Scientific Realism 3: Infancy

I can only guess what it is like to awaken to this world from that pre-human state of being where the mind is first developing its consciousness. On first seeing the sky, clouds, buildings, water, grass, the forest, and the countless other things we call the world, there must be a sudden shock, or pause that grips one. Undoubtedly, the conscious life of infancy is a mystery. Researcher can only guess at 'what it is like to be' a baby. But one thing is for certain, they seem to be in awe of EVERYTHING around them.

This awe, this ever pressing passion that seizes the mind and pulls it away from numbering things, distinguishing things, and takes it all in as a sort of shock of what IS may have something more to it than merely something one may call an undeveloped mind. Maybe, as we mature, and develop our ability to communicate, we actually lose sight of this awe. Perhaps there is something in the awe that is absent in the acquisition of language, of mathematics, of what we call logic reasoning skills. It could be the case that as Jesus stated, one must be as a child to enter into His kingdom, we must exchange awe for the words we use to understand all that is around us.

Consider how we develop language. According to St. Augustine, the process involves the child observing the parent and mimicking his or her movements as to get his or her attention. But why does the infant wish to get the attention of the parent? There is much debate on this, but the simple answer is to satisfy some desire, some craving, of the child. He or she may be hungry or thirsty and this is why they are crying in pain. They recognize that their body is in pain for something and they are expressing this pain of want. However, they also notice that the parent is providing for them relief from this want, this pain, through feeding them. Therefore, the infant further notices that he or she can mimic certain sounds the parents make, usually as a cue by the parent to successively approximate a specific word such as carrot or meat, so as to avoid the pain of want which gets worse as time goes on.

Soon, the child is able to acquire a wealth of mimicked behaviors and sounds which serve as a complex of preventing the pain of want. The infant growing into the maturity of childhood, is drawn into a world of language by communicating mimicked sounds and behaviors all related to want and its prevention. He or she learns that it is an 'I' and that this 'I' does things 'for' other things. Subject and predicate are born as to be more specific on what it wants to satisfy its cravings. But the language it develops ultimately grows more and more peripheral to the original motivation of satisfying a desire to where the desires are still there but the object to satisfy the desire is proliferated into many things.

All along, we the parents are under the impression the child is 'learning' through this process. But is this really learning? Or is it adapting? For what did the child 'know' before it had to start mimicking behaviors and focusing all its energies on this (on what brings the body pain and want) and not on those things which feel 'good' to the body? We cannot say what it is since we would be using language we had developed to satisfy the want of satisfaction or rather the negation of pain and want. Ultimately, this really puts into perspective the question of what we really do know. After all, our language could be said to be nothing more than a garden of words and terms grown out of our pain, not out of our joy and happiness. Indeed, the terms joy and happiness, presumably stem from some desire we had as children to avoid pain. It is nothing more than an inspired term from the shadow of joy and happiness.

Indeed, we number things, we count them, as to see some specificity in them. I see one tree, two trees, three and so forth. But their number is only in their being trees. And trees are only those things which have some use for the prevention of pain. Mathematics is painful, not only in practice but ontologically according to this. In short, we only know the shadow of things when we speak of them with the words we have learned in this Life. The awe and wonder the infant experiences which it cannot communicate (for we residents of this world of pain we live in are unfit to give them proper names to use for joy) we see as nonsense and unlearned babblings. But maybe we are the ones babbling, groaning until as the Bible says all of creation gives birth to the joy it has hidden behind the pain of its birth.

Scientific Realism 2

While Materialism is certainly an area of concern for those embracing alternatives, such as Idealism, it is not the only problem that faces those seeking a deeper understanding of reality in a philosophical manner. For I have come to realize that the very field of Philosophy, at least in the modern sense, has isolated itself from any semblance of dialectics; favoring mathematical expositions of logical arguments. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. However, when the discipline is flooded with theses that look more like a physicist's blackboard than an earmarked copy of Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' I think there is a problem. Recently, I was participating in a conversation on the topic of Idealism in a Facebook group centered on the topic of the same name. Some members would make posts in reference to this or that theory related to Idealism, some being more grounded than others.

