivalent of 3X10-to-the-13th-power complete LHC experiments are performed every second." [via]
If anyone is worried about Black Holes, Stephen Hawking talks about micro-black holes emitting Hawking Radiation (or Black Body radiation) and lose more mass than they absorb because of the 'Uncertainty Principle' (where virtual particles aren't in any single specific location and are paired together because of entanglement) - when one of the entangled particles hovers gets caught in the Schwarzchild radius (event horizon) it leaves it's partner behind, and if this process is repeated, it shrinks the hole. Some say that his Hawking Radiation principle has never been observed and tested, but just to allay those fears; their effects have been witnessed, and if it turns out to be untrue, these black holes will be so microscopic that they will attract an insignificant amount of force to begin with. Additionally, they will be propelled so fast that they will escrape the grapple of gravity.
(Keep in mind, WE are the oddballs of the universe in comparison with the violent, powerful things that occur every nanosecond throughout the universe. The amount of power that will take place in the LHC is only unfathomable to our minds since it doesn't seem natural to us - but again, solar flares produce more power (on a consistent basis) than this comparatively puny thing will ever do.)
What are they looking for?
In a nutshell, scientists are trying to piece toget
her how our universe came to be, and the only way to do that is to reverse engineer our universe. Thanks to Edwin Hubble, we know that our Universe is currently expanding, and if it's expanding to this day (as made apparent by the red-shift of distant galaxies), then you can imagine if you were able to press a 'rewind' button, it would all come back to a single point.
We know there are four forces that rule our Universe; the electromagnetic, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, but the weakest of all of these is gravity. This is a problem that has plagued physicists. For as pervasive as gravity is, it seems strange that it's the weakest of them all. For instance, all the gravity of the world pulling down on a paper-clip is easily canceled out by a magnet.
Understanding the particles, and subatomic particles and how they are given mass can only be answered if scientists are able to hit that rewind button. Thanks to Albert Einstein, we know that mass and energy are interchangeable, but how does anything acquire mass to begin with? The expect to find the Higgs Boson that does just that- and if they don't, they won't be entirely surprised.
Why are we here and how did we get here? Is there an edge to the universe? Is it limitless? Why do they think there was a Big-Bang to begin with? Did they just pull that out of their asses just because they don't want to believe baby Jesus did it? So there's a Big Bang theory - so what happened before that? What set it off? Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces even though it is the most pervasive of them?
These are pretty big questions to answer, so to make sense of it all, we'll have to step back in time and put all of this into context.
It's widely known now that atoms can in fact be split. This is how we get nuclear power, afterall. However, the thing is, when scientists went about trying to get the atom down to the smallest it could get, into its simplest form, they discovered that it only got more complex, creating all kinds of subatomic particles; quarks, quasars, etc. Here to save the day and make sense of the madness (while actually only creating more madness) is a relatively new theory of physics; String Theory.
String Theory doesn't think of particles as we tend to think of them; as point particles. Rather, String Theory gets it's name because of the scientific assumption that these particles aren't 'point particles' at all - but actually one dimensional 'strings' that account for all of the particles simply by vibrating at different resonances.
The thing about String Theory is that the math implies some pretty wild shit. It comes with some baggage, to say the least. What is this baggage?
Well - it leaves us with the inference of there being eleven dimensions if the math is to work properly.. (Think parallel worlds, that branch from the same bubble, creating mult-verses. ) If String Theory were to be observed and finally proven somehow, that means we could undoubtedly once and for all say that we are one big bubble in a lake of bubbles with 'big bangs' occurring all of the time, even as you read this. String Theory is an attempt to unify all the forces, many a cosmologist has tried making their life's work. A Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail.
What are scientists attemtping to do? Destroy the world?
