Saturday, March 21, 2009

SPEAK OUT AGAINST UN BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION, OTHER "SPECIAL RIGHTS" FOR RELIGION!

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
http://www.atheists.org

PLEASE SHARE THIS UPDATE WITH OTHERS!

SPEAK OUT AGAINST UN BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION, OTHER

"SPECIAL RIGHTS" FOR RELIGION!


Join us Saturday, March 28, 2009 at United Nations for Free Speech demo...

ATHEISTS, SECULARISTS and anyone else concerned with freedom of speech is invited to a peaceful protest/picket next Saturday, March 28, 2009 at Dag Hammarsjold Plaza adjacent to the United Nations building in New York City.

The demo -- sponsored jointly by American Atheists and New York City Atheists -- protests a recent non-binding resolution passed by the UN General Assembly to combat "blasphemy" and any other verbal or printed comments unflattering to religious superstition and movements. The resolution was enacted at the behest of Pakistan, and enjoys widespread support from Islamist regimes in the Middle East. Many Christian, Jewish and other religious establishments, though, support the intent of the resolution, and want governments to insulate them from
"insulting" or "hateful" remarks.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, told reporters recently that religion must not be given "special rights" from criticism. "We're for free speech," said Buckner. "Religious groups and beliefs must not be 'protected' at the expense of our First Amendment rights."

Secularists throughout the world are speaking out against this dangerous resolution!

JOIN AMERICAN ATHEISTS and the NEW YORK CITY ATHEISTS for a peaceful
protest outside the United Nations Building on Saturday, March 28, 2009 from 11:00 - 3:00 PM at Dag Hammarsjold Plaza, 46/47th St. and First Avenue.

* GETTING THERE ...

From Penn Station on 34th St. take M34 bus east to 1st. Avenue, then take M15 north to 43rd. St.

From Port Authority Bus Station on 42nd. St., take M42 bus east to First Avenue, then walk north three blocks.

From Grand Central Terminal on 42nd. St., M42 bus east to First Avenue, then walk north three blocks.

* WHAT TO WEAR...

Check weather forecast, dress appropriately.

* WHAT TO BRING...

Picket signs will be provided, or bring your own. If choosing the latter, please make them appropriate to the free-speech theme of this peaceful demonstration. NYC rules ban having signs or banners on poles.

* AFTER THE DEMO...

There will be an informal social get together (on your own) after the demo.

* UPDATES AND FURTHER INFORMATION ...

Watch for updates. We are still in the approval process for this demonstration, so there may be changes! Visit http://www.nyc-atheists.org or http://www.atheists.org for current Action Alerts; or contact Ken Bronstein at NYCA through 212-535-7425.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE...

* ED BUCKNER, President of American Atheists
* KEN BRONSTEIN, President of New York City Atheists
* DAVE SILVERMAN, Communications Director, AA

WHO & WHAT: All Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and anyone else concerned about free speech and the current UN resolution on "blasphemy."

WHERE: Outside the United Nations Building, at Dag Hammarsjold Plaza, 46/47th St. and First Avenue.

WHEN: Saturday, March 28, 2009 from 11:00 - 3:00 PM

MORE INFO: Visit http://www.nyc-atheists.org o http://www.atheists.org for current Action Alerts; or contact Ken Bronstein at NYCA through 212-535-7425.

PLEASE SHARE THIS UPDATE WITH OTHERS!

(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)

--
--
Larry Mundinger (aa#451) American Atheists Internet Representative
<http://www.atheists.org/>
<http://www.americanatheist.org/>

<http://www.atheistviewpoint.tv/>

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Rejecting Pareidolia

My mind is inclin'd to give meaning,
and think a rock a cake, for survival's sake

Much of reality confuses, and threatens to blow fuses,
in my brain, and give pain, so it strives simply to remain unslain.

The noble lie of shutting my eye,
is good for those, who don't bother to suppose,

But for me, curiosity is glee,
and deceiving myself: not an option

Elf and faerie may actually be,
flying the Earth around, in a teapot unfound

So I must be picky and choose (win or lose),
what I accept, in regards to concept

Is evidence such a big fence,
against that which is proposed?

Does asking for proof, make me aloof?