But there was one post in particular that struck me; and quite frankly gave me a bit of a headache just glancing at it. The post was a complicated series of predicate, modal logic symbols all with technical references to specific arguments in current philosophical circles. These symbols all were related to an analytical abbreviation of recent perspectives on quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness and mental states. The moderator of the group applauded the poster while I was still sitting there thinking, 'what the hell did I just read?' I began to consider whether I had any idea of what 'real' Philosophy was. Perhaps I had only been able to grasp popularizations or annotations of Philosophical themes. Maybe I hadn't really 'gotten it' as far as Philosophy is concerned. But as I began thinking over the whole thing more clearly, I didn't remember reading these sorts of symbolic representations in earlier works of Philosophy. And, indeed, they were only present in more recent academic philosophical publications. Not all of them, but a large part of current philosophical works embraced this mode of logical exposition and theorizing. One would not find it, however, in European Continental Philosophy, Philosophy of History, Meta-Philosophy and some journals dedicated to Metaphysics. But in spite of this, there is an impression that when one philosophizes, one does nothing but mathematics. And certainly there is a mathematical element to logic. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Syllogisms and etc.

But, after reading a forward to a work by Hegel, I was reminded why I had come to love Philosophy. It was the dialectic that is missing in these modern expressions of the love of wisdom. J. N. Findley once said about Philosophy, and the idealism of Hegel, that "dialectic is a richer and more supple of thought-advance than mathematics." It is the etymologies of words, deductive propositions of ideas and literary tradition of Philosophy that really holds the true basis of wisdom, not simply the concise arithmetic nature of symbolic logic in reference to scientific theories.

Meta Culture and Race

Meta-Culture and Race

In light of the recent events in Ferguson, and in other communities around the country, I find it necessary to elaborate on an issue that seems to emerge and a great deal of confusion is associated with it; racism. Now, the issue of police abuse and brutality is not a race issue in and of itself. For after all there are countless incidents involving police shootings and white residents as well. And so, at base, these are two separate issues. However, in many communities around this nation, there is an outcry of racism. The question then becomes, are these complaints nothing more than ‘sour milk’ from people that have made poor choices in life and thus looking to blame others or is it something else or somewhere in between these two? Here, we will explore these issues and how they pertain to race, poverty and purportedly systemic abuses of power.

Statistical Criminal and Economic Analysis of People of Color in the US

If we are to address the topic of race and more specifically people of color and their association with poverty and crime, we must understand and explore the demographics and statistics concerning them.

Firstly, as far as statistics, African Americans rank highest than any other (White, Hispanic, etc.) in poverty; save Native Americans. For,

Nationwide, during 2007 and 2011, which encompasses the recession and the immediate aftermath, 43 million Americans — or slightly more than 14 percent — lived in poverty. But not every group was impacted equally. The poverty rate was 27 percent for American Indians, 26 percent for African Americans and 23 percent for Hispanics. Among whites and Asians, less than 12 percent were poor. The federal threshold for poverty is about $11,500 in annual income for an individual and about $23,000 for a family of four.1

The economic disparity we see between whites and people of color unfortunately has not diminished in recent years. The civil rights movement decades ago, it would seem (if it is deemed relevant at all) would certainly have had an impact on improving the economic stations of African Americans in our nation. But as the numbers bear out, they have not.

