Dream

I had a dream vivid enough that I remember having a dream. There has been quite a long time since that happened.

I remember it being very detailed. Now I can only recall bits and pieces.

Being on a hillside, wearing something like my dead cowboy staple costume that limits my peripheral vision. Possibly sans eyeglasses. Seeing a car pull-up. It is supposed to be dark, but it is more of that 70's television dark with sharp shadows.

I was looking around quickly as if anticipating something, when I notice a looming shadow, meaning something large and probably menacing is behind me, further up the hill.

I think I was supposed to be scared but I recall being annoyed and thinking: "Great, now I have to fight this, whatever it is..."

Dreams sure are weird.

Athlete, am I?

Sometimes my mental definition does not seem to match a reality. Recently on Shoe's blog he announced that he had been an Athlete in High School. I recall thinking it would have been cool to have done that.

This totally disregards my two years on the swim team. Also, the countless hours playing little league baseball, skating, fencing and playing roller hockey. So what exactly is\was my definition? The more I thought about it the more I found I did not have a real definition, I just knew that it was not me.

Connor with special Olympics he is a recognized athlete. I recently ran a 10K. wouldn't that qualify?

So running down the definition: a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.

Well I was trained in baseball, water polo and roller hockey. Those are sports. I have not done any of these activities in six years or so... Roller skating in and of itself is not a sport, although there are sports that require skating, it is not a game. Running is a sport and an activity.

I can easily say I am athletic... is that the same thing?

Time Travel

After warning us against contacting alien civilizations Stephen Hawkings says we can travel forward in time. Which is great considering we are now travelling in time...

I mean look at the clock. Now look again. Time has moved forward with you!

Okay, okay... What he is saying is that if you're on something that travels 98% the speed of light, time will pass slower. As Einstein theorized “as objects accelerate through space, the rate at which time passes for them slows down”. So a day on board the something would be equal to a year on Earth which will push them forward in time.

He goes onto say that travelling backwards in time is RIGHT OUT! Which is a good thing because of all the mess it could cause stopping new Time Travelers from going back and stopping Hitler...

As a Science Fiction junkie I always enjoy time travel speculation. My favorite essay on the subject was by Larry Niven: "The Theory and Practice of Time Travel" that appears in All the Myriad Ways.

This essay looks at the implications of time travel, particularly at the grandfather paradox:

"NIVEN'S LAW: IF THE UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE PERMITS THE POSSIBILITY OF TIME TRAVEL AND OF CHANGING THE PAST, THEN NO TIME MACHINE WILL BE INVENTED IN THAT UNIVERSE." Thus all possible time paradoxes are evaded.

He further challenges conceptions of time travel: "If time travel is so manifestly impossible, why does every good and bad science fiction writer want to write a new, fresh time travel story?"

My favorite TV series, Doctor Who. Is all about time travel and it avoids most of the pitfalls by just never delving into the paradox other then saying it is a paradox and just go with the flow.

Suspension of disbelief is a powerful thing.

Why exactly?

Someone recently commented on Facebook that they hated poor people. The assertion is this person is fiscally well off and should be demonized. Why exactly?

Hate itself is a problem: 1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing.

Hatred is irrational most of the time, so I can see questioning the rational behind the above loathing. How different is I hate poor people from I hate people?

Do I have intense hostility for the tall person sitting in front of me at the theater? Maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine. Not sure.

If you hate something, surely you want less of that something around. Juxtapose Loveing something you would want more. So if you hate poor people you would want less poor people around. I would venture to guess many poor people would like to move up and out of that tax bracket. If not, state lotteries would not do nearly so well.

If you love poor people you would want more and more of them. Hmmm, maybe this explains the liberal mindset?

Pondering Insurance

I wonder if you can get rid of the pre-existing conditions for life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance etc?

Solving the Worlds problems

Periodically the topic of a conversation will orbit around solving the worlds problems. The notion is that the world is bad and overall people are sheepish and dullards. If only they would adopt a certain mindset etc. life would be come utopia.

Childhood Obesity is one of those "save the world" issues, that everyone has a good idea about how to fix.

The problem is that someone took a couple of surveys (1976–1980 and 2003–2006) that show that the prevalence of obesity has increased: for children aged 2–5 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 12.4%; for those aged 6–11 years, prevalence increased from 6.5% to 17.0%; and for those aged 12–19 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 17.6%.1, 46

This was reported in the media with their typical doom and gloom flourish, that makes you wring your hands in worry and shame. Of course there is a spin on this that points badly at the lifestyle in the USA. Fast food, video games, bad parents, processed foods, not enough tax dollars etc.

When solving the worlds problem conversations crop up there is usually a chorus of "someone should do something!"

It occurs that the problem could be the survey, if we stopped taking surveys....?

Better TV

I am a fan of Television that does more then just fascinate by glowing.

Ghost in the Shell deals with complex subjects indirectly that really push the concept of self, I really enjoy the show.

It revolves around a law enforcement division, Section Nine, that deals with terrorism, international intrigue and gristly homicide (this is NOT Pokemon).