You may say that faith is the way, and my mind holds me at bay,
but even if you can say it, can you show it?

by Drafterman of AvC


Sunday, March 15, 2009

Sam Harris : The Reason Project

Friends and Readers -

We are happy to say that the advisory board of The Reason Project now includes some of the most talented and committed secularists to be found anywhere--and more are on their way.

While it will probably be two months before we launch The Reason Project website, we are now faced with the task of building a large archive of online resources. To facilitate this process, we are hoping to create a network of volunteer editors. If any of you would like to become part of this network--by submitting links to good articles, websites, or videos--your help would be greatly appreciated at this stage.

For those who want to make a submission, please review the content and style guidelines at the following link:

http://www.reasonproject.org/submissions

For the moment, we are only looking for volunteers to collect archive materials, but there will undoubtedly be many other opportunities to contribute to the Reason Project in the future. Our website will provide more information about such opportunities as they arise as well as ways for you to network with like-minded people in your own community.

Best,

Sam and Annaka Harris

http://www.reasonproject.org


The Reason Project Advisory Board

Clifford S. Asness is the Managing and Founding Principal of AQR Capital Management which manages assets for some of the largest institutional investors from the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to starting his own firm, Mr. Asness was Managing Director and Director of the Quantitative Research Group at Goldman Sachs. He has received numerous awards for his economic research and serves on the editorial boards of several economic journals. Mr. Asness is also an Overseer for the International Rescue Committee and on the Robin Hood Foundation’s Leadership Council.

Peter Atkins is Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, Fellow of Lincoln College. He is the author of nearly sixty books, including Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science; Four Laws that Drive the Universe; and the world-renowned textbook Physical Chemistry. He has been a visiting professor in France, Israel, New Zealand, China, and Japan, and continues to lecture widely throughout the world.

Jerry Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, where he works on diverse areas of evolutionary genetics. The main focus of his laboratory is on the original problem raised by Darwin — the origin of species — and on understanding this process through the genetic patterns it produces. He has authored over one hundred scientific papers and regularly writes essays and opinion pieces for the popular press, including The Guardian, The New Republic, The New York Times Book Review, and The Time Literary Supplement. He is the author (with H. Allen Orr) of Speciation. Mr. Coyne was elected to the American Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain’s leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” for 2007. Among his books are The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The Ancestor’s Tale, and the New York Times best seller The God Delusion.

Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He is the author of Breaking the Spell, Freedom Evolves, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Consciousness Explained, and many other books. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987.

Brent Forrester is an Emmy Award-winning television writer. He has written for The Ben Stiller Show, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Late Night with Conan O’Brien, and is currently a writer and producer for The Office.

Rebecca Goldstein is a philosopher and novelist. She is the author of eight books, including, The Mind-Body Problem, Properties of Light, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, and Betraying Spinoza. In 1996 Goldstein received a MacArthur Fellowship (popularly known as the “Genius Award”). In 2005 she was elected to The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2006 she received a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Radcliffe Fellowship. Goldstein holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was named one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” and Reader’s Digest’s European of the Year for 2005. She is the author of The Caged Virgin and the New York Times best selling memoir Infidel. Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia where she escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992. She later served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. Ms. Hirsi Ali continues to speak and write about the importance of freedom of speech, the need to reform Islam, and the rights of women.

Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist, and literary critic. He regularly writes for Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, The Nation, Slate, The New York Times Book Review, Free Inquiry, and a variety of other journals. He is the author of the #1 New York Times best seller God is Not Great (a finalist for the 2007 National Book Award). He has also written Why Orwell Matters, Letter to a Young Contrarian, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and many other books. In 2005 Mr. Hitchens was named one of the world’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines.

Harold Kroto is Chairman of the Board of the Vega Science Trust, a UK educational charity that produces science programs for television. He is a fellow of the Royal Society and in 1996 shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley for the discovery of a new form of carbon, the C60 Buckminsterfullerene. He has received the Royal Society’s prestigious Michael Faraday Award, given annually to a scientist who has done the most to further public communication of science, engineering or technology in the United Kingdom.

Bill Maher is one of the most politically astute comedians in America today, entertaining millions though his television series “Politically Incorrect” (Comedy Central and ABC), “Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO), sold-out comedy tours, and hour-long specials on HBO. Maher is also the author of several bestselling books including, New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer. He has received numerous Emmy, Tony, and Grammy nominations for his work. Currently, Mr. Maher is in production on a documentary that will take a deep look at the presence of religion in some of the major news stories in recent years and religion’s effect on society as a whole.

