Food, Chemicals, Reasoning

 I saw a post a few days ago, lambasting the general population for their absurd fears of chemicals listed in packaged foods. It was lengthy, and at first glance, seemed reasonable, if not someone unkind in approaching the ideas that people were being irrational with respect to fears of long, indecipherable chemical names listed as ingredients on packages.

The author began with a long list of frightening sounding chemical names - nearly a full page, including such items as yellow-orange 101 and 3-Methylbut-1-yl ethanoate. The author then quite mockingly pointed out the list of ingredients represented the chemical makeup of a banana. The point of this was to note that everything is made of chemicals.

Next the author reviewed at length the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide (also know as water). He pointed out its use as a solvent, the number of deaths it has caused, due to an array of harmful properties, and how some college students pranked a number of people into signing a petition to ban it's use.

There were a few, similar anecdotes presented, in the same superior tone, shaming people for being so gullible, and afraid of "scary words". As I say, not kind, but on the surface, it seemed to make a valid point.

A few days later, removed from the fiery prose of the article, and given space to apply reasoning. I have realized how absolutely, childishly, absurd and misleading the article was, for two chief reasons.

One, consider 3-Methybut-1-yl ethanoate - it is just a chemical compound in a banana, the author uses this to generalize that it is absurd to be afraid of unfamiliar chemical names. 

What about trimethylbenzene? a consumer would be justified in being concerned if this showed up as an ingredient.  It is a hazardous compound found in gasoline.

Is the average consumer expected to memorize the over 160 million chemical names, their properties and potential hazards? Are they expected to spend time googling the ingredients on every package while they are shopping?

"But, that's why we have the FDA." They ensure that only "safe" and "effective" ingredients are used.

Except:
1. Not everything is regulated.
2. Does anybody actually trust "The  government?" Most liberals don't trust it today. Most conservatives didn't trust it four years ago. Most rational people recognize that governmental bodies are composed of humans who make unintentional errors, and who can in  many instances be bribed, misled or otherwise corrupted.

The second key issue the article overlooked is that of compounds versus individual chemicals.

Sodium Chloride is absolutely essential for your survival, your body needs it to survive. Sodium Chloride has it's own ingredient list: Sodium, and Chlorine. You should absolutely NOT consume sodium tablets, nor chlorine tablets. A specific chemical may be fine in combination with certain compounds, but deadly alone or in combination with other chemicals.

The article was no doubt written to combat absurd, extreme phobias regarding ingredient lists, but ultimately it was equally absurd in the opposite extreme.

This is the grand failing of narrative founded in pomposity and fueled by emotion. It grabs attention and pulls in viewers, but it leaves little room for reasoning.

The Authenticity Fallacy

(This post is part of series of posts, beginning here. It is recommended they be read collectively, and in order.)  

"Be Your Authentic Self"

This has become a popular phrase of late.

There is just one problem. You don't know yourself well enough to be your authentic self.

Consider the case of "Joe".

Joe is an individual whose corpus callosum was cut, severing the left and right hemispheres of his brain, in an attempt to control severe epileptic seizures.

Some interesting observations came from experiments performed with Joe. Having him focus on a dot in the center of a computer screen they would display words or images to either the right or left side of the screen. Anything which appeared on right side, he could verbally name. If it was on the left side, he could not. He could, however, with his left hand, draw the object.

Taking it a step further, they would show different objects in each side at the same time. He would draw object on the left side. But report seeing the object on the right.

In some instances, when asked about the disparity between what he said he saw, and what he drew, he provided a believable (albeit false) explanation. For instance, he reported seeing a hammer, but drew a bell, he would report having passed a church while driving to the facility and must have seen the bell in the steeple. Note he wasn't lying, he was creating a false memory to justify the disparity, to make sense of it.

Which side of Joe's brain is his authentic self?

It is noted that women, every month, go through a series of four hormonal phases (menstrual, follicular, ovulatory, luteal), during which significant changes in various hormone levels occur. These changes vary in effect from one person to the next, but in some instances, they very drastically alter mood, to a nearly Jekyll and Hyde level in some cases. Recent studies suggest there is also an impact on decision making (specifically, higher estrogen levels reduce impulsivity). At what point on the Menstrual cycle, then is a woman her "authentic self"?

(Men experience something similar, though not nearly so drastic, and on a 24 hour cycle, but this too may alter mood and decision making to some extent, so again, what time of the day is the man being his "authentic self?")

In the previous post, "The Invictus Illusion", I noted a report on instances of drastic personality change occurring in victims of brain trauma. Further, consider the instances of dissociative identity disorder.

Putting that together, I wish to propose a theory.

Each and every one of us consists of multiple "personalities".

Perhaps our brain is in fact a distributed system, with each region having its own personality. For most people, we are unaware of this due to one or more mechanisms which coordinate those separate personalities. If this is the case, then dissociative identity disorder is the failure of this mechanism, causing a person's separate personalities to manifest independently.

What then is our authentic self? The combination of all the personas? The command-and-control system, assuming one exists? Perhaps finding your authentic self is lifelong struggle in which one personality ultimately subdues the others?

This is of course a theory, but one which fits with what we know, and could possibly explain much of what we don't. It of course becomes a tricky talking point for people of faith - if you consist of multiple personalities, what then, is "the spirit", and what control does it actually exert on body and mind?

I don't know how close to truth my theoretical model is, but at any rate, who you are, and who you think you are, are likely much farther apart than you realize.

(Dis)Proving Evolution

 I created a series of posts on the topic of (Dis)Proving God quite some time ago. I believe I need give a similar exploration of evolution now.

I believe it is necessary to consider the concept of evolution in two separate categories:

1. Evolution as a mechanism utilizing natural (or artificial) selection to alter the characteristics of a living organism.

2. Evolution as the origin of life.

In the case of the former, this has been quite clearly observed and documented. The peppered moth is a key example of this. The moth was largely white in color with black spotting, which worked well as camouflage against lichen covered tree trunks. There were of course mutant variations of the moth which had less white and more black. They were easy prey for birds, however, thus rarely survived to procreate. 

As we humans constructed cities, and burned wood and coal to keep ourselves warm, we introduced pollution which blackened the nearby trees. Suddenly it was the black moths, not the white ones which had the advantage. Their numbers rose, while the population of white moths declined. 

We humans have been using this evolutionary process to our advantage for millennia now. We have carefully selected and breed dogs for specific characteristics. We manipulated evolution to create dog breeds specifically suited to heard and guard grazing animals. We created breeds to pull sleds or wagons, breeds to retrieve small game. Breeds to hunt and kill small rodents in and around our homes. Breeds to protect our families from potential threats.