This world has developed all encompassing technology including cybernetic bodies. The main character, the Major, (pictured) was a total cybernetic transplant. In other words, they uploaded her mind into an artificial body.

This is where the entire concept of self is put on its head. Is the person you are a set of data? While an organ like the brain is something so miraculous, duplication is highly improbable, we have seen such wonderful advances in computer science that make conception of an artificial brain believable in context.

So assuming that a complete replacement for a human brain function is possible. What does that mean for individualism? Spiritualism? Self and soul?

It can be quite the conundrum as a thought experiment as we know data can be duplicated and stored.

Freedom Demolition

At one point in time I was talking to a friend about firearm purchases. His contention was anyone who owned a firearm was a danger to society. Recently I was reading about certain TV sets being banned in California. The phrase "Why would anyone buy something like that?" popped into my mind. That question, in one context, is perfectly reasonable. In another context, one dealing with banning or regulation, is the elimination of freedoms.

Are there certain things a person should not be able to buy? Sure, weapons grade plutonium, for instance. The line that gets drawn is a slippery slope fraught with peril.

One of the channels on the TV played Demolition man, and it had a bit more social commentary then I had given credit. Given the current administrations perchance for regulation and neologisms.

Napolitano preferred the euphemism Man-Made disaster in place of Terrorist Attack. Iin the film: homicide is referred to as a "non-sanctioned life termination" and as "Murder Death Kill" or "MDK". The loosening of decency standards depicted is more of a conservative bent then liberal. A violation of the Verbal Morality Statute, is punishable by police reprimand or a fine. In liberal fashion though, the fine is automatically deducted from a citizen's finances.

Then the government control of media in that the favorite songs of the time are old 20th-century commercial jingles (kid oriented ones) and many words have gained redundant, childish repetitions: to be happy is to experience "joy-joy" feelings. Which bodes of the nanny state.

Then comes the crux. It is explained that anything "not good for you" is deemed "bad" and therefore illegal, including alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, non-educational toys, meat, spicy and unhealthy food, table salt and tobacco (sound familier?). Firearms can only be seen in museums (Gun Control!). Physical contact was recognized as causing the spread of disease and is now seen as unusual (This is enforced in Elementary school). Even high-fives have been replaced with energetic waving. Procreation is carried out in a laboratory (Heavily regulated no doubt); abortion is illegal, but so is unlicensed pregnancy. I can see Nancy Pelosi salivating at the prospect!

I ponder why it is those elected to 'represent us' sometimes feel the need to "protect us from ourselves?"

Thoughts about a 2000 year old thought.

The Myth of the Brilliant Amateur Outsider is customarily rejected by our culture when it comes to the sciences:

and eagerly and credulously believed by our culture when it comes to philosophy and theology. So, as a general rule, we don't just drop everything and say, "Wow! Centuries of science are overturned by some guy with a website who claims to have proven geocentrism, or young earth creationism!"

But the world swarms with people who seriously believe that the Catholic Church has never given any thought at all to questions like "How could Mary be sinless in light of Romans 3:23?" or "Trinitarianism is strange and mysterious. Why believe it?" or "But the Eucharist tastes just like bread and wine. How could anybody think it is the Body and Blood of Christ?" The fetching naive innocence of those who imagine they have dared to ask the Hard Questions The Church is Afraid to Face is charming

Thanks to Mark P. Shea

Of Animals.

Defining hypocrisy when it comes to animals can be quite confusing.

First off I am a Vegetarian, for a number of reasons. My personal view is it is a choice and not one that should be forced upon anyone, nor do I think it is superior, other then certain health related aspects when compared to other dietary choices. I do enjoy knowing the positive oblique benefits from my choice. That being said...

A dog being killed (ala Michael Vick). Is ville and horrible. Unless your in Japan where this is legal entertainment. Butchering a horse, is lauded. Yet both Horse and Dog are protein sources in many countries. Pigs are pets and food simultaneously, we do not seem to care about pigs in the same way we do Dogs. Dolphins are highly intelligent and Food in Japan and used to be included in Tuna cans.

So where is the line drawn?

If you travel around the world you find culture's go from eating anything that moves to worshiping animals as sacred. Clearly this is a huge grey area morally and ethically.

In meat production in the USA has difference in Factory Farming to Hunting in the wild. I know hunters who will not buy meat in the store they only eat elk or venison. There is a claim that it is superior and more healthful. One hunter was telling me this over a bucket of Kentucky fried.

How important is animal suffering? This day and age do people really want to know where the food comes from (hint, it does not JUST come from the supermarket). Or is it enough that it is a short trip away? Is there a hypocrisy of ignorance?

Let us take the case of the Vegan Peta member, who is protesting any harm coming to any animal. First off if they own anything made of Leather, you have a case of hypocrisy. Set that notion aside for a moment and say they are consistent in protest message and lifestyle. Let us further say they are a spokes person and equate meat consumption with rape.

That is a pretty hard line harsh line.