Ian McEwan is a writer of worldwide critical acclaim. He won the Somerset Maugham Award in 1976 for his first collection of short stories First Love, Last Rites; the Whitbread Novel Award (1987) and the Prix Fémina Etranger (1993) for The Child in Time; and Germany’s Shakespeare Prize in 1999. He has been shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize for Fiction numerous times, winning the award for Amsterdam in 1998. His novel Atonement received the WH Smith Literary Award (2002), National Book Critics’ Circle Fiction Award (2003), Los Angeles Times Prize for Fiction (2003), and the Santiago Prize for the European Novel (2004). He was awarded a CBE in 2000. In 2006, he won the James Tait Black Memorial Prize for his novel Saturday.

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and Slate, and is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Mr. Pinker was named one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” in 2004.

Salman Rushdie won the Booker Prize for Fiction for his second novel, Midnight’s Children. In 1993 the book was judged to have been the ‘Booker of Bookers’, the best novel to have won the Booker Prize for Fiction in the award’s 25-year history. Rushdie’s third novel, Shame (1983) won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger and was shortlisted for the Booker Prize as well. The publication in 1988 of his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, lead to accusations of blasphemy against Islam and demonstrations by Islamist groups in India and Pakistan. The orthodox Iranian leadership issued a fatwa against Rushdie on 14 February 1989, and he was forced into hiding under the protection of the British government and police. The Satanic Verses won the Whitbread Novel Award in 1988. Mr. Rushdie is the author of many novels and works of criticism. He is Honorary Professor in the Humanities at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He has received numerous awards and eight honorary doctorates. He was elected to the Board of American PEN in 2002.

Lee M. Silver is Professor at Princeton University in the Department of Molecular Biology and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He received a doctorate in biophysics from Harvard University and trained at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He is the author of Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality; Remaking Eden; and Mouse Genetics. He has published 180 articles in the fields genetics, evolution, reproduction, embryology, computer modeling, and behavioral science, and other scholarly papers on topics at the interface between biotechnology, law, ethics, and religion.

Ibn Warraq is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry specializing in Koranic criticism. In 1996 he published the groundbreaking work, Why I am not a Muslim. He went on to edit a serious of anthologies: What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary; The Quest for the Historical Muhammed; The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book; Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out; and Which Koran? Variants, Manuscripts, and the Influence of Pre-Islamic Poetry. His latest book is Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism.

Steven Weinberg holds the Josey Regental Chair in Science at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is a member of the Physics and Astronomy Departments. His research on elementary particles and cosmology has been honored with numerous prizes and awards, including in 1979 the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1991 the National Medal of Science. In 2004 he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, with a citation that said he is “considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive in the world today.” He has been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences and Britain’s Royal Society, as well as to the American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the author of over 300 articles on elementary particle physics. His books include The First Three Minutes (1977); The Discovery of Subatomic Particles (1983, 2003); Elementary Particles and The Laws of Physics (with R.P. Feynman) (1987); Dreams of a Final Theory—The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature (1993); a trilogy, The Quantum Theory of Fields (1995, 1996, 2000); Facing Up --- Science and its Cultural Adversaries (2002); and most recently Glory and Terror—The Growing Nuclear Danger (2004). Articles of his on various subjects appear from time to time in The New York Review of Books. He has served as consultant at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the JASON group of defense consultants, and many other boards and committees.


Guidelines for Editors of The Reason Project Archive

1. Please avoid material that is too topical or trivial. There will be a daily newsfeed on the website covering recent intrusions of religion into politics, etc. For the archive, we are looking for material that will stand the test of time: the best examples of critical thinking, rational ethics, etc. (think Darwin, Twain, Russell, Orwell, Sagan, Dawkins, etc.) For videos, we want quality documentary footage, or great (and relevant) comedy. We are hoping to dig very deep here and quickly gather a lifetime's worth of fine reading and viewing.

