It’s common knowledge that…

… Extra-terrestrials helped build the pyramids and many other wonders of the ancient world.

I’m really gonna have to master the art of short posts to meet the quota of 6 posts in the 6th month.

I waved at the window cleaner today, 4th floor. It’s odd having an elevator in your “home”.

Sunday = children’s hospital (IWK). I guess I could use 1 of 6 to report.

Consider the Blog

...Who has time for this?
I’m beginning to think that my blog will either have to go into hibernation like the blog of Marsha and Erin, or I will have to develop the knack of short posts like Mush.

But seriously… Isn’t an extra-terrestrial explanation the best middle-ground between science and religion?

In defense of God’s right to exist outside of Logic

This is a response to arguments presented by Vexen Crabtree from the UK. The arguments can be found at this site. He divides his arguments into two sections:

Section 1. Logic as a property of the Universe – Logic is more powerful than God.
The arguments he presents in this section make no sense and hold no traction if one believes that God can exist outside of logic, or transcends logic. They sound like the same tired old arguments that the idea of omnipotence and other Godly qualities do not make logical sense, and these arguments are not worth commenting on.

Section 2. God ‘outside’ of logic
Vexen puts forth three arguments against the idea that God can be outside logic (his arguments in yellow).
(1) If “Human logic” is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is silly. Okay. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place.
So, what you’re trying to say is that if our logic will never be enough to explain God, then why are we even having this conversation? Or, moreover, the assertion that God is beyond logic negates my ability to logically defend God? I don’t buy this line of argument. I think it is entirely possible to have a logical conversation about something unbound by the rules of logic. I’m still waiting to be convinced otherwise.

(2) To say that God doesn’t obey logical rules, to say God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of God are abilities that cannot logically exist.
Sure, that could be true of some of his abilities. Maybe some of his abilities cannot logically exist (and do anyway). Also, having abilities that cannot logically exist does not entail the lack of abilities that can logically exist (God can have both / everything).

(3) “Beyond logic” is a synonym for “irrational” and admissions of beliefs that are beyond logic is admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible.
Rational: consistent, or based on reason; logical.
Irrational: not endowed with reason; not rational.
“Beyond logic” is NOT synonymous with “irrational”. Especially when you use the definition of irrational I supplied above. God can be endowed with reason and be rational. "Beyond logic" has nothing to do with being irrational. Or rather, my definition of "beyond logic" includes logic (Logic +).

My Set Theory Explanation. If all things “logical” are contained in a Set A, and all things “beyond logic” are contained in Set B. Then Set A is a subset of Set B. God is Set B, things both logical, and beyond logic. Vexen seems to be under the illusion that Set A and Set B are mutually exclusive - that you have to be one or the other. This is wrong. God can be, and likely is (if he exists), both.

In any event… Feel free to jump into the debate (and tell me if/where I’m right or wrong).

What’s the big deal about free will?

Either we have “free will” or we don’t.
If we don’t, then free will is an illusion, because we certainly have the perception of free will. But if we have the perception of free will, why does it matter whether or not the perception is true / valid?

Example: If I have to make a choice between A or B (i.e. not A). It may be true that my choice is pre-determined by the interaction between the environment and the cells in my body. However, my perception is that there is a possibility of choosing either (A or B). I perceive freedom to choose. I perceive that the probability of choosing A or B is greater than zero for both options. If I am wrong, and the “choice” is really an illusion, so what? I still have to participate in that illusion, don’t I?

Addiction is not much fun afterall.

A friend recommended this article. I thought it was interesting and supportive of my belief that all forms of addiction have a common underlying mechanism. Rather then tell you about it, I thought I’d save myself time, and cut & paste the main points. Feel free to read the full article though.

“Researchers once thought that the [dopamine] was a simple pleasure switch, the body's own "reward" button. Yet something didn't add up. If dopamine delivers the pleasure message, addicts should be in a continual state of bliss--but most of them get very little pleasure from the drug, despite the surge of neurochemicals.”

New theory
“Rather than just telling us to feel good, dopamine tells us what's salient--the unexpected bits of new information we need to pay attention to in order to survive, like alerts about sex, food and pleasure, as well as danger and pain. Dopamine's role is to shout: "Hey! Pay attention to this!" Only as an afterthought might it whisper "Wow, this feels great."

[Addicts] brains have somehow mistakenly learned that drugs are the most important thing to pay attention to, as crucial to survival as food or sex.

The salience theory of dopamine also provides new explanations for other self-destructive human tendencies, from binge eating to gambling. It may [also] explain why we crave the stimulation of new information.

Neurochemical changes
Since dopamine is also involved in learning, memory and motivation, the chemical helps us pay attention to the information we need to survive, act upon it, and remember it for the future. [Drugs] hijack that machinery, sending 5 to ten times as much dopamine surging through the nucleus accumbens and forcing the brain's motivational and attentional mechanisms to focus purely on the drug. Over time, the addict's brain adapts to the torrent of dopamine by dampening the system down.

With fewer receptors, the dopamine system is desensitized, and the now-understimulated addict needs more and more of the drug to feel anything at all. Meanwhile, pathways associated with other interesting stimuli are left idle and lose strength. The prefrontal cortex--the part of the brain associated with judgment and inhibitory control--also stops functioning normally.

It's a neurological recipe for disaster. "You have enhanced motivation for the drug, and you have impaired prefrontal cortical systems. So you want the drugs pathologically, and you have reduced control of behavior, and what you've got is an addict.”

Mm... makes sense to me! When I was little I got addicted to video games, and recognizing the hold they had on my life I since avoided drugs, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, gambling, and even aspirin. Least I become slave to another addiction.