Natalie Portman is the person I described above. Her hypocrisy? Supporting Roman Polanski.

Chasing Corporations Out Of The U.S.

This was a disturbing read for me.

"But it is not just taxation that is chasing corporations out of America. Another top consideration is access to talent. The U.S. now spends more per capita on public education than any other OECD country, but its students test in the bottom decile."

"A culture that turns a blind eye to government failure, but is quick and unrelenting to blame society's ills on business, will naturally and subliminally embrace socialist solutions. The problem is that when one intervention fails, the government attempts to fix its errors with yet more intervention"

As taxes become more punitive for the rich, those who can will relocate to a more hospitable local. A liberal blogger I know, when confronted with this stated that "The rich will not leave the US, they never had it so good."

This is not the world of the 1950's and 1960's. Well educated workforce's are luring businesses to their locations in a siren song of business friendly government. Our administration seems content with pressing forward with the idea that business needs to earn less and pay more to the government and workforce.

Everything has a price. Every choice has repercussions.

In a large group meeting, at a previous employer of mine. One of management was asking the crowd "What is it you want?" in my typical clownish style shouted anonymously "More Pay for less work." Which got a laugh and the management response of "Me too!"

Talk about human nature in action. If you took a paper and pencil out right now and started a list of things that you should be doing around your home. I am pretty sure that list would grow a life of its own as each item conjured up another. If you were to do the same exercise three months later, I bet you will list many of the same things.

As a thought experiment, what if you were to assign some compensation to the top five items on the list, a reward, if you will...

Human nature.

Ponderance

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then where is the extraordinary evidence that matter could be ex nihilo - out of nothing.

The beginning of a school year is an appropriate time to question how our schools propose to teach our children.

Today's educators, observing widespread self-doubt and despair among the young, believe that the way to get a student to learn is to inflate his self-image. They believe that the curriculum should be designed, in the words of a resolution from the National Education Association, to "foster positive self-esteem."

There is indeed a lack of self-esteem among our students. The real tragedy, though, is that the educators' irrational view of "positive self-esteem" not only prevents a solution to this problem--but is itself the very cause.

Educators believe that self-esteem can be achieved by simply encouraging a child to "feel good" about himself. They continually exhort students to praise themselves--to praise themselves causelessly--by such means as chanting in class: "I am me and I am enough."

The objective reality of the child's life--the choices he makes, the thinking he engages in, the effort he exerts, the actions he takes--is disregarded. As one guidebook on self-esteem explains: "Children have the right to feel good about themselves exactly as they are. . . . A child's value is unconditional. Nothing the child does, says or chooses can change it."

Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you--by your choices, effort and actions--have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction--based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning--that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success.

Since it is only through rational thought and action that one develops the ability to cope with reality, self-esteem results from an individual's commitment to reason. A rational, productive person will possess self-esteem; a drug-addicted bum will not.

But in the view of our Dewey-inspired educators, logic is a "straitjacket." Students are taught by "progressive" educators that there are no rigid principles in life, and that emotion, not reason, is one's link to reality. Thus, if a child is somehow made to feel good about himself, he is good--irrespective of whether there exists any objective basis for that conclusion.

Of course this approach cannot work. A child who makes bad choices--who does not think but drifts in class, who shuts down his mind at the first sign of difficulty, who heads for the mall instead of exerting the effort that learning requires--will not acquire self-esteem. Constantly getting the answers wrong in class and feeling bewildered by the world outside, such a child experiences only uncertainty, helplessness and self-doubt.

How then will educators make him "feel good" about himself? By attempting to obliterate any facts that lead him to a negative estimate of himself. Accordingly, they teach him that there are never any wrong answers.

This is what gives rise to such nightmarish phenomena as inventive spelling, whereby a fourth-grader who spells "favorite" as "fffifit" is lauded by the teacher for expressing a "creative feeling." This viewpoint infects even the most objective of disciplines, mathematics. One educator explains the root of a girl's errors in mathematics: "She was trying to get these problems right. The alternative was to get them wrong. . . . So this is a situation within the win-lose world in which there's no way the child can feel good about the assignment."

Erase the concept of truth--these educators maintain--and a child will never discover that he is thinking or acting wrongly. If he is taught that anything he does is right because he feels it, he will always "feel good" about himself. For this reason a Minnesota Education Association's guide to self-esteem tells students: "Express your beliefs . . . as your point of view--not as the 'truth.'"

Today's child lacks self-esteem precisely because modern educators encourage him to dispense with his mind, and to indulge his feelings. Self-doubt is the inevitable result, as the child realizes that he lacks the tool by which to comprehend reality.

Yet, to solve the problem they themselves have created, educators propose to continue the same anti-reason, emotionalist approach to teaching.

There is certainly a crisis of self-esteem among America's students. But don't look to the modern pushers of pseudo self-esteem for the remedy. Their ideas are the disease.

thanks to Dr. Ghate

Mary's room

I came across a thought experiment called Mary's Room. This could be one of those things were I am the last one on planet earth to hear about it, nontheless here it is:

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

More info can be found here.