Secondly, crime rates of communities largely African American experience significantly higher crime than those of white communities. Consider this statistic, “the offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.”2 And so, intraracial murders certainly suggests that these are incidents of homocides within the communities of the perpetrators. We could, here, evaluate the panoply of criminal statistics from petty robberies to homocides, but it suffices to say that crime rates are higher in African American communities

Incarceration rates also reflect disparities in whites as opposed to African Americans. Consider this, “According to the BJS non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009, with whites 34.2%, and Hispanics 20.6%. The incarceration rate of black males was over 6 times higher than that of white males, with a rate of 4,749 per 100,000 US residents.”3

And so, this begs the question, why? Why does it seem that African Americans are more likely to commit crimes than whites, or even hispanics? This is not an easy question to answer. And while many on the right are quick to point out the crime statistics, they are hesitant to offer an answer to this question. For, after all, if one leaves it there, without any qualification or explanation, there is a tendency towards an unspoken racial bigotry.

Race and Culture

And so, are there literal differences biologically between African Americans and Whites, so much so, that this would explain the statistical disparities between the two groups, and others? Some may think so. For accepting blindly differences in say IQ scores by some studies can be take out of context. Consider the recent study conducted by the University of Delaware in reference to IQ disparities and race.

The IQ debate became worldwide in scope when it was shown that East Asians scored higher on IQ tests than did Whites, both within the United States and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro American culture (Lynn, 1977, 1978, 1982; P. E. Vernon, 1979, 1982). Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the early research was conducted in the United States, but some was also performed in Canada and the Caribbean (Eysenck, 1971, 1984; Jensen, 1969, 1973; Osborne & McGurk, 1982; Shuey, 1958, 1966; cf. Flynn, 1980; Kamin, 1974; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984). In the United States, 15% to 20% of the Black IQ distribution exceeds the White median IQ, so many Blacks obtain scores above the White average. This same order of mean group differences is also found on “culture-fair” tests and on reaction time tasks. Hundreds of studies on millions of people have confirmed the three-way racial pattern (Jensen, 1998b; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002; Rushton, 2000).4

Does this suggest that African Americans are not as intelligent as whites or asians and therefore less likely to make rational decisions; which would explain the higher criminal statistics? Actually not at all. For this study, as any study which examines IQ tests and race, ignore poverty rates in concert with IQ. Consider that “the single most important finding related to the debate over IQ and heredity is the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the past century. This so-called Flynn effect, which was discovered by psychologist James Flynn, undercuts claims that intelligence stems primarily from nature and not nurture.”5 Therefore, it is more likely to suggest that IQ has to do with cultural or economic disparities in society rather than biological ones.

Since IQ has more to do with situational rather than biological factors, could this also be true as to criminal statistics? If it is the case that IQ is situational and cultural, why not criminal and aggressive trends we see? In a recent interview with Psychology professor Andrew Ward, there seems to be a clear connection between communities of poverty, not merely the conditions of individual poverty. For, “from a psychological perspective, Ward said there was very little connection between poverty and crime. Rather, it is the environment of poverty that can lead people to commit crimes. “It’s not just being poor, but it’s being around lots of poor people,” Ward said. “The relationship between poverty and crime is in areas of concentrated poverty, like these inner city areas.” Ward said living in an area of concentrated poverty can be a catalyst for futility. “It can be a contributing factor of hopelessness and despair,” he said. “‘What do I have to lose? I might as well commit a crime.’ But really, anyone can go into despair.” Another factor is what Ward called the “escalation of violence.” “There is phenomenon among people who live in concentrated poverty,” Ward said. “I call it pre-emptive aggression. If you’re someone who lives in an area that’s kind of dangerous, you commit an act of crime so people know not to mess with you. You need to show you’re tough, but now I have to be tougher than you, so I need to go commit a worse crime.”6

In conclusion, it would seem that the answer to our earlier question is clear, ‘why is there more crime in African American communities?’ Because there is more poverty in them. And to suggest that African Americans are more prone to violence and criminal behavior because of race confuses the situation of poverty most find themselves in and the statistics. For, generations of hopelessness and poverty are just expressed in the facts of poverty in African American communities.

A Brief History of Racism and a Possible Future Solution to it

It isn’t enough to state a problem. For leaving it there without looking toward a solution is not only negligent but lazy. And the best way to understand the cause of the problem, which would help navigate towards a solution, is by looking back at history.