2. Please submit all articles in the following form: Author (Date). Title. Periodical. Followed by URL. For example:

Pinker, S. (2008, January 13). The Moral Instinct. The New York Times Magazine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... ker&st=nyt

3. Please submit all videos with an appropriate title and the link to YouTube, Google Video, etc. For example:

Ricky Gervais - The Bible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I

4. Please submit all websites with the name of the organization and the link. For example:

The Middle East Media Research Institute

http://www.memri.org/

5. Please include at least one (perhaps several) key words with each submission. For instance: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Eastern Religion, Religion and Politics, Science, Ethics, Comedy, Cults and New Religions, Hall of Shame*. And, once again, please keep your standards of quality and relevance high.

*The Hall of Shame category should contain egregious examples of unreason on the part of otherwise reasonable people. Nicholas Kristof seems to offer frequent examples:

Kristof, N.D. (2008, February 3). Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opini ... 0&emc=eta1

Please send all submissions to: archive@reasonproject.org

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

PostChristian Wonder

Perhaps one of my fondest memories is spending time with a friend who was living in France.  We were both recent de-converts, and were ignited by our curiosity in a way that neither of us had ever experienced before.  During the day, we explored our physical surroundings to the best of our ability, but during the night, we set our imaginations loose on the internet and chased down every rabbit trail we could find.  The Universe, The World, and Technology were places we went wild, and it was from these sits the inspiration for this one was born. 

Looking back, I now realize that I was experiencing wonder for the first time.  You see, I had always been very curious about my religion.  I was known well for my abilities in theology, and biblical interpretation.  I found God fascinating, and was endlessly wondering about its nature, character, desire, and the like.  But there was always something missing.  I could never quite put my finger on it, but I always felt somewhat cheated when considering God.  Even other big questions like the universe, human nature, origin of our species etc, fascinated me too.  Yet, still, there was always something missing.

You see, Christianity makes fundamental assumptions about almost everything in our world.  Ranging from God to The Universe to even Human Sexuality, it replaces peoples personal abilities to reason and wonder with its own fundamental moral code.  All thats left is for the individual to ponder not the actual subject, but what Christianity has  to say about the actual subject.  For a Christian to ponder God isn’t to actually question its existence, essence, reasons, or abilities, but rather “why did he do what he did then and now?”

Much like faith, this destroys what wonder is.  Wonder isn’t something that should be contained within boundaries, or come with pre-introduced notions.  Rather, wonder is something that by its very nature needs to be as objective and as free as possible. At the loss of my faith, my wonder was reborn.  It was ignited with an intensity that I have never before seen.  Everything was considered, and as my Postchristian confidence blossomed, so too did my audacity. 

What I now know is that wonder isn’t limited to purely abstract or ascetic ideals, but is also something that is heavily sensory. Thus, no only did I wonder about the new possibilities for God, but also about the perceptual world around me.  Instead of off-the-cuff thinking sexuality was intrinsically evil (as most Christians do), I was able to understand it with a much more sophisticated sense of insight and maturity.  Further still, I was able to explore the universe around me as something purely wondrous and magnificent, rather than the benign boring understanding the Christians have.

This sense of wonder, combined with the audacity that grows from postchristian confidence, is one of the most spectacular experiences I’ve ever had.  The whole world is new again and completely free to explore and ponder.  Wonder ignites your soul, impassions your mind, and opens the world to you.  It is not a tool, but a way of life. Experiencing anything less isn’t wonder, its just placid ambivalent apathetic amusement. Humanity deserves the real thing, and Christianity succeeds in only robbing us from it.

- The Busymind of AvC and PostChristianity.com

More To Come from www.postchristianity.com

Friday, December 19, 2008

Formation of Theistic / Atheistic Thought

I. Evolution
 a. Stimulus/Response
  1. Homeostasis
   One of the elements that define living organisms it that of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the property of a system whereas its internal environment is regulated to remain stable. Since the environment outside an organism is not necessarily in an equilibrium compatible with that of the organism (or in equilibrium at all) it is necessary for the organism to be able to respond to changes in its external environment in order to maintain its internal environment. This is called stimulus-response, another qualification for life.

 

Most often people think of stimulus-response in animalisitc terms: An event occurs in the environment that acts as a stimulus, this stimulus is percieved by the animal, the brain processes the event and formulates a response, and then organism acts out the response. While this indeed is stimulus-response it need not be this complicated. Any change in an organism in response to changes in the environment is classified as stimulus-response. While one can certainly imagine response to be random, only organisms that respond in a manner conducive to their survival would indeed survive. Stimulus-response can be as simple as the mere laws of physics, such as osmosis, which would allow a single cell to maintain its internal pressure and consistency of the chemical composition of its interior. It can be more complex even without a nervous system, as in plants where sunlight causes stems to grow asymetrically, resulting in the stem turning toward the sunlight.