We have manipulated various vegetation, selecting for sweeter, hardier, more visually appealing characteristics. Many of today's vegetables would be unrecognizable to those who first used them.

Evolution is a clearly observed mechanism. Only an utter fool would argue against it at this point.

What is not entirely clear is whether this scales beyond altering characteristics within a species. Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that a new type of animal can be created through this process. I use the Mule (a cross between a horse and a donkey) and the Liger (a cross between a Lion and a Tiger) as observed examples of this. And though ligers are usually sterile, there have been instances where they have produced offspring.

It is notable a Liger is still a cat. We haven't observed the creation - through natural or artificial selection - of a 'cog' for instance (a hypothetical cross between a cat and a dog, though some might point to the fox...). 

There are two possible arguments to rebut this however:

1. Such drastic evolution takes more time than human history has yet had to observe. (i.e. men evolved from monkeys over millions of years)

2. Such drastic evolution does not directly occur; rather two different mutations in two different surviving species of a primitive organism lead to the two entirely different creatures. (i.e. men and monkeys both evolved from the same origin ancestor [a frog? an amoeba?]  over billions or trillions of years)

Each of these is a potentially viable possibility, based on what we have observed within natural selection. Or perhaps better stated, it is not an unreasonable theory to propose, based on what we have observed. Certainly not one which can be summarily discarded.

There is still that question of the first spark, the initial origin of life.

Now this one is arguably problematic for both evolution and intelligent design. If you are going to posit the question, "where did the first living thing come from?" it is equally fair to ask the question "Where did God come from?" And if you are willing to accept that God just always existed, why then is it not equally acceptable to claim the first living organism always existed?

(Perhaps my mind is simply too fettered by its finite limitations, but to me, both seem improbable).

But setting that aside for the moment, let's just consider this universe as something which came into existence. "Bang", and there it was. Either it did so because some external, intelligent entity acted upon it (perhaps even utilizing artificial selection to evolve it), or it did so through random chance.

There is a thought experiment which posits the argument, if you have an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. That is fundamentally what is at the heart of the random chance argument.

That is a probability problem. What is the likelihood of such an occurrence happening?

(Dis)Proving God

 This is an index for a series of posts I created titled "(Dis)Proving God".

1.  Dis/proving God: Math, Science and a Checkerboard

2. Dis/proving God: Logic, Anecdotes and Water

3. Dis/Proving god:The Facts

4. Dis/Proving God:Science and Faith

5. Dis/Proving God: Patterns

6. Proving God: Math and Personal Science

On "Science" and Vaccines

 I intended to wait on this post until I was further along in the "Reasoning" posts, as it would have been a useful example later. It would probably have been less ranty, had I waited as wll, but, like the mathematician in the joke I shared a few posts ago, I seem to have hit my threshold.

"The Science" does NOT say a vaccine is safe and effective!

Politics says this!

Science does NOT declare a pharmaceutical "safe".

Science says: (Note, this is a made-up example. A real one would be considerably longer)

"Out of 1000 people who took this drug in a laboratory-controlled trial-

• 1 person died
• 5 people experience severe hair loss
• 20 people experienced temporary loss of bladder control
• an additional 10 people experienced permanent loss of bladder control
• 150 people experienced migraines which lasted up to 4 weeks after taking the medication.

Science does NOT declare a pharmaceutical effective.

Science says: (also, a made-up example)

"Out of 100 people in a double-blind, laboratory-controlled study, 58 experienced a reduction in symptoms, as opposed to only 48 in a similar study using a placebo."

(Note, if you consider that carefully, that means the above medication actually works for 10 out of every 100 people - 48 of them would have gotten better using anything which they naively believed would make them better. I have seen medications with even lower efficacy rates which are considered "effective")

You are NOT following the science when you arbitrarily force an entire population to take a medication.

You are NOT following the science by spending millions of dollars trying to coerce people into accepting your stance 

Spending that money to research what types of people are likely to experience the various side-effects, now THAT would be following the science. Then you would be able to have the medication safely and voluntarily utilized by a higher population, with fewer instances of fatalities or life changing injuries. You might not even have to create a special court in an attempt to protect pharmaceutical companies and manipulate public opinion.

You ARE following the science when you ensure the entire population has adequate access to accurate information regarding the efficacy and risks, so that they can individually make an informed decision based on their personal history. 

(But of course, to do that, the population- or at least the majority- would have to trust you, which would require that you behave in a trustworthy way...).

*End of rant.

Disclosure: I am emotionally invested in this subject- not just because I am a proponent of individual choice and accountability, but because I appear to be a recent victim of such policy. I had covid and have historically had a proclivity to side effects from medication, therefore I was disinclined to be vaccinated, based on my risk vs. benefit analysis. My employer opted to move quickly in support of the Biden mandate, and I was therefore compelled to be vaccinated. Shortly after taking the vaccine, a number of symptoms have manifest, including Tinnitus (A constant, maddening, high-pitched shriek in my ears), random joint and muscle pain, and potentially a return of chronic fatigue and reduced immune function (a bit early to tell on those, I really hope I am wrong.)

Certainly, it is fair to say I can't prove the vaccine was the cause. It COULD be absurdly coincidental timing. "I can't say for sure the gunshot caused the bleeding, but I wasn't bleeding until after I got shot".

The Liar Within

 This post is a continuation of a thought exercise started in two prior posts.

I encourage you to read them in order.

1. Language, Truth, Perspective, Paradigm...

2. The Invictus Illusion

Now to address that bit about lying. Even the most honest of people is a liar.

Ignore for the moment that almost everyone justifies making dishonest statements on occasion, to spare someone's feelings ("Oh what a cute baby!", "That was delicious!", "Oh, I wish I could go with you, but I have something else going on then, maybe some other time though."...).

Ignore also the lies of omission - keeping our mouth shut about something we have information about, to avoid inconvenience or injury.

We lie to ourselves.

A lot.

And it isn't just the stream of negative lies we tell ourselves about ourselves (Usually some variation of "I'm not good enough...").

Nor is it just the positive lies we often unknowingly believe. (For example; most people think they are good at multitasking, but actual studies suggest less than 3% of the population actually is. Perhaps this helps explain why roughly 80% of people are in favor of laws prohibiting texting while driving, yet over 70% of people admit to texting and driving. Interestingly, it has been found that those people who are more confident in their multi-tasking abilities are often less capable at multitasking.)