Historically, North Africa was a large part of Western culture going back to Phoenician settlements, Hellenistic culture and the Roman Empire. More specifically, Greek city states (as well as Roman imperialism) had a distinct character that is absent in modern times. For although each state, or Roman province, was made up of varying peoples from different regions and thus 'racial’ backgrounds, they had a common cultural character to them that united them. We could call this a meta-culture that, like the sky, everyone stood under. Likewise, the Roman Empire, which resembled the Hellenistic one prior to it save its central control of imperial policies, embraced its diversity while maintaining a cultural unity that defined everyone within the Empire as a ‘Roman.’

However, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and with the advent of the Dark Ages, provinces returned to local control and significantly reduced mobility within a larger imperial community. The ‘sky’ of meta-culture had dissolved and all that was left was regional isolationism. And while figures such as Charlemagne attempted to re-establish the metropolitan character of Rome, all this resulted in was the establishment of centers of learning and academia; rediscovering works of Latin that had been lost for almost a century. Therefore, the fuedal elites were privvy to education and the masses reduced to serfdom and local toil of the land.

In light of this Dark Age that evolved into a Medieval established feudalism, suspicion of ‘foreigners’ was equated with threats to local established order. What had been a tradition of slavery for conquered enemies in Greece and Rome would become one of enslavement of those in regions underdeveloped and foreign to the ‘enlightened’ cultures of the Enlightenment and beyond. Therefore, diaspora of Africans and others from far away lands as conquered by states that had emerged from the ashes of Rome would ignore the cosmopolitan ‘meta- cultural sky’ of the greater society of Man and enslave an entire continent of people. As a result, an entire culture would be disenfranchised for the sake of ensuring a class of agricultural landlords in places like the Caribbean, Deep South and other places around the globe.

The solution therefore is quite simple, a return to the metropolitanism of Greece and Rome. For, although even in our nation, we have universal principles that unite us in principle, we do not have a culture that unites us as a people; like that of the ancients. We need to promote a meta-culture that transcends white, black, hispanic, etc. Obviously the implementation of such a cultural change is not one that is simple, but at least we understand what needs to be done.

1. Morello, Carol. Poverty Rates Higher for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites and Asians. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/poverty-rates-higher-for-blacks-and-hispanics-than-whites-and-asians/2013/02/20/401e6a6e-7b78-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html.

2. Cooper, Alexia (2012). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. p. 3. ISBN 1249573246.

3. Kouzmin, Alexander (2012). State Crimes Against Democracy: Political Forensics in Public Affairs. p. 138. ISBN 1137286989.

4. Rushton, Phillipe J. and Jensen, Arthur J. Thirty Years of Research on Race: Differences in Cognitive Ability http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

5. Horgan, John. Should Research on Race and IQ be Banned? Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/16/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/

6. Markeley, Ben. Poverty on Trial: Does Poverty Cause Crime? http://blogs.jccc.edu/campusledger/2012/05/08/poverty-on-trial-does-poverty-cause-crime/