 

Eventually, and for the purposes here, we come to animals, with nervous systems that specialize in recognizing stimuli and responding to them. Animals do utilize the more basic stimulus-response mechanisms (such as for breathing where oxygen is absorbed by the blood) but have the novel system of nerves and the brain to aid in this matter (at least most animals do). Another novelty (most) animals possess is the response of motion. To this end animals have developed special cells designed to respond to specific stimuli.

 

  2. Receptors
   In addition to other features that separate them from other organisms, most animals have nervous systems. Nervous systems are generally divided into two parts: 1) The Peripherial nervous system which collects information about the environment and sends signals to 2) the Central nervous system, which processes these signals and sends responses to muscles and glands affecting a response in the organism that either alters its internal functioning (through hormones) or causes the animal to move (through muscles).

 

   The structures by which an animal receives input about its environment are known as sensory receptors. Sensory receptors are very specialized and different ones are needed to react to different types of stimulus. Some examples of these are:

 

Electroreceptors (electric fields), baroreceptors (pressure), chemoreceptors (chemicals), mechanoreceptors (mechanical stress), nociceptors (cellular damage), osmoreceptors (osmolarity), photoreceptors (light), proprioceptors (position), thermoreceptors (hot and cold).

 

How these receptors detect the appropriate stimuli varies from receptor to receptor but all produce eletrochemical impulses that travel to the central nervous system for processing. While many (if not most) of the functions performed are done so invountarily and independent of outside influences (such as circulation or digestion) any voluntary responses an animal is to make must be done in response to detected stimuli. Since the detection of these stimuli requires the aforementioned receptors, an animal without these receptors (or an animal with nonfunctioning receptors) would not survive long. Almost all animals must actively seek food and evade predators and this requires motion, a voluntary act. Thus an animal's survival is directly related to its ability to collect information about its environment.
   
  3. Stimulation
   The stimulus-response process can be referred to as stimulation. The amount of stimulation an animal receives is almost as important as the type of stimulation. The factors affecting the amount of stimuluation are the number of receptors for a given stimulus and their sensitivity in detecting that stimulus.

 

Stimulation management is an important factor in the survival of a species. If an animal perceives too little (under stimulation) it will respond less to its environment. This means it will obtain less food and avoid fewer dangers. In short, it will stagnate and die. However, if it is too sensitive (over stimulation) the animal will be under constant stress and will be responding in situations it doesn't need to and its responses will likely be stronger than they have to. In short, the animal will work itself to death.

 

With under and over stimulated animals dying out, this leaves animals configured to receive an amount of stimulation conducive (or at least not deterimental) to their survival. This calibration is varies among different animals. Sponges, lacking a nervous system and the ability to move, embody stagnation. But this is fine given how they obtain food (filtering moving water) and defend against predators (passive defenses). However, other organisms with more complex nervous systems, such as humans, require more stimulation. It's a balancing act. The more receptors an animal has, the more information (stimulation) it can collect about its environment. However it must have the faciliaties to cope with the amount and type of stimulation or it will get little use from it.

 

 b. Abstract thought and memory
  1. Memory
   Once an animal exists in a manner where it receives adequate stimulation, it must have mechanisms by which it can respond to such stimulation. For many animals, this involves the central nervous system, or brain. The various receptors collect information from the environment and send it through nerves using electrochemical impulses to the brain. The brain processes this information, formulates a response, and sends impulses down to various parts of the body to enact an appropriate response.

 

The response for each set of stimuli is dictated by the programming of the brain. By far the simplest way to enact a response is reflexively and involuntarily. This can be represented by mere "IF THEN" statements. IF a certain set of stimuli are detected THEN a specific response is carried out. For example, if a fly detects a large object moving toward it (as detected by light changes in its compound eyes, and changes in air pressure on its hairs) its brain calculates the appropriate escape vector and sends signals to its legs and wings to push off and fly away.