No, our deceitfulness goes much deeper.

First, take a look at this picture (drew it myself, can you tell?), which tree is closer to you, 1 or 2?

The correct answer is: They are both the exact same distance away from you. I drew the first tree. then I copied it, pasted it, and enlarged it to create tree number 2. I then drew a triangle, cut the top off, drew a horizontal line near the top of the page and added some color to it.

But none of that changes the fact that it was drawn on a flat screen. Your brain adds a third dimension to the image, but this is a two-dimensional drawing. Your brain lies to you.

Your eyeballs see two dimensionally. Light reflects off stuff, enters your eye, and hits a series of sensors in the back of your eyeball, nerves transmit information about the intensity and color of that light from each sensor to your brain. since you have two eyeballs, the brain gets information from two slightly different angles. Your brain then interprets that information and "creates an image" Since my two dimensional image above has colors, lines and size differences which your brain customarily "sees" as a horizon, and a road going off into the distance, it interprets the image as having depth, even though there is no depth in reality.

Furthermore, your brain interprets the sensory inputs it receives differently than other people's brains do. There are people who are color blind, for instance, and there are a number of disorders which inhibit depth perception.

Your eyes aren't the only sense with this problem. When I was young, there was a prank which involved touching someone's bare skin with a small, dry, circular piece of  ice in a room full of smokers. The person would be utterly convinced someone had just poked them with a lit cigarette. Given the environmental cues, they couldn't correctly distinguish hot from cold.

So right off, the sensory information you receive may be distorted, often in ways that would be difficult or impossible to detect (what if everyone saw the color green as a different color? How would we know? If I saw green as what you knew to be purple, we would still look at the grass and agree that it was green...).

And then there is the brain's desire to find patterns. From the Rubin Vase optical illusion (is it a vase, or two faces?), to religious figures appearing on toast or pizza or buildings, to satanic messages played backwards in popular music (I found one once that I would let people listen to- a brief clip where the singer says something about "eating a Tuna". Except I didn't actually play the clip backwards, it was forward, and the song is in Norwegian. Look up "Ankomst" by the band Leaves Eyes - right around 2:10 into the song you will hear it- if you are a native English speaker. If you speak Norwegian, you most probably won't catch it), our brains are determined to give meaning to everything, even if it means concocting an alligator in Logan, Utah.

Ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?

Then it shouldn't surprise you that your memory is just as untrustworthy. As an example- in the 1990's when DNA testing became a thing, an evaluation was made of 239 convictions which were overturned based on DNA evidence. It was found that nearly 80% of those convictions came about due to eye witness testimony.

It has also been determined that in some cases, false memories can be created by suggestion. In a study performed in 1995, a group of people we given a list of  four memories from their childhood. Three were actual events from their childhood and the fourth was fictional. They were then asked to write down details they remembered from those experiences, or to note if they had no recollection of the event. One-fourth of the people in the study related memories they had of the fictional event.

The input is unreliable. The output is untrustworthy. imagine how much worse it gets when it is us making a poor interpretation of someone else's poor interpretation? In an entirely different context (i.e. historical analysis).

Not matter how much effort you put toward being honest, You still lie like crazy.

 

 

The Invictus Illusion

Out of the night that covers me,   

  Black as the Pit from pole to pole,   

I thank whatever gods may be   

  For my unconquerable soul.   

In the fell clutch of circumstance 

  I have not winced nor cried aloud.   

Under the bludgeonings of chance   

  My head is bloody, but unbowed.   

Beyond this place of wrath and tears   

  Looms but the Horror of the shade, 

And yet the menace of the years   

  Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.   

It matters not how strait the gate,   

  How charged with punishments the scroll,   

I am the master of my fate:

  I am the captain of my soul. 

The poem is Invictus, by William Earnst Henry.

It  is also, to some extent an illusion.

Before reading further, I suggest to review my prior post on Truth etc... This post is meant to continue that thought exercise. I have a few more that go with it as well. I have been struggling to put them into words, and I have been struggling to work out the correct order. I think it matters....

We generally like to think we are in control of our choices, that we (generally) make them based on sound reasoning, careful thought, and through the lens of our moral principles.

There are a number of holes in that theory however.

The first is genetics. We come into being as a result of a mix of combined genetic material from our mother and father. That genetic material determines, or at least shapes many of our physical characteristics. Including how the operation of various hormone producing factories - which influence our mood, among other things.

It isn't quite that simple though. More recent research indicates sections of this genetic material can be effectively turned on or off.  Some of  our DNA is wrapped around histones, which effectively turns off those genes. These histones can be activated or deactivated chemically. There are also chemical groups which can be inserted into the DNA at specific points, which will turn sections of Genes on or off.

This suggests that environment - The foods we eat, the air we breathe, the chemicals we come in contact with -  can, to some degree alter our genes. There have been some studies which indicate that these alterations can be passed on  to our offspring. There are also several studies including this one, showing a potential link between lead exposure in violence.

But it isn't just environment, it is also experiences. There is at least one study which observed an increased mortality rate in the male offspring of Civil War POW's, born after their POW experience. In another study, rats were exposed to cherry blossom scent at the same time a mild electric shock was administered. This led to an automatic fear response to the scent. Their first and second generation offspring both exhibited the same automatic fear response. Genetic memory appears to be a thing.

So, many of your decisions and reactions in life may very well have been shaped, not just by your experiences, but also by your diet, the compounds and minerals in your drinking water, and the quality of the air you breathe. Further more it may have been shaped by the environment, diet, and experiences of your parents, and your grandparents and... Perhaps the biblical references to "The sins of the fathers." (Exodus 34:7, for instance) were  meant as literal warnings.

But even setting aside these genetic-based influences, you are likely far less in control of you than you think.

In the previous post I mentioned the adage "You are the  product of your five closest friends," Citing the specific anecdote I have witnessed, of people completely reversing their political position (liberal to conservative and vice versa), after a major move change their circle of friends. It is actually a bit more complicated than "The five closest" of course. The circle of influence is larger than that. It really is more about what you are surrounded by, and frequently, consistently exposed to. 

"For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:"

-Proverbs 23:7 

Which is why companies spend so much money putting advertisements for their products in front you you. everywhere you go. And why normally rational people can become so irrationally attached to absurd ideas.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes accepted as truth"

-Joseph Goebbels 

And you lie to yourself all the time. (More on that later).

Of course some try to argue that deep down inside, their soul remains - at least mostly - in control.