Contrary to what some alarmists believe, (some of which have filed lawsuits in an attempt to stop this program), no. It will not destroy the world. This is the biggest misconception. There are cosmic ray collisions that occur daily which deliver "equivalent to one hundred thousand (or one billion)times the total number of collisions expected over the duration of LHC experiments. Analogously, in the whole Universe, the equivalent of 3X10-to-the-13th-power complete LHC experiments are performed every second." [via]
If anyone is worried about Black Holes, Stephen Hawking talks about micro-black holes emitting Hawking Radiation (or Black Body radiation) and lose more mass than they absorb because of the 'Uncertainty Principle' (where virtual particles aren't in any single specific location and are paired together because of entanglement) - when one of the entangled particles hovers gets caught in the Schwarzchild radius (event horizon) it leaves it's partner behind, and if this process is repeated, it shrinks the hole. Some say that his Hawking Radiation principle has never been observed and tested, but just to allay those fears; their effects have been witnessed, and if it turns out to be untrue, these black holes will be so microscopic that they will attract an insignificant amount of force to begin with. Additionally, they will be propelled so fast that they will escrape the grapple of gravity.
(Keep in mind, WE are the oddballs of the universe in comparison with the violent, powerful things that occur every nanosecond throughout the universe. The amount of power that will take place in the LHC is only unfathomable to our minds since it doesn't seem natural to us - but again, solar flares produce more power (on a consistent basis) than this comparatively puny thing will ever do.)
What are they looking for?
In a nutshell, scientists are trying to piece toget
her how our universe came to be, and the only way to do that is to reverse engineer our universe. Thanks to Edwin Hubble, we know that our Universe is currently expanding, and if it's expanding to this day (as made apparent by the red-shift of distant galaxies), then you can imagine if you were able to press a 'rewind' button, it would all come back to a single point.
We know there are four forces that rule our Universe; the electromagnetic, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, but the weakest of all of these is gravity. This is a problem that has plagued physicists. For as pervasive as gravity is, it seems strange that it's the weakest of them all. For instance, all the gravity of the world pulling down on a paper-clip is easily canceled out by a magnet.
Understanding the particles, and subatomic particles and how they are given mass can only be answered if scientists are able to hit that rewind button. Thanks to Albert Einstein, we know that mass and energy are interchangeable, but how does anything acquire mass to begin with? The expect to find the Higgs Boson that does just that- and if they don't, they won't be entirely surprised.
Why are we here and how did we get here? Is there an edge to the universe? Is it limitless? Why do they think there was a Big-Bang to begin with? Did they just pull that out of their asses just because they don't want to believe baby Jesus did it? So there's a Big Bang theory - so what happened before that? What set it off? Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces even though it is the most pervasive of them?
These are pretty big questions to answer, so to make sense of it all, we'll have to step back in time and put all of this into context.
The Beginning of the madness
Newton
I was surprised to learn that Newton had lain the foundation for differential and integral calculus [1], mainly out of necessity in order to determine the motion of falling objects, which includes moons, and in Principia, he had given an account of the laws of mechanics, laws of motion, govern the celestial bodies, as well as our very own planet. This did much to to demystify the celestial bodies in space, and his contributions, laid out in Principia, did much to pave the way for the Industrial Revolution. Many of the modern day marvels we see today (skyscrapers, rockets, bridges) would not be possible without Newton's laws of motion.
As Michio Kaku points out in his book "Parallel Worlds", thanks to Newton's Principia, "the stage of life was no longer surrounded by terrifying celestial omens; the same laws that applied to the actors also applied to the set."
Newton, the Rockstar of his time, is going down.
However, to say that 'the set' (the universe) followed the same laws that the actors (us) did inevitably brought up many questions about 'the set'.
Newton believed that our Universe was static, and undynamic. He had his reasons, but he also had his dissenters.
Bentley's Paradox (An argument against an infinite, static universe: Is the 'set' (our universe) infinitely large and limitless? If gravity is always attractive, and never repulsive, that would mean the heavens should give us a display of fiery cataclysms everyday as stars would naturally collapse into themselves. So why doesn't this happen then? If the universe were infinite, Bentley wondered, then wouldn't space on either side of a star be equally as strong and rip it to shreds. This would mean that our universe is extremely unstable, like a house made of a deck of cards.
Newton's answer: Newton was plagued with all of the paradoxes brought forth by his theory. However, he found a loophole in Bentley's assumptions. Newton simply replied with the answer that the universe is infinite but it is completely uniform. Therefore any tugging that was applied to a star by an infinite number of stars on one side was canceled out by the same amount of tugging of an infinite number of stars on the other side.