Scientific Realism part 1

I have debated and discussed this topic with many people and the issue always comes up of the burden of proof. For more often than not, many that claim to be materialists, and atheists in virtue of naturalism and materialism (although they never claim to be materialists-just atheists), suggest that if one believes in metaphysics, the afterlife, God and the like proclaim that the burden of proof lies with the metaphysician. This is due to what they say are superfluous claims that are not found in observation. In short, this sort of atheist suggests that their view of reality is an observed view, while the contrary one is based on fantasy and imagination. But is physicalism observed? I mean, does one 'observe' hydrogen? Does one 'observe' photosynthesis? Does one 'observe' gravitational orbits? The answer may surprise you. For the materialist atheist, the answer is yes. But he or she fails to realize that scientific descriptions are NOT observations. Observations are precisely those phenomena in our consciousness. Observations are 'things' we are aware of and nothing more. The moment we start to describe them as to understand them, we assign to them some grand vision of reality that helps us make sense of the whole of it and the things we experience. The sky overhead, the grass and soil below, the stars in motion, the swirling microscopic particles all succumb to our definitions of them which fit into a genera philosophie. In the strictest sense, observation is phenomenology. Terms we use to describe what we experience reduce it's raw nature to a palpable schematic. And so, the 'burden of proof' is no less in the hands of the metaphysician as the physician. When we say a person is a human being and a human being is a mammal and a mammal is a biological organism we are appealing to a taxonomy with a rather complex layered set of beliefs about the world. The metaphysician does not deny that people are mammals. But when the materialist states as such, he or she is not using the same taxonomic set of assumptions the metaphysician is. For the materialist assumes the mind emerges from biology while the metaphysician does not. But to stand on the 'burden of proof' in favor of the former is to suggest that biology is observed while souls are not; when neither are observed. One does not observe biology, one describes what one observes AS biological. And so does the one describe conscious states AS of the soul. So, let the atheist assume he or she has the higher rational ground to stand on. For in reality, we are all stuck in the cave forced to see shadows of things and describe them the best we can.

Ferguson

As to what happened in Ferguson, should we be surprised? This has been brewing for years, like a kettle of coffee spilling over. But what is to come? And even more, what is the cause of it all? These are tricky questions to answer, and personally I do not think anyone has an answer to them fully. However, if I were to guess, I would say that it perhaps has something to do with the way our culture has developed. We have seen the middle class shrink significantly. We have made no attempts at stabilizing our economy as to ensure economic equality, at least on a reasonable level. The race issue in our country has more to do with poverty than with anything in my view. Until we address these issues, we are doomed as a nation.

I am beginning to think that what we call Science is an uncritical, non-philosophized examination of experience. For modern Philosophy is nothing more than the Science of reality. Traditional Philosophy would tell us not 'what' something is, but 'how' we come to know anything at all, what we know, how we know it, whether we can know this or that and why we can and cannot know certain things. Not until these questions are answered can we proceed to a science about anything. But we have proceeded. We were far to antsy to get things done, we forgot why we were doing them in the first place and what we were doing it with. Science uses a fabric that it does not understand, but takes for granted it is of a certain sort and quality. Too many assumptions. That is all!

Sticks

He plays with his sticks day in and day out. In his bed, immobile and unassuming, he screams for food and beverage when they are needed. The whole time he plays with sticks, stacking them here and there sometimes, other times, waving them like a flag or some important signal for the pilot of a plane to see. But no one would ever have guessed there was an importance to these useless acts. The seemingly insignificant employment of play, of what we view as mindless leisure, could very well be the most important work of all. He sees something that needs to be done, that is all. And isn't that all that work is? And so, with every careful gesture that has no physical importance, we can be assured there is the utmost importance for Heaven or Faerie!

Untitled

I really dislike titles sometimes. So I didn't put one up. I won't even grace this post with a theme or anything like that. I don't even know why I am writing. I actually don't have anything to say really. Feeling rather visceral at the moment, chided and disdained. If any of you have something to say, by all means write something.

