|
The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Unlike politicians, at least Shatner is entertaining
For those unacquainted with doctoral programs in Human Behavior it may come as a surprise we behavioral scientists delve into many areas that impinge on the hard sciences and we must study these in conjunction with the behavioral sciences. In many cases it is an apple and oranges kind of thing. But parapsychology, the paranormal, Psi, is sometimes the only thing scientists have left when all other attempts at explanation fail, much as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s observation that when something is not explained by the probable one should look to the improbable no matter how seemingly preposterous. With an estimated 94% of the universe unknown, and perhaps even unknowable as some scientists surmise, there is much room for speculation about what may be "out there." That this leaves enormous leeway to speculate the things unseen may be more real than those things which are seen is obvious, much in the way our conscious sense of "self" is ever bit as real as the bodies in which the self is carried about, Emerson’s pointing to our bodies carrying our real person like carrying "fire in a pan." The big difference is that we know our bodies are subject to disease and decay; that our bodies will eventually die. But the person in the body, the conscious self, that fire in a pan, ah, that is another matter. The hard sciences provide us many fascinating clues, but things like string theory nudge up against philosophical speculation, much of which belongs in the area of studies of Psi. Does string theory have room for ghosts for example, does it leave room for things that go bump in the night as well as speculation about time travel and so much more; and the obvious answer is yes. Who knows but what there may be more fact than fiction in the film "Contact" for example. If human emotions and things like creativity and inventiveness is nothing more than electro-biological chemistry perhaps machines may one day surpass humans in many ways, but even were it to become possible would it be wise to wire machines with the ability to love, hate, hope, dream, and create? Would cyborgs really be a good idea or as SciFi has it will such things be eventually taken out of the hands of humans to decide? Humankind is already on a very dangerous footing by depending upon machines, and in the case of computers the doomsday scenario of a "Fail-Safe" happening is all too real. The Bible has much to offer when it comes to human behavior and studies in Psi. The writers of the ancient fables incorporate much factual evidence to support their claims of things like miracles, angels, and demons, many things of the supernatural which many people believe as a matter of faith. But removed from theology and religion, the Bible is an excellent study text in human behavior. For this reason and being a behavioral scientist I follow studies like this one with great interest. Reading an AP release titled Scientists Bridging the Spirituality Gap by Joann Loviglio Jan 27, 2007. PHILADELPHIA - Religion and science can combine to create some thorny questions: Does God exist outside the human mind, or is God a creation of our brains? Why do we have faith in things that we cannot prove, whether it’s the afterlife or UFOs? The new Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania is using brain imaging technology to examine such questions, and to investigate how spiritual and secular beliefs affect our health and behavior. "Very few are looking at spirituality from a neurological side, from the brain-mind side," said Dr. Andrew Newberg, director of the center. A doctor of nuclear medicine and an assistant professor at Penn, Newberg also has co-written three books on the science-spirituality relationship. He's also played a role in "What the Bleep Do We Know," a movie that blends quantum physics and new-age neuroscience. Newberg's center is not a bricks-and-mortar structure but a multidisciplinary team of Penn researchers exploring the relationship between the brain and spirituality from biological, psychological, social and ideological viewpoints. Founded last April, it is bringing together some 20 experts from fields including medicine, pastoral care, religious studies, social work and bioethics. "The brain is a believing machine because it has to be," Newberg said. "Beliefs affect every part of our lives. They make us who we are. They are the essence of our being. Spirituality and belief don’t have to equate to religious faith," Newberg said. The feelings of enlightenment and well-being some derive from religion can come to others through from artistic expression, nonreligious meditation, watching a beautiful sunset or listening to stirring music. "Atheists have belief systems, too," Newberg said…The integrated medicine center teaches patients with cancer, chronic pain and other ailments to work things like meditation and proper diet into their conventional therapy… "The mind and the body are the flip side of the same coin," said Dr. Daniel Monti, head of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital’s integrated medicine center. "Now we know some of the mechanisms by which that occurs, and it’s becoming better and better understood… Such thinking seemed ‘fringy’ to many people a decade ago, but it is becoming widely accepted by the medical community and patients," he said… "The sky’s the limit as far as the things we can study," he said. (End) That comment by Newberg "The brain is a believing machine because it has to be" deserves our attention, and especially because of the fact as he points out, "Spirituality and belief don’t have to equate to religious faith." The horrible cruelty visited upon humankind because of superstitious religious beliefs such