That was enough to quell the argument for the time being, and only for the time being. The problem with Newton's answer to Bentley's Paradox is that it paints a picture of a very delicate and unstable universe, that if it were ever to lean ever so slightly in either direction, it would disrupt the perfectly assumed equilibrium, and set a chaotic chain reaction in motion that would put an end to all of life as we know it. He ultimately attempted to compensate for the fragility of his argument by stating that perhaps God was keeping things perfectly balanced, and had to, on occasion, tweak things so that they wouldn't send the delicate house of cards tumbling. This was tantamount to Newton grasping for straws by retrofitting an explanation to keep his theory intact. This explanation didn't hold much weight for long. Enter Olber's Paradox.
Olber's Paradox and Edgar Allan Poe?
Another argument against Newton's 'static' (unmoving) infinite universe was that if it were true, our night sky should be illuminated by the infinite number of stars within it. In other words, the sky should never be black at night in an infinite, static universe. This paradox has been a riddle to scientists for centuries.
There were several attempts to solve this paradox, some of which appeared to have amounted
to people grasping for straws who were seemingly attempting to assemble solutions around the outcome they desired n attempts to explain away the invoncenient notion of this paradox. Some suggested that dust clouds in space obstructed the light, and others attempted to just do away with the 'infinite' part by suggesting instead that the universe was finite, thus limiting the amount of light from stars that would reach us. However the 'dust cloud' theory was put to rest because it was said that this would light up the dust clouds as well, and in an infinite universe, the light would still reach us.
You might be surprised to find out that the first person to really put a logical explanation behind Olber's Paradox was Edgar Allan Poe. In his poem, Eureka, he said:
Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy - since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.
He had it exactly right. Light travels at an extremely fast rate. It is often called 'the ultimate speed limit.' But the speed of light is still finite. Our universe is so immense that even with light from the stars traveling at 186,287 miles per second, not all the light in all the universe has reached us. Additionally, the lifespan of stars is not indefinite - even if they can live for billions of years. The farthest we can see is only as far as light has traveled since the Big Bang, which is 13.7 billion years. It has later become known that the sky really isn't black at all - but is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation from the Big Bang itself fills up the sky! If our eyes were wired to see radiation, they would, and we would see a lot more than we're currently able to see.
What's "Cosmic" about it? We refer to it as "cosmic" because the only known source of this radiation is the early universe. It can now be firmly concluded that the CMB is the cooled remnant of the hot Big Bang itself.
Cosmic Microwave Background - FAQs
Take a look at this diagram below and the image of the actual Cosmic Microwave background beneath it.
To understand the significance of this, I leave you with a quate from Michio Kaku:
To describe the universe, cosmologists sometimes use the example of looking down from the top of the Empire State Building, which soars more than a hundred floors above Manhattan. As you look down from the top, you can barely see the street level. If the base of the Empire State Building represents the big bang, then, looking down from the top, the distant galaxies would be located on the tenth floor. The distant quasars seen by Earth telescopes would be on the seventh floor. The cosmic background measured by the WMAP satellite [shown below] would be just half an inch above the street. And now the WMAP satellite has given us the precise measurement of the age of the universe to an astonishing 1 percent accuracy: 13.7 billion years.
To the unaided eye (mine included) this WMAP image looks rather boring. But this image itself, when first produced, was said to bring many astronomers close to tears. For this image above represents irregularities of the big bang itself, shortly after the universe was created.
As Stephen Hawking stated this in response to many saying the multi-billion dollar cost put toward this is a waste of time and money:
"Both the LHC and the Space program are vital if the human race is not to stultify and eventually die out. Together they cost less than one tenth of a per cent of world GDP. If the human race can not afford this, then it doesn't deserve the epithet 'human."
Friday, August 1, 2008
A Treatise on Heaven and the Subjectivity of Perfection
Heaven Your Way
If you were given the task to create a world that was perfect and inerrant where nothing could go wrong and everything went your way (because it would be perfect, after all) - do you think it would be simple to envision? Say you were given this task but the caveat is that this world MUST be one that everyone else would also consider perfect, with ZERO exceptions.
When I close my eyes and envision a world where everything is perfect, what would my world contain--and conversely--what would not be a part of it? If another person were to review my list of self-edited inclusions and omissions of this magnificent utopia, would my ideal world of 'perfection' be brashly appraised by them as instead being one of imperfection? Is it really reasonable to expect that my perception of what I consider to be perfect become the authoritative model and final version in which everyone that has ever been--or ever will be--should abide in for all of eternity?