Mind

I would have to say that one of the most strikingly bizarre words that we use in the English language is ‘Mind.’ For one cannot go a whole day, or at least it would seem, to witness the term used in a variety of forms. “Are you out of your mind?” Is one example that represents its noun form. While, “do you mind?” Demonstrates the verb form. And yet, I am still confused as to what the word ‘Mind’ means. Oh sure, dictionaries and etymological entries presumably provide ample definitions and origins of the word, but upon a less cursory inspection, one will find all of these unsatisfactory. When used in the first sense it conjures up an image of some 1950’s sci-fi film with bulbous headed humanoid aliens using their super cerebral powers to control the thoughts of their victims. In the latter sense, however, one is tempted to think of a Victorian gentleman, wearing white gloves and a top hat, in mid conversation with an equally elegant audience of upper crust acquaintances saying something to the effect of “if you don’t mind my saying.” In short, the connotative meaning is no less enigmatic than the denotative one. If we cannot agree on a clearer definition and usage of the term ‘mind’ why then do we evaluate the quality of it so frequently? With a preoccupation on IQ tests and academic achievement, we think that Mind, whatever it is or does, can somehow be assessed by quality and quantity. Some minds are ‘bigger’ than others, storing warehouses of information in them. Others are valued by their speed and agility; almost like a cheetah or falcon. The ‘more’ they can store, or the quicker they can access information, they better they are. Popular TV shows depict ‘brainy’ figures of mental superiority confounding the ‘average’ or ‘substandard’ mind with physics’ data and mathematical formulas with the effect that their minds are somehow better than others. And aside from the fact that we cannot ‘count’ the items in a mind, or stand next to the track where minds race and measure their quickness with a stopwatch, we are confident that we have some legitimate means of appraising minds. And yet, all of this fails to address mind in the second sense; as in a verb. A towering intellectual will no doubt be proud of his or her capabilities. But what if others were to ‘mind’ the way he or she acted in public or in private? And even more, what of those that were ‘mindful’ of his or her misbehavior? Is it not possible that those renouncing the intellectual’s conduct be somehow his or her intellectual inferior? Wouldn’t this present the puzzling dilemma of an inferior being at the same time one’s superior? After all, Heracles once fooled the great Atlas, possessing the intellect of a titan, into taking the burden of the world back as to adjust his garment. And Zeus’ infidelity was condemned for centuries by mortal men whose noggins could hardly contain an infinitesimal fraction of the knowledge of a god. Here is a suggestion, and a humble one at that. I propose that we approach the term with the same sense of syntactic apathy as we do with terms like ‘Love’ or ‘Beauty.’ We always accept the more liberal interpretation of these words and their meaning, and so why can’t we do the same with ‘Mind?’ Certainly we could hold out for a definitive and precise sense of the term, but it would seem we would end up in a Platonic cave listening to lectures by a two and a half thousand year old echo of speeches by Socrates. For just as ‘Love’ is nothing more than the affection and passions we have which translate into personal commitments to others and Life matters themselves (and ‘Beauty’ being in the eye of the proverbial beholder), then I see no reason we cannot be content with what ‘Mind’ in general is considered; that which brings things to, and maintains for us, the knowledge we have-tacitly or otherwise; an immeasurable non-quantifiable knowledge only qualified by the conscious awareness of the reality surrounding a person. That is my opinion; that is, if you don’t mind my saying so.

Grammar

Also, I would like to make a note on grammar. I get this a lot, whether it is due to my own atrocious grammatical habits or not. But it usually comes from the same individuals. And yet, they have so few original ideas, although they follow the arbitrary and quite frankly ambiguous at times rules of grammar to a 'T.' An idea or a thought is not necessarily clarified by grammar. And at times if one is too busy focusing on 'how' they express themselves or a thought that has come to them, the very framework of language that they worship like some silly god with a fruit headdress, the content they compose suffers greatly. It would be like worrying about the soundness of a container so much so that the ingredients one puts in the punch is just grabbed willy-nilly while the conjurer is looking over the pitcher with the greatest of care. I don't know about you, but if my container leaks a little, it is far better than too much sugar or some accidental ingredient, such as salt or oregano, thrown in which will ruin the beverage altogether. And so, to the grammar nazis that elevate themselves to some educational god-like status or some pedagogical linguistic, I say focus more on what you put in the paragraph or sentence more than how the sentence is structured based on some rules that emerge spontaneously.