Many instances of significant personality change after severe, traumatic brain injury would suggest otherwise. I have also seen and personally experienced the personality altering effects some medications can have. And of course there is also Dissociative Identity Disorder, and scripturally, the experience of possession. 

Even passage of time and number of decisions you have made in that time affects you according to this article on parole hearings. If your soul is in control, it is arbitrary and cruel...

Some have gone so far as to say you aren't really in control at all. You are just running your piece of the program that was set in motion eons ago.

I'm not quite that fatalistic, I think that I do have at least some ability to influence who I become and what I do. maybe not so much as moving the rudder on the back of a boat, perhaps more like holding a stick in the water on one side...

So the question then is, how much of what we say and do is truly our intentional exercise of self-will, and how much is us just executing the universe's program?

I think we can be more in control, perhaps, when we are more present, and when we are less dishonest (again, more on that later). 

Is Covid-19 Really THAT Bad?

Sometimes there is more than one perspective - more than one way to look at something, and sometimes, a different viewpoint leads to a different approach to a problem. Both approaches may ultimately get to the desired result, but through very different philosophies.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell which approach is really better. Either the end result of either are so similar, or the real consequences don't manifest for decades, centuries...

With that in mind, consider the following counterpoint:


The average human body is composed of roughly 37 Trillion Cells. It also contains roughly 40 trillion bacteria. There as much or slightly more bacteria than there is you in your body! Crazy right? And those bacteria are largely beneficial, even necessary to your existence. They help digest your food, and help you absorb the nutrients, as well as bolster your immune system.

Wait, it gets better. You've heard of e.coli? Staphylococcus? Did you know you have e.coli living in your gut right now? And Staphylococcus on your skin?

"Wait!" you might be saying, "Isn't e.coli the dreaded bacteria that gives you diarrhea? And staph., isn't that the terrifying, antibiotic resistant super-bug?"

Yup, but see, it is other peoples' e.coli and staph. that give you trouble. Your own are your friends. Your e.coli helps you absorb iron. Your staphylococci help regulate inflammation. Without it, you could wind up with psoriasis or other inflammatory skin diseases.

So, arbitrarily obliterating all bacteria, or even some of the bacteria that we tend to think of as "Bad bacteria", would be pretty bad for us.

Scientists are less fixed on the precise number of viruses that live on and in your body, but the current estimates are around 300 Trillion. Roughly ten times as many viruses as bacteria! And they are largely beneficial too. Some fight off bad (for you, at least) bacteria. Some viruses destroy cancer cells. In fact, some of the most exciting cancer treatments currently being explored involve using modified or selectively bred viruses which can target your specific form of cancer.

Typically, the reason a particular virus or bacteria makes you sick is due to your immune system not successfully integrating or eliminating the new strain.

Your particular microbiome is unique. It is influenced by your environment, your diet... The types of food you eat have an impact on the health and makeup of your gut microbiome, and consequently, on your health. Every time you come into contact with another person, and exchange of microbes occur. Some your microbiome views as allies, and they are integrated into your system, increasing the diversity of your system. Others are viewed as enemies and are destroyed, these can also be beneficial, as your microbiome "remembers their genetic code", and now can utilize that knowledge to bolster your defenses against future similar, perhaps more dangerous invaders.


So, given this alternate perspective on the nature of microbes in the human condition. Is excessive isolation and eradication really the best choice for humankind's future?

The 4th Industrial Revolution vs Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Work...

I've been pondering the burgeoning fourth industrial revolution again recently...
It is very exciting to consider the possibilities.

One thought which crossed my mind is that of economics and politics.

First consider some of the possibilitie.

Consider FarmBot:

This thing is very nearly a fully automated garden. It is also opensource, and much of it can be manufactured using additive printing and relatively cheap and open source parts. Give it the ability to save/recover seeds and it becomes almost entirely autonomous. In theory any household could grow their own produce.

Consider self driving vehicles:

Uber is planning to launch a fleet of self driving taxis,  several companies are working on self driving vehicles for consumers, self-driving semi-trucks for freight transportation.

Consider Surgery Bots:

And they are learning to perform operations autonomously.

And that's not all.

Amazon is working on drones to autonomously deliver your stuff to your door.
They are also working on robots to handle the warehouse work of picking, packing, and shipping product.
There are printers which can construct any 3D part or object in plastic, or metal.
There are projects to build printers which can print fabric, and not just fabric as sheets of fabric, but fabric as clothes.
Food printers.
Even printers to create human organs.

So, if food production is automated, transportation is automated, manufacturing is automated, medicine is automated. what happens to humans? Notice that none of the above technology requires approaching anywhere near the threshold of the singularity (a self aware machine, which might decide humans are a pest which needs to be erradicated).

What does human work look like in this new world? And if much/most of these machines can be replicated by machines - If I can print my own printers using my friends' printers and a few hundred dollars of metal and resin... Well, that was the primary stated goal of communism - the means of production in every individual's hands.

If anyone can print their own food, their own clothing, their own shelter, so long as they have access to the base materials, and if the base materials are all autonomously extracted/manufactured/recycled, transported... Apart from clinging desperately to archaic intellectual property laws, will any large corporate entity be able to remain relevant? Will the idea of a company as we currently know it become inconsequential? Will the debate over capitalism vs. socialism vs communism still be relevant in an economic sense? And if individuals or small collectives are no longer dependent upon substantial governmental bodies to construct, maintain, protect or interfere in daily operations, will Those terms be politically relevant as well? Will national borders as we now know them matter?

If you no longer work to subsist. What will you do?

Dancing, Sports, Art, Attitude. The common link

I was shown a great story a few days ago, on the subject of complaining, and why it is bad for you. This is of course an interesting subject to me. I have a fascination with the brain, how it works, and what shapes us. (one of my earleist posts, and favorite games to play is "String Button Mind Magic").

I went on a bit of a hunt for information on Neuroplasticity I found some interesting information, and research, including this tidbit from 2010 (an older one, yes), talking about a technological advancement allowing for more precises analysis of brain activity.

I had a couple of thoughts hit me:

I love watching videos of talented people demonstrating their talents. Many of the videos I linked in my r-positive posts were of this sort. Anything really, gymnastics, dancing, skiing, jump rope, soccer, painting, parkour... It is just amazing to watch talented people. Do you know how they become so talented?


Check out this 11 year old dub-stepper, and hear what she has to say.

You see - tying these thoughts together. That amazing ability comes through dedicated, focused practice. What happens when you repeat an action? or even visualize the action repeatedly?