as those found in Islam betray those that have no interest in the truth, but are committed to the words of a man making the preposterous claim he speaks for a god. Were it not for the difference between the humanity of Jesus as opposed to the inhuman cruelty of a woman-denigrating Mohammad Christians might well be continuing to burn heretics and drown witches. But unlike Islam, Christianity eventually became a civilized religion giving rise to the most civilized nations in history, nations that have room for both the hard sciences as well as philosophical speculation beyond the sciences that allow us free range for our minds and imagination. Moreover, in Christian nations we are free to speak and write of such speculation. Try to imagine entering into a dialogue with Muslims about the possibility of "Spirituality and belief don’t have to equate to religious faith." We can do that in Christian nations, but not in Muslim nations. And because such discussion in Muslim nations is forbidden these continue in much darkness of the mind as well as the extreme poverty so many in Muslim nations are forced to endure. In at least one respect both Christian and Muslim nations have this in common: The wealthy few have the rule over the masses. But in Christian nations, the civilized nations, one may believe what they will without fear unless such beliefs come under the stricture of doing harm to others, and I mean real harm, not that of impugning some "god" or "prophet." But let’s face it folks, even in America our leaders lie to us as a matter of course. How much truth is there to Roswell, Area 51, to scenarios like those of "Independence Day," to UFOs in general and clandestine experiments by our military? Hey, not even Bruce Willis could get an answer to who really killed JFK; and that with our earth being threatened by annihilation unless Bruce and his team saved the day! Now, Hollywood notwithstanding could there really be government secrets so sacrosanct as to be carried to this extreme? One can be excused for thinking so. A few years ago I personally witnessed the crash of that Stealth Fighter here where I live in the Kern River Valley when that plane was only "a figment of people’s imagination." The whole thing was a scene right out of Hollywood with the military clamping down on the whole area, not unlike "The Andromeda Strain." But the mountainside where the fighter crashed was in plain view of all of us here in the valley. It would have been easy to imagine a battalion of CIA, FBI, military brass and minions, you name it coming in and herding all us civilians into some kind of containment area to keep anyone from spilling the beans. And I have had the experience of being surrounded by armed police; makes for a very intimidating presence by authority. Face it; in many ways Hollywood is only telling things the way they could happen in the name of "national security." In psychology there is known what are called "pathological liars." These are people incapable of being truthful, people who will lie when the truth would even serve them better, not unlike some forms of addiction. I don’t believe those like Caesar Bush and some others I could name are in this category, but the continued lying and cover-ups by those in government and our military cannot but lead us to believe some are actually pathological and sorely in need of professional help. Certainly Tommy Lee Jones in "Men in Black" was correct about the person being ok, but people as a mob are given to hysteria and panic, reacting like a frenzied animal. So, cooler heads must prevail to avoid such a thing. But when We the People are lied to as a matter of course for the sake of wealth and power, how can we know the truth of anything? We can’t. And here we find the horns of the dilemma those in power find themselves facing. What I resent as a rational person is being treated like a child by those who are caught in their own lies as though I cannot handle the truth. I miss the old radio shows; these enabled us to exercise our imagination in ways not possible apart from books. And I believe children need to be encouraged in exercising their imagination, to be able to enjoy doing so. I continue to enjoy letting fancy have wing, to imagine the possibility of fairies, gremlins, leprechauns, angels, demons, ghosts, but as we grow up and our fairytales turn out to be nothing but there is still the need to believe even as Newberg points out. But now that I’m all grown up I want to hear the truth from politicians; I don’t want to be treated as a child for whom fairytales should suffice to "explain" or keep me silent. And even if the truth involves UFOs, if the truth shatters cherished beliefs I still want to be told the truth. And while the brain may be a "believing machine," the truth is often stranger than fiction, even at times shattering the beliefs of those considering themselves too "scientific" to believe in "fairytales." For my part, I choose to believe the truth may very well be "out there." 9 comments from 4 users
1
posted by
robbwillis
on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM
posted by
woofwoof
on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Sam, you reminded me of Firesign Theatre radio show, back in the day. My favorite was Nick Danger, Third Eye.....had the character Rocky Roccoco speaking to Nick Danger. (Rocky is the bad guy.) Rocky was trying to tell Nick about a woman in their past who seemed to have a lot of different names. "Not to Melanie Haber! You may remember her as Audrey Farber! Or Susan Underhill! What about Betty Jo Bialowski!? (sound of rising organ sting.) I knew her as Nancy." Good Stuff....great imagination. Robb. my Dad use to fly reconnaissance back in the 50-60's and retired a Lt. Col. He'd tell me the truth of such things, but then he'd have to kill me.