We read to know that we are not alone

I wonder why I write, or what the point in writing is. Can I call myself a writer? What can I call myself? By my name, the one my parents named me before getting to know 'who' I was? It was a loaded name, stuffed with their own hopes, dreams and vicarious aspirations for a baby. I really don't know. I am reminded of the movie 'Shadowlands' the story of the great author (back in a time when far more people read I would suspect) C. S. Lewis. In the film, which no doubt is a dramatization and certainly does not retell the literal event I am referring to, one of Lewis' regularly tardy pupils in college tells the story of his father and his view on reading. He stated that 'we read to know that we are not alone.' Again I am sure this did not come from the mind of Lewis or one of his actual pupils. And perhaps I am too hard on screenwriters whom I regard as not even third rate writers. But in this case, the writer hit a very deep and profound vein of truth or at least of pondering. But is it true? I don't know. But if it were, I would like to know the company we are keeping and on what basis we are 'knowing' we are not alone.

A review of "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience"; Authors Sally L. Satel, Scott O. Lilienfeld Publisher Basic Books, 2013

In the past few decades there has been a growing enthusiasm in the field of Neuroscience. This passionate optimism is fueled by a body of research made available through more recent technological advances in brain observation and measurements of brain functions. However, in spite of these magnificent developments, authors Sally L. Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld, in their book “Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience,” highlight those they characterize as over-zealous neuroscientists and the misguided conclusions, and industry, it has inspired. The book begins with an overview of theories on the brain and how brain states are related to mental states. It admits the challenges of the ‘hard-problem’ in Philosophy of Mind, but boldly proclaims that consciousness and mental states cannot exist without a brain. But, there is a tendency, Satel and Lilienfeld argue, in light of some modern neuroscientists, to identify specific regions of the brain as not only being responsible for various mental states, but of their being identical to them; a throwback to the failings of Identity Theory. And while Satel and Lilienfeld do not advocate for any sort of dualism, they remind their readers that at certain levels there are Biological, or in this case neural, systems that present undeniable distinctions between Neurology and Psychology. Satel and Lilienfeld eloquently describe modern brain scans by which data are collected to identify ‘hot spots,’ areas of the brain involved in an oxygen depletion process calculated by certain statistical data, through the use of fMRI and PED scans as well as EEG’s. This intricate and laborious process, while clearly expanding our understanding of how the brain works, is perhaps, as Satel and Lilienfeld have found, not as effective in predicting and identifying many functions and maladies of the mental. Chapters on psychological conditions and the justice system suggest that this new Neuroscience, or ‘junk’ Neuroscience, seeks to take the blame of crime, addiction and other volitional acts away from individual responsibility and shift it to nothing more than brain chemistry. The authors however caution their readers from ignoring the significance of brain chemistry and its role in our behavior and personalities. But even still quite often the findings are a result of what they refer to as ‘neuro redundancy;’ data that reveal what one already knows through either personal experience or the psychological fields of research. Even more, the book illustrates how the use of brain scans in marketing, referred to here as ‘neuro marketing,’ promises far more than can be delivered. In spite of a sober analysis of what they term ‘neuro realism,’ a naïve perspective on the data collected from Neurology akin to Naïve Realism in Epistemology, Satel and Lilienfeld certainly adopt a rather controversial view on consciousness. Their insistence that conscious states cannot exist without a brain, and their treatment of the causal relationship between mental states and brain states, smacks of an uncritical acceptance of Biological Emergentism. Despite these minor criticisms of this work, “Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience,” by Sally L. Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld, offers an availing expose on the recklessly radical conclusions of Naïve Neuroscience and what must be addressed to maintain a comprehensive, sensible and constrained Modern Neuroscience.

Well...

...It's safe to say no one reads my blog so fortunately I can say what I wish without offending anyone. With that said, how I am feeling right now is inspired by that discontent which rises out of confusion and mistrust of people's judgments and sentiments; why is it so hard to say, I don't know? But even more than this, to succumb to that typical and almost fashionable agnosticism, there seems to be something we know. I mean we know enough to make a statement that we don't know. So maybe, just maybe, what we do know is nothing more than that which is impractical and useless. For if it were practical, all of the practical people would be right all the time. But they are already insufferably arrogant and annoying about their skills and abilities. So that won't do. And besides, practicality assumes some practice. And a practice furthermore assumes something to practice. And having something to practice assumes some reason to practice. And it is this last condition which I have problems with. For reason or purpose are not evident at all. One can not see purpose or reason anywhere in the world. And this goes for usefulness and utility. For this assumes as well that there is a reason to utilize something. And likewise this reason is not present anywhere. Therefore knowledge of anything would be of a sort that we cannot see. And what we cannot see is of a different sort of anything in this world. And so, we can only know of that which exists in a different or separate world from which we live. And I don't mean planet or cosmological location. No! Literally a different world of experience that stands outside of atoms, forces, vacuous outer space and the like. Another world, like that of what we read in myth and fairy tales and religious texts of Heaven. These are the only content of knowledge we can have. And should we be surprised?