Every time you think about something or due something, neural connections are created in your brain by electro-chemical signals traveling from neuron to another across synapses. When you continually repeat an action or thought, the synapses for those particular neural pathways are reduced, which makes them the easier path in the future, thus, what once required a focused effort on your behalf becomes second nature. an unconscious reaction.

That is what is going on in the brains of these great talents.

Now yes, genetics does play a part in this, perhaps even genetic memory. And upbringing plays a key role - your highest levels of neuroplasticity are in your younger years, up to age six is the highest level of brain growth, after which growth rates decline slowly until roughly age 30-40. After that, growth drops quite dramatically.

Environment plays a role as well, quality of food, quality of water, air... certain types of music have been shown to have effects on brain structure development.

And there are of course a number of diseases which effect the brain, from bacterial to viral, to chemical, including anxiety and depression, schizophrenia, meningitis...

But, While these things may set certain limits, or give certain advantages, it is still key to note that, particularly in our earlier years, it is our thoughts, action and dedication which bring to fruition those amazing skills.

This  idea isn't new of course. When I was a kid there were lots of book by "New age" psychologist on the subject of "think and grow rich", think yourself happy, think yourself successful... (There was an overabundance, in fact).

In early scriptures, prophets taught this idea as well. Proverbs 23:7 says "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he". There are a number of parables on sowing seed which allude to this idea as well. Mosiah 4:30 also warns of the consequences of not watching your "...thoughts, and your words and your deeds.

And now science is building a strong case to support that idea - not soft science, not studies which may or may not be replicable, but hard, physical science.

So then, I have to ask myself, what am I training to become? A world-class gymnast? runner? complainer? friend? victim? helper? jerk? A few videos to ponder...

Dis/Proving God: Patterns

I feel I should take a moment to explain this series of posts - I realize I probably sound a bit lecture-ish, that is not the intent. Yes, I'm a nerd, yes, I read encyclopedias as a kid, so yes, I know quite a few words. I try really hard to pick the right words to be as precise as possible, in the hopes that it will lead to less misunderstanding. Communication is a tricky thing.

Secondly, I am not writing this to preach to anyone, this exercise is for me. It is an effort to take a series of random thoughts swirling about in my brain and solidify them, organize them, and clarify them. It is an effort to understand myself, my understanding. That said.


Patterns are an important feature of scientific analysis and discovery. Science constructs mathematical models to describe the behavior of the universe, by observing and quantifying patterns. That you hold an apple up, let go, and it drops to the ground every time is a pattern which leads to an understanding of gravity. If the apple were instead to go off in a different random direction each time, it would be difficult to derive much useful information.

But there is a pattern. It falls. What's more it falls, and accelerates. And it does so with a great degree of consistency, which allows us to come up with numbers and equations to describe the effect of gravity.

Observing a pattern is not enough in itself to definitively establish something as a truth of course, but it does certainly give one reason to consider the thing further.

Apply this to religion, Can we see patterns? Consistencies?

Have you ever played the telephone game? Where one person whispers a story to one person, that person repeats it to the next person, and so on through a line of people. The last person then talls the story they heard, and it is usually nothing like the original story?

It is a good example of why gossiping is a bad idea, but it also carries an interesting idea about stories from the past. They change over time as they are told and retold. Consider the Old Testament, particularly the first 5 books, which also make up part of the Torah, and the Quran. they were written by Moses (Are we absolutely certain the texts we have are in fact penned by Moses, or is it possible they were copied by someone else, from writings Moses made?) How long after Moses wasn't alive for the events of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph ... thousands of years of history, thousands of years of people going their several ways, thousands of years of stories being passed down from one person to the next. It is not at all surprising then to find the stories have changed... drastically.

It is then very compelling when patterns, consistencies are found from one mythology to the next. I was, as I said (am, actually) a bit of a nerd. I was big into Mythology, as a youth. Greek and Norse were my favorites, but I also learned a bit of African, Babylonian, Egyptian... There are some stories which show up in nearly every human mythology.

The Creation - okay,big deal, who wouldn't wonder where they came from and make up a story?

A great Flood - Now this one is very interesting.

• The Chinese called it Gun-Yu.
• The Greeks tell of the Gods flooding the earth to destroy the wicked, leaving only Deucalion and Pyrrha alive, 
• In East Africa the Masai say it was Tumbainot, his wife, and three sons. 
• The Lakota tribe tell the same story of destroying the wicked by a flood, noting that the rainbow was given by the great spirit as a sign that there would be no more great flood.
• The Coctaw tell of a prophets sent to warn of a coming flood
• In Arizona, the Papago have a story of Coyote who foresaw a flood, gnawed down a great tree,  crawled inside and sealed it. Montezuma took coyotes warning and built a canoe. The story goes on to say that he later became wicked and tried to build a tower to heaven.m The great mystery destroyed the tower with an earthquake and change the languages so people could no longer understand animals or other tribes.

These two aren't the only two repeated themes.

Most mythologies talk of two (or more) great destructive events. One of a water event (the great flood), the second is a fire event.

Most every Mythology includes a supreme being, a father god.

Most every mythology has some reference to a great tree (yggdrasil, tree of life?)

There is nearly always a conflict between forces of good, who quietly encourage people to be kind and good, and forces of evil, who use subterfuge and deception to trick people into being selfish, contentious... evil.


Most every mythology has a story of life, death, and rebirth, usually involving an individual who is part god, part mortal (Consider Hercules as one prominent example, his father was Zeus, the Supreme God, and his Mother was a mortal woman, he performed many miraculous feats, including taking the place of Promethius, who was sentenced to eternal punishment for stealing fire from the Gods and giving it to humans. Hercules also bore the weight of the world, and descended into and returned from the underworld. Another example is Thor, Son of Odin, and Joro, who was a giantess (and whose name means "earth"), whose greatest foe, Jormungandr,  is a serpent. At Ragnarok (The apocalypse) the two slay each other. Early american mythologies includes stories one who defeated death and brought a "gospel" of peace, promising to return some day. Some of the early Spanish explorers were mistakenly thought to be this returning god, which gave them great advantage over the natives in their conquest of the Americas.

Every Mythology has an apocalypse event, in which the earth/universe is destroyed and reborn.

So which story is the real one? Are any that we have the real one? Scientifically, it would be very difficult if not impossible to come to any certain conclusion. But the consistent recurrence of certain themes should not be cast aside lightly. If a pattern emerges, it usually means something.