Arriving at the ultimate Utopia
By which devices am I able to recognize that the world I currently live in is imperfect to begin with? What world beyond ours that has been known and experienced could I possibly use as an objective comparison to ours so that I may arrive at the conclusion that our world is comparatively imperfect? I can't think of one. Even if I could, is it possible for a world to be perfect in every scenario and every instance? For what it is - our world, and everything that happens to it, and personal experiences held within it, is neither more perfect or imperfect than any outside, objective object of comparison.
Even things that are inconveniences to us on Earth have other reasons behind it. We quickly assign the label of 'imperfection' to things that directly affect us in a seemingly negative way without giving much thought to the broader implications of the positive off-shoots that the negative instances inherently possess. We quickly realize that when we think of perfection, we don't take to heart much of anything aside from ourselves as it directly impacts us. We think on the microscopic level, not the macroscopic. Wishing to never see rain again would mean never seeing a rainbow. Wishing for the sun never to set again would mean never again seeing the stars at night. Wishing for there to never be hunger again is missing the mark as well, since hunger is neither perfect nor imperfect for what it is; since without it, you'd not be aware of your need for food, and you'd starve to death.
So where is our standard of perfection? By saying this world is imperfect, you must have ideals in your mind of what perfection means to you, and it would not be a stretch to assume that what is perfect in my ideal world may possibly be an imperfection in yours. Our world is neither perfect nor imperfect. It just is what it is; perfectly itself; nothing more, nothing less.
Living in what we would consider a 'perfect' world: Would we be aware of it?
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
Revelations 21:4
You see, this is the paradox: Without being aware of what you consider undesirable, would you know to appreciate or recognize those things which you desire, aside from your involuntary, biological needs (hunger, shelter, etc)? So it goes, if you are in a world that knows no imperfections, would you be able to fully appreciate this without having some awareness of the opposing feelings? What makes you happy? Is happiness the presence of pleasure or the absence of pain? If you were living in a perfect world, would you be able to appreciate happiness as much without ever feeling pain? After all, what intrinsic value is there in living in a Utopia as the 'ultimate reward' if we are not aware of its supposed lack of imperfection? You measure the worth of something only with an understanding of the pleasure associated with having it, or the pain/displeasure potentially circumvented because of it.
If there is no sadness in heaven, this would require that you do not have a memory of things past, or that you have a feeling of ambivalence; a complete removal of yourself from the person you once were. Any memory you once held that perhaps even shaped you into a stronger person, and has molded you into the person you've become, is completely wiped away. Heaven to me, would then be likened to giving a toddler a one million dollar bill that begins to throw it in his her mouth, and possibly end up destroying it--not for the intentional lack of regard for its worth, but for the lack of awareness of it. Such is heaven to a person wiped clean of their experiences; they'll possibly be surrounded by good fortune, but the good fortune means nothing without being aware of your desire for it.
Is it possible that you could still remember any loved ones you once knew? What then if they are not present with you in Utopia? So is there really no sadness in Heaven? You can possibly only assume that they are burning in a lake of fire and brimstone then. Surely your time in heaven for all of eternity should be overshadowed by this haunting notion, right? I would think so. But this directly contradicts everything that the bible says Heaven will be like.
Divinely Contrived Shock-Therapy?
So if there's no sadness in Heaven, even if your loved ones are supposedly in Hell, what's the remedy for this? I can think of at least one; you'd have to be an unthinking, unfeeling automaton to not be affected by it. Yet, this is what the scripture implies. The notion that I am blissful (i.e., not sad) while my loved ones are being burned for all of eternity should be enough to overshadow the blissfulness I feel. The only way I can see this to be possible is that something changes in us due to some direct, explicit, meddling with our minds; in essence being reprogrammed to delete the sadness. Divinely contrived shock-therapy for your soul.
What it all comes down to is that we're all relatively unique; different and distinct from each other, with different tastes in food, clothing, art, music. What I think is great music does not, by proxy, deem that the music is indeed the best or any standard of perfection, but, nonetheless, is still the music in which I find favor. A perfect world for all would require that one size does indeed fit all. If Heaven were to be a perfect place, this to me means either one of two things: 1) that we sacrifices our humanity, and ironically, our souls for something we don't even recognize as being perfect, or 2) that we will not be aware that there are, or were, any other options, thereby diminishing the reward of heaven itself.