What to do

Sitting here thinking of my prospects, they seem rather grim indeed. Firstly, I see no way in which I can make a living in this modern world. For all that are useful are laborers that are squeezed into boxed warehouses, opening up boxes and taping them up again like some Sisyphus exercise. Or some second rate babysitter at schools, being reminded how poorly I perform those functions. Misery, absolute misery everywhere. The only way to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune is through drugs. And if you can't take them, then you are forced to bear the misery. Or perhaps its better to simply die. I don't get why we have to work, not only so hard, but at tasks that make our existence more miserable than what they are. It would be better if the upper classes would simply exterminate us so that we needn't continue with it all. Just really tired and see no other way out. But I will continue on, yet I know that the only way out is through death.

Science

I am so tired of hearing everyone talk about Science. This behemoth of knowledge, skill, intelligence and wonder, what is it? Is it the magic wand that with the flick of a wrist will wipe away all of our sorrows and produce everything we could desire? Is it some mystery that uncovered answers all of our questions, including the ones that wake us up in the middle of the night wondering why we exist and what will become of us? When anything questions its methods, it is immediately dismissed as unintelligent, uneducated and plain stupid. But like the suspect in the old Agatha Christie novels, if it were on a solid foundation, why act so defensive and suspicious about it? Why react so violently towards any criticism of it? I begin to wonder if it is a belief system or what I had always thought it was, a system of understanding the natural world through inductive reasoning, testability and empirical measurements. I guess I would like to know that if it is the only reliable means of knowing anything, why we don't rely on it to answer questions that mean the most to us; like about Love, about Art and Beauty and what logic?

Wonder

I wonder sometimes what is the meaning of things. It seems that within the past few years I have been weighed down with depression and grief. I think it has to do with my children and the struggles they go through. But even more than this, it has to do with their uncertain future. I suppose the future is the one thing I fear the most. And in fact the fear of it paradoxically hastens it even more. I want to see the wonder and the awe that Joey sees. I want to feel the excitement that Sammy feels. These elude me and I am left wondering where they are. But am I to suppose that they don't exist at all? Am I to just throw up my hands at the whole matter and agnostically deny all that seems reasonable? It is the true the senses are missing something and there are only two options, or two alternatives: One, it is just the way our brains function or two, there is something missing that we are aware of that exists but is not visible to the senses? If it is the former, then it would seem that our brain relaying information to us and creating information for us would be indistinguishable. Looking at the brain as some organ we can analyze seems contradictory from the perspective that we are using our brains to know our brains. And so, it would seem to me that embracing metaphysics, the soul, the spirit and God is far more rational. But, then again I still wonder how it will all turn out. I just want to hide in my mind and be embraced by God, by a Tom Bombadil.

Debating

I have grown rather tired of debating with people. I find that most I engage in discussions either use too many ad hominems or I find myself defending myself or my views as opposed as attacking them. I don't know it just really depresses me when I think about it. It makes me sad as well. And I think it has something to do with the fact that I look down on myself so much in an attempt at avoiding criticism. I just can't take it when it comes to a personal criticism. I already feel like pond scum most of the time. I am a financial mess, I hate to work-not because I am lazy but social anxiety and my views on capitalism cause a great deal of tension-and so many other reasons...by my fay I cannot reason right now and just wish to be left alone...like forever...