 

Such reflexes and instincts represent hard coded programming in the organism's central nervous system. While efficient and reliable, these relationships cannot be altered. As such they are only useful for a finite set of stimuli. In order for an animal to survive, it must be able to respond to as many different combinations of stimuli as possible. This means it must have a large set of hard coded responses or be able to alter its programming in response to new stimuli. Hard coding is efficient in action, but becomes bulky and unwieldy when one attempts to hard code responses for all possible situations. As such, some animals evolved the ability to alter their own programming, or learn things and use that learning to formulate new responses for new situations.

 

To this end, animals capable of learning must possess a function where information stored so that it can be used as input for future responses. This storing of information is known as memory. There are three general types of memory animals possess: Sensory Memory, Short Term Memory, and Long Term Memory. Sensory Memory lasts for a few milliseconds after something is perceived. It is short in duration and has limits on the capacity of information "remembered". Short Term memory lasts from a view seconds up to a minute and has a higher capacity. Finally we have Long Term memory which has potentially unlimited duration and has a large capacity.

 

When an animal records an event in memory and that event is recalled (as in response to some familiar stimulus) it can then use the memory of that event in the formulation of a response to a given stimulus. This allows it to use experience to refine its responses to be more appropriate and to factor in the context of a stimulus as well as its content.

 

Memory and learning allow animals to discover threats that may not appear to be threats via other means or opportunities that may not appear to be opportunities through other means. Thus an animal with memory has the ability to exploit more opportunties and avoid more threats than organisms that do not possess memory. Memory comes at a price, however, and requires a more complex nervous system, including a brain and a cerebrum for more advance memory storage and processing.

 

  2. Abstract Thought
   In addition to memory, animals with complex brains possess the ability to peform abstraction. Abstraction is where a concept is

simplified, generalized, and removed from an actual tangible object. The general concept of a ball, for example, is an abstraction of actual spherical objects we encounter in real life. We can think about a ball without being required to think of a specific type of ball and without being required to be looking at an actual ball at the moment we are thinking about it.

 

Abstract thought is the basis for higher reasoning. Combining abstraction with memories allows an animal to perform thought experiments and imagine likely conclusions for a given set of possibilities. Abstraction is also required for communication. With abstraction, ideas can be conveyed independently of the objects they represent.

 

Abstraction helps in recognizing new things. Through experience we acquire a store of memories about our environment, including the things in it. Through this method we form abstractions about the objects we encounter. For example, if I live in a forest, I will acquire a collection of memories about specific trees. Through this I will form an abstraction about the concept of a tree. This abstraction will contain elements that are common to all the specific trees I have encountered in the past. Because of this, if I come across a new tree that I've never encountered before, I can still recognize it as a tree  if it matches with my abstraction of what a tree is. This is known as pattern recognition.

 

 c. Pattern recognition
  Pattern recognition is the process by which the content and context of a set of objects currently being experienced is compared to the content and context of the sets of objects in our memory. If a match is made, then it is said that we "recognize" the pattern. Alternatively recognition could be made through comparisons against patterns that are hardcoded, rather than learned.

 

  1. Template matching
   One type of pattern recognition is template matching. Template matching is basically a 1:1 matching with little abstraction involved. The pattern to recognize is searched against the exact templates that exist in memory until one or more matches are found.

 

  2. Prototype matching
   By adding a little abstraction we can perform prototype matching. This is where a concept is generalized and defined by its

attributes. This type of recognition allows us to classify quickly objects we see based upon appearance. An object with four legs and a back that people sit on is a chair. This recognition can be made independently of other specific features (such as the material it is made out of, the existence of arms, whether it reclines, swivels, etc).

 

While there are more types of pattern recognition, they are more or less variations on the previous themes: The object as a whole is broken down into a series of features. The content and relative context of the features forms a general abstraction which is compared to our memory. How abstract and general an association is made depends on how specifically we can recognize and classify the object. Often times we can make multiple classifications. I can recognize something as an object (most general), as a piece of furniture (less general), as a chair (specific), and as a metal folding chair (more specific).

 

The ability to classify things at various levels of generality is useful for truly novel objects for which we are unable to find a more specific match. For example, the ability to recognize something as a tree, but not knowing what kind of tree it is. Once we classify something, even generaly, it gives us the ability to formulate a response based upon that classification. If I classify something as a tree, and I know that trees offer protection from some predators, I can then attempt to climb the tree for safety. If I do not recognize it as, at the very least, a tree, then I will be unable to make that association.