One thing I've come to realize is that there are rarely things that are altogether Just, and with things that are un-Just, it's possible that there may be elements of good and bad in both. I don't think things are always just either 'good' or 'bad', 'black' or 'white', beautiful or ugly. Now imagine there are no in-betweens or different perceptions of anything derived from your experiences and who you are, or why you feel that way. Opinions are nonexistent and emotion is a vestige. I can't help but come to the conclusion that this Heaven that the bible portrays is a hell in its own right.
So what does that make of this life here on Earth? Is it perfect or not? It's neither perfect, nor imperfect. It's just perfectly itself. This to me means that my version of Heaven really is on Earth, and with all the anguish, pain, longing and desire I feel, I'd keep that any day over not feeling. When it comes down to it, we are our feelings. We are our views, and opinions. It's what sets us apart from a rock. So yes, it's simple for me to say that I prefer feeling pain, anguish and sadness over pure obliviousness, and it may be that much easier to make these assertions since I may not suffering to the degree that many other people are around the world might be. Then it comes to reason that my life of relative suffering could be their Heaven. And again, it brings us full circle to the notion that a Utopia would be derived from opinion, a subjective preference, not an absolute that I could speak of for everyone else. So then: what value is this Utopia to us when we lack the capacity to recognize its perfection without any other thing to measure it against?
Define 'living' for yourself, and you define your own Heaven
As far as perfection goes; life is no more imperfect than death. Does the absence of life define death? What did that make me before I was born then? Was I alive prior to being born? Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, but can be converted to other forms, after all. Does being alive mean existing, or does it mean being aware of your existence?
As Descartes once said, "I think, therefore I am". Aren't trees alive? What about the stars? We are all made of stardust and yet we still came to be who we are. I'd certainly appreciate the view that a star has, but a star exists in the heavens most likely without appreciating their panoramic view of the Universe that it's been granted. Does that make it's own view of the universe any less rewarding to it?
I don't know. Would your view of Heaven be any less rewarding to you when you wouldn't know why you should appreciate it? What reward is Heaven if you know not why it's to be considered as such? If someone were to visit you in Heaven, and show you a picture of your life, lift the veil from your eyes and show you art, poetry, and music as you once experienced, would it matter? Would there be an uprising against someone you now may see as an oppressor? Do you find it confusing that you actually have virtual no free-will?
In Defense of Divinely Contrived Shock-Therapy in Heaven
So the only consolation I see in forfeiting my humanity for eternity is for the comfort of being oblivious to losing someone in a burning lake of fire-So maybe then, only then, would it appear worth it to wander aimlessly in a state of drunken euphoria, all the while being oblivious that I once knew what it felt like to love someone I've since forgotten, and that I've lost this person to God's fiery wrath, who I'm assuredly praising each and every day.
A Piece of Heaven, Even in Hell?
"There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Luke 13:28
The Bible implies that those in Hell will be aware of their state and as to why they are there. Nice move, right? If I were not to make it into the Pearly Gates, only then would I find my portion of Heaven in Hell itself, wherein the consolation would be that I realize that those I love do not have any memory of me, so that they may live out all of eternity without any sadness or recollection of my existence. So even then in Hell, I will have found my own version of Heaven, as I have on Earth.
Thank God for that.
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. Revelations 20:5
"[...] and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." Luke 20:36
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelations 21:4
"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelations 21:27
Friday, June 20, 2008
Ice!
You may not remember, but late last month I mentioned that the Mars Rover (Phoenix) successfully landed on Mars. The main reason this mission took place was, well – to see if there may be (or perhaps once were) conditions that were acceptable for organic life to be possible on the Red Planet. When many people hear the phrase, ‘life on Mars’, they’re quick to assume we’re talking about little frumpy green pygmies, and as amazing as that would be, we’re talking about a search microbial life here, or water; the chemical substance that is essential for all known organisms to survive. So this is why it’s such a big deal, and an exciting time for them, as well it should be for all of us.On May 31st--five days after the successful landing--NASA reported that they may have possibly found ice (see above photo), but they didn’t want to be too sure. Instead, they called it a “bright-looking surface material.” However, this new photo (below) offers irrefutable evidence that it is ice. Irrefutable only now after the rover’s digging exposed it, and in a matter of four days, it sublimed—changed directly from solid to gas.