Dis/Proving God:Science and Faith

I think we often forget that science is not the antithesis of belief. Science often depends upon belief in order to progress.

In around 400 BC, Democritus Posited That matter was composed of atoms and empty space. He had no tools to see an atom. He was acting on belief. And educated belief, based on observation and keen analysis, but a belief nonetheless.

In 1803 John Dalton proposed "Atomic Theory", going beyond the original hypothesis of Democritus, and Isaac Newton (1700'ish), to give detail about the role mass played in atomic composition.

In 1873 James Clerk Maxwell proposed that the empty space was in fact electric and magnetic fields. In 1894 G.J. Stoney, based on prior experiments with Cathodes rays, concluded that electron were particles.

Moving forward to 1903, and H. Nagaoka suggested that Electrons orbited positively charged particles in flat rings.

Niels Bohr in 1922 Modified this model to present electrons as orbital shells around a nucleus.

None of these individuals saw and atom, or an electron.

They acted on a belief, performed experiments observed and measured. There were times when experiments or theories were wrong. The first experiments using cathode rays to prove negatively charge particles failed. That didn't cause all of science-dom to declare electrons a myth (Though there were scientist who did not accept atomic theory as valid). Instead they reevaluated their model, discarded some theories about the properties and behavior of the particles, developed new tests, and moved forward. Electrons behavior changed from flat orbit, to spherical orbit, to sort of smeared out in a shell above a nucleus.

Today their are scientific theories, beliefs regarding other as yet undiscovered (much less seen) particles, such as the graviton - a theoretical particle responsible for gravitational force.

Belief is an entirely acceptable, even necessary facet of scientific discovery.

Religion makes an equally foolish mistake in attempting to ignore or discount science. Or basic logic.

I have on occasion asked a question, because it is one I find interesting to discuss... "How do you reconcile the Old and New Testaments? Specifically, in the Old Testament, God seems very wrathful, and quick to punish: examples include Lot's wife who was turned to salt for 'looking back'. To boys were eaten by a bear for making fun of a prophets bald headed-ness, A prophet chastises the king for not killing every man, woman, child, cow, etc... Then in the New Testament, Jesus, spend his time among sinners, inviting them to follow him, teaching everyone to love one another, and forgiving the very people who crucified him."

I have received some very thoughtful responses to this question. I have also received responses like "Who are you to reply against God?" and "They don't need to be reconciled". If I as a religious person, see a discrepancy in scripture, or teachings, etc... It does not prove that God doesn't exists, but it does say that there is an error either in the scripture/teaching, an error in my understanding of the scripture/teaching, or an error in my understanding of the nature and/or character of deity. To ignore the discrepancy is... blind faith... stupid faith.

So then, we accept the possibility that one or more deity may or may not exist.We recognize that, as we have insufficient resources to prove any case, we must therefore consider all possibilities. That doesn't mean we believe all possibilities, but we accept that each individual has the right to believe as they will. We respect the beliefs of others, seek common ground where possible, accommodate where possible.

How then can we hope to find any truth, personally or collectively. By utilizing a scientific principle of seeking patterns, commonalities, threads of truth.

Dis/Proving god:The Facts

On the topic of deity, one must start with what it known, and from there move to what is most likely, given available evidence.

To begin with, there are three possibilities, one and only one of which is true:

1. There is no god. (The atheist belief)
2. There is exactly one god. (The monotheist belief)
3. There is more than one god. (The polytheist belief)

It is notable that the last two are not as straightforward as many think. For instance. God vs Allah. Is one right and the other wrong/false? Or are both referring to the same one god? Or Are they both real, and separate? Dueling it out in some great astral chess game in which we are all pawns? The latter scenario takes what are generally thought to be beliefs systems of type 2 and defines them as type three.

Likewise many type 3 belief systems could also in fact be type 2. Some view Hinduism as having many - even millions of gods and goddesses, others say there is only one deity, that the "many" are merely different manifestations of the same "one". For other multi-deity belief systems, such as Greek and Norse mythology for instance, It is possible that these system were originally a single god system, but over time, the stories began to change, and the one being was re-imagined as multiple beings, perhaps to make it easier to rationalize what the believers saw as behavioral discrepancies in said deity.

Similarly one could argue that monotheistic systems performed the same process in reverse. To determine which way such a process went, one would need clear timelines for the various stories so that one could which were closer to the source stories, and which were more altered re-tellings.

In the absence of concrete evidence, we must assume that all three of the above possibilities are equally likely.

Some would claim that there is concrete evidence - Dinosaur bones for instance, which prove that the world wasn't made in seven days as the Old Testament claims. This portion of the "Old Testament" is a key part of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faith. But all this proves is that the biblical claim that the earth was made in seven days is either incorrect or misunderstood. It is possible the biblical telling is meant as more poetry than prose. It is also possible that the story was altered over the years of telling and retelling (what we have was either written by Moses, or by someone who heard it from Moses, making it at least one re-telling from Moses, and possibly more. But who did Moses hear it from? It could have been re-told and altered for several generations by the time it got to him).

Another possibility is that the writer or original teller (God?) may not have been talking about earth days (What is a day to someone who isn't from our Earth?) According to the Genesis telling of the story, The Sun, Moon and Stars don't come into play until the fourth day, suggesting that it wasn't earth day that was being used as the measure of time.

"But if the bible is imperfect or incorrect, then there must not be a God" right? Again, this is not proof of the nonexistence of God, rather it is proof that some theories about God are incorrect. The fact the the bible, prophets, and the world are imperfect leaves several possibilities in which God exists:

1. God is imperfect.
2. God does not micromanage.
3. Imperfection is part of the design.
4. We have an incorrect understanding of the word "perfection" where deity is concerned.

(typically about this time someone goes on a rant about religious people and their double-speak. This isn't doublespeak. It is merely the nature of language. Language is imprecise and fluid. Meaning changes over time, and from one person to another. The goal is to reach beyond the syllables to the personal meaning. Real communication isn't speaking at each other, it is understanding each other.)

So, an objective review of the facts reveals that the facts neither categorically prove, nor categorically disprove the existence of God. What then are we left with? Speculation. Theory. Belief. Hope. Faith. And "personal science"

Dis/proving God: Logic, Anecdotes and Water

A man lives in the desert. He hears a story about some substance called water. He is told every living thing needs it.

"Well," says he. "I see no water here, but I do see cactus. And cactus is a living thing, clearly getting by without water so water must not be real."