 

  3. Pattern recognition Errors
   While useful, the nature of pattern recognition allows room for errors, especially when confronted with new patterns. For example, if we form the abstraction that "things with wings are birds" Then we will commit an error when we are presented with a bat. Once we become aware of, and familiar with, bats, and form a more specific template to represent bats, we will no longer make this error.

 

Errors can be avoided, however. By restricting the ability to make more general recognitions (such as "things with wings are birds"), then the errors that come with making them are eliminated. Under this more strict way of thinking we cannot have a general rule as "things with wings are birds" and must have something more specific, like "things with feathers, beaks, talons, wings and that lay eggs are birds". If we are forbidden from making an association more general than this, we will not commit an error when confronted with a bat. So what happens when we are confronted with a bat? Such a scenario is hard to imagine given that we are wired to attempt automatically to recognize and classify anything we can sense. We can deduce what happens, though, when we realize that in order to respond to something we must recognize it (either in memory or in hard coding). If we do not recognize it, we cannot respond to it. This highlights the price that would come with such strict pattern recognition rules.

 

So which is better? Over recognition, or under recognition? Since the environments in which we find ourselves are dynamic, we can expect to be constantly confronted with new patterns of stimuli. Since these patterns can represent threats or opportunities, failure to recognize them would be failure to avoid a threat or failure to exploit an opportunity. In both cases our ability to survive is less than if we have the capability to recognize (even erroneously) new patterns. If we fail to respond to a threat, our very lives are put on stake. If we fail to respond to an opportunity, we are at disadvantage against those that do recognize it.

 

An additional benefit to this type of error is in "filling the blanks". When we are presented with a pattern and we get a partial match our brain, using fuzzy logic, can fill in the blanks with what is most likely based upon the memories and experience of that specific organism. In this manner we can make decisions and formulate responses when presented with incomplete data (which we often are).

 

This error is not without its own price as it can result in attempting to exploit opportunities that aren't really there or avoiding threats that aren't really there. However, when we compare the price of errors of over recognition (wasted energy) and under recognition (death), the choice is clear. While over recognition certainly *can* lead to death, it is not as likely a result as with under recognition. This means that, typically, the animal will survive and learn. Now knowing more about the pattern that made it falsely think there was an opportunity or threat it will be less likely to make that mistake in the future, if it is capable of this level of reasoning as humans are.

 

There is another price associated with over recognition, and that is the creation of superstitions. Superstition, technically is any irrational belief. In common usage, however, beliefs identified as superstitions are generally beliefs that certain actions can influence or portend the future without any obvious causal link. It is not known exactly how superstitions form (at least to the degree that we could predict what would cause a specific superstition to form) but this type of behavior is evident even in non-human animals, such as pidgeons. For whatever reason, a causal association is formed in the animal's mind between two events. Despite no other reason to accept this relationship. Once such a causal link is suspected the animal is already in a frame of mind sensitive to evidence to support that causal link. Evidence against the causal link is likely to be ignored or dismissed. Through this erroneous pattern of reasoning, all new information either reinforces the superstition or is ignored.

 

Humans have taken all of this to new and bizarre levels. Something as simple and vital as pattern recognition has resulted in believing things like: breaking a reflective surface will result in bad things happeneing for the next seven orbits around the sun. Hanging a u-shaped piece of metal worn by a horse over the entrway to a house will bring make good things happen. By clasping your hands and kneeling and thinking thoughts in your head, you are establishing a communication with an immensely powerful being who will do your bidding. By all criteria that matter, belief in miracles or the power of prayer are superstitions. Only "evidence" in support of these beliefs are ever reported on, and evidence against are ignored, dismissed or arbitrarily attributed to other causes.

 

 c. Conclusion

 In conclusion of this part we see that superstition is the result of an error inherent in the pattern recognition abilities of animals that allow us to survive. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable. As humans we can use rationality to explain them away, but we cannot prevent their creation. The next part will show how humans, with their innate pattern recognition abilities and high levels of abstraction form superstitions that lay the foundation for religion.

by Drafterman of AvC

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Sword Of Truth

I've been reading Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series recently. Good fun, for the most part. A lot of interesting philosophy hidden in there, but that's not really what I want to focus on here.