Many are stating that this is the “best opportunity that humanity has ever had to analyze extraterrestrial water in any form.” This being the case, that undoubtedly got some at NASA fired up, including their communications department, who broke the news via Mars Rover’s Twitter account, nonetheless:
"Are you ready to celebrate? Well, get ready: We have ICE!!!!! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t!!! Best day ever!!" the Mars Phoenix Lander tweeted at about 5:15 pm.
(I don't know what's more amazing; the ice, or that NASA uses Twitter.) There are a lot of people that don't appreciate the significance of this seemingly insignificant finding, because without context, it does seem impertinent and silly. There were some comments I read on Wired's article that said our government is wasting time and money on these missions when we could be using the funds in Iraq, since our economy is basically hard pressed.
The following response sums up my sentiments about that:
Boo-ya!
The probability of water being on many planets throughout the universe is now considered astronomical, and by proxy, this includes the real potential for life as well. This is an exciting time for science and astronomy, and really - for all of humanity. Here's to future discoveries. Let's get excited about Space, science and exploring as our nation once used to be.
Additional Source: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/06_19_pr.php
6/26/08 UPDATE FROM: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-say-martian-so
"We basically have found what appears to be the requirements, the nutrients, to support life whether past present or future," Sam Kounaves, the lead investigator for the wet chemistry laboratory, told journalists.
"It is the type of soil you would probably have in your back yard, you know, alkaline. You might be able to grow asparagus in it really well. ... It is very exciting for us."
Monday, June 16, 2008
Guys With Symmetrical Brains = Gay. Asymmetrical Brain = Straight, study finds
(Vice-versa for the women.)
So there's a new article that's out on NewScientist that details a study from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden that gives insight based on findings regarding similarities between the brains of those who are gay in comparison with those who are straight and of the opposite sex. The study details how they've observed physical differences between the brains of gays and heteros.
According to the article:
The results showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger – and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.
I've always thought it was silly that people suggest that those who choose their 'alternative lifestyle' were not born with this gay-love gene (so to speak) naturally embedded in them but rather they voluntarily created these innate sexual desires in their psyche (so that they would undoubtedly be shunned by mainstream society, voluntarily live as black-sheep to be denied several benefits given to the rest of society all for the sake of wanting to plaster a rainbow sticker on their car because 'it looks cool.')
But even if there is now a way to detect physical characteristics of a 'gay brain', that's not to say that you wont find the occasional straight woman mouth-banging her straight girlfriend in the corner of the club, surrounded by every dude with their Motorola Krazr in hand to document the scandal for a later splash-session. As you undoubtedly are aware--when two girls make-out, this isn't conclusive evidence as to the sexual orientation of said girls. However, let two straight guys make out and there will be a slightly different appraisal of 'the matter'. If not for the social expectation that men be macho, would you see more male B.F.F.'s swapping out the outdated high-five for a high tongue or a friendly hand-job?
So I was curious (non-sexually this time); why is it socially "awesome!" and not an indicator of sexual preference when a straight woman eats her girlfriend's face? Yet when a man whose Myspace sexual preference status on his profile reads 'straight', does the same thing, there'd undoubtedly be comments from his top 48 (and possibly Tom) asking what the hold up is, and wonder when he'll be "Myspace Gay Official."
There would be no acceptance of this explanation: "Dude. Yeah, I only make out with Ryan when I drink too much and get like totally GAYsted. It happens, right guys? Come on. Who wants to go to Hooters with me? I hear there are boobs EVERYWHERE! Guys. Guys?? Hey, come back. My brain is asymetrical!"
So as I often do with faced with a quandary I cannot figure out on my own, I turned to the wide vastness of bottomless knowledge from the people on the World Wide Internets. We all know what straight men think about straight men that make out, and we kind of have an idea of what straight women think about straight women that make out (they hate them because they're doing it for 'attention.) But what do gay women think about straight women that make out? Here's what I found:
What do gay women think about straight women who make out...?