A man from New Orleans, Louisiana claims  he has seen water. Furthermore, he knows from personal experience that water boils when it reaches a temperature of 212 degrees F (100 C). Another man from Alma, Colorado claims he has seen water and furthermore knows that water boils at 193 F (89 C).

Each accuses the other of having "false water", contaminated water or "not the real water". Our desert dweller hears of this and declares it further proof that water isn't real, and that these two gentleman are just a couple of crazies, making things up.

The above is more parable than anecdote, so don't try to analyze it too deeply. It is meant to be as absurd as it sounds.

Given the relative improbability of proving or disproving the existence of God through hard evidence, we fall back to anecdote. But as you can see, this is very problematic, and the conclusions are likely wrong due limited information, personal bias, or any number of other factors.

The debate between New Orleans and  Alma, for instance isn't about one being right  and the other wrong. They have simply failed to understand one characteristic of water, namely the boiling point varies with altitude. At sea level water boils at 212 Farenheit in New Orleans. Alma Colorado is not at Sea level, it is 10,000 feet above sea level. And at that altitude, water boils at 193 degrees Farenheit.

And this is the problem with claiming God does or does not exist based on anecdote.

"Bad things happen to good people therefore there is no God"

"I witnessed a miracle therefore this is a God"

"One person is miraculously saved from death by God, and a child is killed senselessly, therefore either God is the biggest jerk ever, or he doesn't exist."

"Religious people have done violent things, and caused terrible wars, therefore there is no God."

"I prayed and felt something special therefore there is a God." or more specifically, "I prayed and felt something special about a specific religion, or leader, therefore there is a God, and this is his one and only truth."

"People of lots of different faiths claim to have had spiritual experiences letting them know their respective faith is the one and true faith. Clearly they can't all be the one true faith, therefore there is no God."

These conclusions are all various forms of logical fallacy. None of these anecdotes individually or together definitively, conclusively, scientifically justify a logical conclusion that deity does or does not exist.

They may be sufficient to disprove certain claims regarding the nature, character or motive of deity. But that is all. So, from a perspective of logic, rather than attempting to discredit deity or claim absolutely the existing of deity, it seems a rational person seeking to apply scientific principles would do better to consider the alternatives, rule out the impossibilities, identify the improbabilities, accept the uncertainties and consider the possibilities.

Dis/proving God: Math, Science and a Checkerboard

Imagine you live on a checkerboard, and that this "world of yours is completely sealed in by four walls and a low ceiling.

Two other people share this checkerboard with you.

One claims there is a helium atom somewhere in your checkerboard world.

The other claims there is not.

Who is right? How do we determine it?

Let's assume you have a helium detector, which can detect a single atom of helium within one checkerboard square.

You could wander around checking a few squares at random. A traditional checkerboard consists of 8x8, or 64 squares, so in each square, you have a 1 in 64 (1.6%) chance of finding the helium atom - if it in fact exists. If there are two helium atoms, your odds are even better. Twice as good in fact.

Now if the helium atom is stationary, by the time you have checked 32 squares you have a 50% chance of finding the atom. But until you have checked EVERY square, you can't be certain that there is no helium. In other words, it is actually slightly easier to prove it does exist than to prove that it doesn't. To prove it exists, you need only search until you have found one instance. To prove that none exist, you must search every square.

But just testing each square is not sufficient either. Unless the helium atom is stationary. Let's say we set up the following pattern to check every square, by traversing side to side as we move forward across the board. It would be very easy for a moving helium atom to slip past on the left side of the board while we are over on the right side.

There are a few ways I can overcome this:

1) With enough people and sensors, You can place one sensor in each row, side by side, and they can move down the rows in unison, effectively creating a net to ensure the helium doesn't slip past.

2) You  could use a net that stretches from one end to the other, and drag it across the board until I have left a single row, then I can traverse that row with my sensor.

3) You could design a sensor which will test an entire row at one time, then move across the rows from one end to the other.

4) You could design a sensor or sensor web which tests every square at once.

Now, what if instead of a 2 dimension checkerboard we are talking about a three dimension cube? Now instead of 8x8=64 squares to test, you have 8x8x8=512. Probability of finding the atom in one cube is 0.2%.

To apply the strategy in 1 you would need enough people and sensors for each row and column, you have gone from needing 8 of each to 64 of each.

To apply strategy 2, you would first need to drop a net from the ceiling to reduce the search area to an 8x8x1 space, then drag the end-to-end net across to get to the single 8x1x1 column necessary.

Strategy 3 would require the same 64 sensors as strategy 1

And strategy 4 would require 512 sensors.

What of the cube is significantly bigger? 1000 x 1000 x 1000? That would be 1 billion cubes!
What if it is much, much bigger? Say 91 billion light years across(the distance across the observable universe)? There aren't enough people, enough sensors capable of creating the necessary web, nor sensors capable of spanning that mind-mindbogglingly huge distance.

And if you have never actually seen a helium atom - know nothing of it's physical makeup - how can you be certain your helium detector actually detects helium?

The same logic applies to god(/s) detection. We have an enormous space, and insufficient resources to scan said space, for a being (or beings) of unknown composition.  In fact, one could argue it is even worse, as we would also need to consider the space outside of observable space. Or the possibility that said being(/s) exist in an as yet undefined, unobserved dimension (yes, I know it sounds pretty sci-fi, but then so did spaceships and robots and glow in the dark sheep once upon a time).

Therefore, anyone who declares that there is a deity or deities, is doing so based on personal belief, and not by scientific analysis.

Anyone who declares that there is no god is doing so based on personal belief and not by scientific analysis.

We simply do not have the means to prove or disprove the existence of deity through pure scientific, mathematical process.

What is left then is speculation based on observation and interpretation of available evidence.

More on that later.

Pornography, Addiction, Depression and Science

I've seen quite a few conversations recently around the link between pornography addiction and depression. There have been quite a few articles on the subject in the past few years, and recently there seems to have been an uptick in conversation.

The articles all talk about scientific studies, but rarely give references.That is fairly typical; most people don't want to wade through scientific studies, and often the studies are not available for free, public consumption. Price to access such studies can run into the hundreds of dollars.

I did find this study from 1998. It seems to be reasonably sound, albeit short. The methods are well documented, and they do a good job of summarizing the results without bias.

The articles are often very good, very well thought out, and make very compelling, and logically reasonable arguments (I though this one was particularly compelling).