Instead, I want to focus on the existence of "supernatural" versus "natural" phenomena. Those are loaded words, so let's instead talk about things that exist inside of one reality (the super-reality), but impact another (the sub-reality). That is, the rules of the sub-reality do not define those of the super-reality, but are in some sense, a subset.

Examples:
- Ghosts (or disembodied minds) are a part of the super-reality.
- Embodied minds are a part of the sub-reality.
- God would be part of the super-reality.
- Humans would be part of the sub-reality.

The "Sword of Truth" series is about magic, and wizards, and spirits, and ancestors living on in an afterlife similarly to Greek mythology. There is a "Creator" who is supposedly manifestly creative, or good (kind of a mix between the Titans in Greek mythology, and Yahweh... but not Jesus), and a "Keeper of the underworld" who is supposedly manifestly destructive, or evil (kind of like Hades). Even the labels "good" and "bad" are not very good labels, since Goodkind makes the point that death is not manifestly evil, since it is a necessary part of life, but just "is". But I digress.

What does this have to do with the super- and sub-realities?

The point is, in Goodkind's universe, the "super-reality" continually manifests itself in various ways in the "sub-reality". They are constantly making observable consequences (including the Keeper itself attempting to enter the sub-reality). Magic is part of the super-reality that impacts the sub-reality. "Life forces" within people (think "The Force" in George Lucas's mythology of Star Wards, which Goodkind calls "Han") routinely can affect the laws of nature. One can start a fire by rubbing sticks together, or one can start a fire by thinking about "fire" and having the "Han" light it for you.

There are basically no people in Goodkind's world that do not believe in this "super-reality". There are no "naturalists". There are no "atheists", for the most part. Why is that? It's because there are manifestations of the "super-reality" that regularly impinge upon the "sub-reality", over and over again, with marked clarity and an abundance of evidence. There is no need for "faith" or "belief" that there is a super-reality... in fact, in Goodkind's world, you'd have to be insane NOT to believe in the super-reality.

But what does this tell us about OUR reality?

It tells us that there is nowhere near as much evidence for any "super-reality" that exists outside of our own "sub-reality". In our "sub-reality", all convincing evidence points to the fact that the "sub-reality" is just "reality", and there is no "super-reality". I can say with certainty that should I have been born into Goodkind's reality, I would be a firm believer in "Han" and the "super-reality", and would hope to study it myself as a wizard or something. However, I'm not part of that reality. I'm part of this reality. Instead of pretending that there IS evidence for "super-reality", I've opened my eyes and given myself the opportunity to honestly look back at the things that used to convince me that there WAS a "super-reality", and examine them in an unbiased way.

As soon as I did this, I realized that, without a single exception, there was no real true evidence for any "super-reality" whatsoever. No feelings that could not be explained by ordinary brain chemistry. No happenstances that could not be explained by coincidence, or luck (good or bad). No indications that I could communicate with "The Creator" or "The Keeper" via any means. No indications that prayer is effective. No indications that there is a benevolent "plan" for my life, or the lives of those around me.

All I see evidence for is the universe existing, without any super-reality impacting it.

Now, I have told you that should there BE some true evidence for a "super-reality" as per the case of Goodkind's universe, I'd be the first to admit that such a "super-reality" exists and we should take great care in finding out about it. As it is, in our reality, the only reality that is apparent to me, I have no reason to pretend that there IS a super-reality, nor that even if there WAS some hypothetical super-reality, that it impacts us or guides us in any way.

Therefore, I am an atheist in this reality. Specifically, since it doesn't seem to make a difference one way or another, I am an apatheist in this reality. People can talk all they want about "evidence for creation being everywhere", but the bottom line is, it isn't. It's not that it CAN'T be everywhere. Even a mere mortal human being (Terry Goodkind) can describe a universe in which it would be everywhere.

It's just that it ISN'T everywhere, in this reality. There is no evidence for a super-reality. There's only this reality. Deal with it, and move on.

by Rapp of AvC

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Biggles vs Allah

In one of the Biggles books, Biggles pulls a Muslim out of a pit.

Hearing the Muslim thank Allah, Biggles said "Allah pushed you in; I pulled you out." 

The Muslim didn't get the point; it still didn't occur to him to thank Biggles.

by ranjit of AvC