posted by
samheath
on Jan 30, 2007 at 05:26 AM
You know, I can't but believe folks my age had the best of worlds in those old radio shows and I miss not only them but all the folks, the kind of community that went with "radioland." Having been a pilot myself for so many years I've heard a lot of "hanger stories" but very few pilots will talk about "sightings." posted by
NancyII
on Jan 30, 2007 at 05:48 AM
Sam...a lot of those old radio shows are on tape and CD's. My kids dad got me started on them by loaning me a box full of them including comedy and detective shows. Also some westerns. Since I have a 30 minute commute, they are perfect for the trip and I've gone back to visit Fibber McGee and Molly, Gildersleeve, and Our Miss Brooks on those trips. I've solved crimes with Boston Blackie, Malone, and his co horts. I chased bad guys with the Lone Ranger. The only ones I haven't listened to are the Inner Sanctum and other scary ones. You should look into those. They aren't cheap but if you find someone with the same interest, you can trade them. Check thrift stores too. posted by
samheath
on Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51 AM
You anticipate me Nancy; as a matter of fact I do have many of those audio tapes and all I can say is "God bless" the folks in the business of preserving this marvelous source of the way it used to be.
posted by
NancyII
on Jan 30, 2007 at 06:00 AM
We didn't have a fireplace...we had one of those free standing Dearborn heaters with the ceramic pieces to radiate the heat. My early memories are of sitting on the tile floor (asbestos?), on a quilt in front of that heater, listening to the radio, and having the hot chocolate and toast our Mom made for us. To this day, those two things are my comfort foods from a time when I had no worries or cares. By the way, the hot chocolate was made from cocoa and the toast was made under the broiler. Off topic but still nostalgic. I grew up with "oven toast" and to this day cannot eat oatmeal without it. Toaster toast is only for convenience and sandwiches. posted by
samheath
on Jan 30, 2007 at 06:12 AM
I just knew there was more than just a Bakersfield thing about that hot chocolate made with real coco along with toast. I loved the skim chocolate that would form at the top of the cup. These remain a comfort food for me along with the oatmeal, but never use those "quick oats."
posted by
NancyII
on Jan 30, 2007 at 06:59 AM
Oh NO !!! I woudl NEVER buy quick oats. I use the old fashoined kind. Boil the water with a little salt throw the oats in and shake the pan. Turn it down low and let it cook with NO stirring. I can't eat mushy slimy oatmeal. I used to buy the instant flavored packets for thekids but never, ever for me. Butter, milk and a little suger...now that's pure heaven. And the oven toast of course. In fact, that's what I had for dinner the other night. posted by
samheath
on Jan 30, 2007 at 07:16 AM
Somehow I knew Nancy. No quick oats for folks who know the real difference. Matter of fact, that toast for me last night. No coincidence, just a matter of good taste and knowing what's good.
1
Advertisement |