So what do gay women think about straight women who make out with other girls just to get a man's attention? do you not care? or does it piss you off. I'm a straight girl myself and I have two other straight friends who decided that they wanted to become lesbians for the summer they both decided to only make out with each other only if there was a guy involved my other friend who doesn't even agree with gay marriage or think it's right to be gay(Yes I know confusing) talked about how she thinks that girls are hot when she sees them out in public ,even though when I'm with her and she sees a girl she says mean things about her but if she's a guy she's all up on his nuts trying to get his number. So this confuses me and pisses me off and I'm straight so what do gay women think about girls like that who only pretend to be gay for a mans attention?
Answer:
i think its ******* bullshit because it makes it harder for us ( the girls that are gay) to come out of the closet as an legit lesbian. Also it makes it harder for people to accept homosexuality as being a feeling and a lifestyle instead of a choice made by some dumb chick to turn some dude on. To put it plain and simple its really pointless. Also I know that you didn't ask this but, I think your friend who "says" she has a problem with gay people and then "says" chicks are hot and then kiss them, might just be a little bit gay.
I hope this helped you out
have a great day!
Lesbians want 'legitimacy' people. And I wish more of you would be conscientious of this. In all actuality though, this girl's concerns are misguided---I don't foresee a shortage of blue-balled dudes standing by willing to act as Lesbo Legitimizers.
and...
...although I do sympathize with the plight of the asymmetric-brain wielding lesbian in that advice column, I think the things she says are counterproductive to her cause. If she wishes to remove sophomoric P.D.N.G.A. (public display of non-gay affection) from the public arena, she must also be willing to accept the realization that others may be able to cast a preference of their own on what should/should not be displayed publicly as well, and at times, they may even act on it.
But really, I don't think I was supposed to have a point.
Additional resources:
NewScientist article - Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Wow, I can't believe how many people just don't get it. For the (relative) pennies spent on this, science has discovered, for the first time, a real possibility that there may be (or was) organic life on another planet. In addition, presence of water in any matter state makes colonization possible. So, I suppose it's fine and dandy to spend 30 times NASA's annual budget to go kill Muslims (and to do a bad job of it at that), but providing clues to one of the greatest questions mankind has ever asked isn't worth the $0.15 a day to you? Wow. And you actually claim that THEY have their priorities mixed up? Self-reflection, guys. You need it badly.
For those (pardon the insult, but it's pretty obvious) stupid enough to claim that NASA hasn't provided anything for the money spent other than a "wow" or two, here is a short list of some of the more prolific inventions that NASA has given to the world, not including the indirect benefits of their research, or the technologies that the military has yet to release to the public. Let's see if this is good enough for you:
1. The fiber-optic cable that allowed you to even post to this website (you dumbasses...you really deserved that)
2. Damn near everything that keeps airplanes in the sky...too much to list here, check out check out http://history.nasa.gov/centtimeline/index.html to see details of the contributions to airtravel (duh, NASA stands for National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration, again DUMBASSES)
3. Kidney dialysis machines
4. The majority of the materials that go into prosthetics and other medical devices
5. Medical imaging
6. Bar coding
7. The fire-resistant material fire suits that thousands of firefighters owe their LIVES to are made of
8. Cordless tool techonology
9. Smoke detectors
10. Satellite dishes
11. In-ear thermometers
12. Thermal protective clothing likes gloves and boots
13. Shock-absorbing helmets
14. Invisible braces
15. Scratch-resistant lenses for eyeglasses
16. Insoles for shoes
17. Memory foam
18. Long-distance telecommunications
19. Water filters
20. Safety grooving - the little rumble strips on the edge of the highway that lets you know you've gone off the road.
These are just 20 of the over 1400 inventions that came directly from NASA and doesn't include any of the indirect benefits, which have effected every single industry in the world. Don't judge these people or this program unless you are willing to give up at least everything on that list. Sin
ce I guarantee you're not (go ahead, claim that you are....then cancel your internet and television subscriptions, give up your tennis shoes, bottled water, eyeglasses, smoke detectors, and never ever get an MRI, and prove it instead of being hypocritical), you should rethink your stance on the issue. You have no basis for your opinion, and apparently are unable to use that uber-fast internet connection to actually look some stuff up before talking out of you asses.
Wake up, grow up, and shut up.