But they are ultimately opinion pieces, and they are interpreting the data the way they choose. Nearly every article I have read seems to be interpreting in the same way. The directly or indirectly implied assertion of the articles is that Pornography addiction leads to depression.

This concerns me. It concerns me because the general public may take this assertion as proven, scientific truth, when it isn't. It is certainly one way to interpret the data, but it is not the only way.


From the study I referenced, the following quote is critical (emphasis added):

"Based on the findings, it is concluded that evaluation of suspected cases of PIU [pathological internet use] should include assessment for depression. These results, however, do not clearly indicate whether depression preceded the development of such Internet abuse or if it was a consequence."

In other words, while it is POSSIBLE that Pornography addiction causes depression....

It is EQUALLY POSSIBLE that depression causes a predisposition to addiction (not just addiction to pornography but any and all addictive/compulsive behaviors).

Most articles I am seeing only consider the former, and not the latter possibility. This is concerning, as it can lead to blaming the victim. There is a commonly repeated theme - perhaps more frequently in America, that we are solely responsible for our destinies. That thought, infused with pride, tends to lead to a converse thought that others are solely to blame for their misfortunes. "They are the just punishments for their sins", either in this life or the life previous. The oversimplification of the phrase "You reap what you sow" ignores life's, floods, firestorms, hurricanes, droughts... It discounts the impact of genetics, environment, and the effects of social interaction for good or ill.

My own theory, I suspect that depression and addiction work together in a feedback cycle. each increasing the effects of the other. I'd even go so far as to suggest that a long-term addiction could effect a genetic change, increasing the probability of a predisposition in offspring. And thus the key is to work up, rather than down the spiral.

What would change by recognizing both possibilities equally?

Treatment for addiction probably wouldn't change all that much. Perhaps a little more attention to possible links to - and treatment for depression might arise,

But there might be a greater degree of compassion for those who suffer from addictions, if we recognized the genetic predisposition. We might also be able to develop means to identify those genetically predisposed to addiction, and better prepare them in advance to avoid becoming trapped in addictive behaviors. Perhaps also, we as a society would be more willing to make potentially addictive substances less overtly available, if we understood how we were negatively effecting those individuals.

Perhaps...

Eliminating the disabled.

This post could be considered a follow-up to my previous post, but in fact this one has been on my mind for years.

There are all kinds of disabled people in this world: blind, deaf, paraplegic, quadriplegic, down's syndrome, autism, anxiety disorders.... We generically tend to lump them under general terms, like disabled or handicapped.

Actually, those terms have fallen out of grace in recent years. In fact I heard a woman on the radio talking about the need to eliminate the term "handicapped" from parking slots at stores due to bad connotations, and instead "use something like... special, or reserved..."

The Germans had a different term around the time of Hitlers rise to power: "Nutlos Esser" or "Useless Eaters", though it wasn't actually their idea, the concept actually may have originated in the United States. John Harvey Kellogg (of Kellog's cornflakes fame) was a great champion of eugenics in the US. (Though it predates him as well, bits of it show up in the writings of Karl Marx. Ideas were also borrowed from Darwin, and even earlier, Plato and others.

The Philosophy which Kellogg championed, was that humans, as the top of the food chain, had no natural predators, and thus must be self-responsible for the "culling of the herd" to eliminate the genetically weak, or inferior. If not, they would continue to breed, diluting the evolutionary advantage of humans, and from an economic standpoint, the healthy and "normal" individuals of society wold be overburdened with the cost of caring for the sick, the diseased... the inferior. Mr. Kellogg's solution was mandatory sterilization of inferior people. Take away the ability to pass on inferior genes and they will simply... die out. Hitler liked the idea, and took the the next logical step. If these people are a burden on society, simply eliminate them from the outset, so that the world's resources won't be wasted on them, and will instead be used to accelerate the evolution of the genetically superior. The end result being stronger, smarter people, more wealth, less poverty, more health, less illness...

Now the one point they had right was the fact that, if the population of "disabled" grows too large, the burden to care for them will overwhelm the rest of the population which will inevitably lead to collapse. There are practical limits to how many people one person can provide food, clothing and shelter for.

But they had the entirely wrong idea as to how to eliminate the "disabled"

I think there is a much better approach. Here are the crucial steps:

1. Stop the "warm fuzzy talk" and use correct labels. Terms like "special" are useless. "Handicapped" is equally useless, slightly better if properly prefixed (physically, mentally). Blind would be better still, as it gets closer to an accurate description of a specific challenge a specific person faces. can you imagine expecting a doctor to correctly treat you after being told only that you had a case of "sick"?

You want a label for the parking stalls? how about "Mobility Impaired"? That's the point of  those spots isn't it? A place close to the front door, with few impediments, to facilitate those who find getting around a greater than normal challenge?

And don't let the ignorant take words away. retard is a valid word with a valid, useful meaning ("verb - delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment."), just because some moron misuses it, doesn't mean we should stop using it appropriately. Keep dropping misused words from the language, and in time there will be no words left.

2. Acknowledge the challenges/weaknesses - Everyone has strengths. Everyone has weaknesses. It is stupid to pretend otherwise, and even dumber to overstate a weakness. A person with no legs is not likely to excel in professional soccer. That doesn't mean he can't be a good swimmer, or motivational speaker (Google Nick Vujicic).

3.Identify Strengths - we spend too much time focusing on what a person with disability "x" can't do. Why not focus on what they are able to excel at instead? The blind often have sharpened hearing, With autism, there are a number of specialized skills which often emerge, musically, computationally... I have a nephew who has hydrocephalus. He has a sharp mind for faces, and an enormous positivity, and kindness. When I watch him interact with others, I often find myself thinking that what is holding him back from doing more in this life is our inability to communicate with him. I think he has a great deal of sage advice he could share with the world, if only we could understand what he is trying to tell us.

3. Change the environment - In some cases perhaps the only thing holding a person back is the way we have constructed the world. Justin Sewell is attributed with saying “TEAMWORK: A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction.” One of those human nature things- we people get together and build societies, and when we do we tend to shape them in our own image. It is a reasonable thing to do, but all to often, we overdo it. We expect everyone to be "just like us", to think "just like us". What we call normal, may only be normal in our mind. Example: Roughly half the human population is lactose intolerant, so which then is "normal", the ability to digest milk, or the inability? I think British people have an accent, they think I have an accent, so which one of us speaks "normally"? roughly one of every 5 youth is diagnosed as ADHD. One of five. Twenty percent. Is it really a disorder, or just a different "normal"?

Instead of expecting everyone to accommodate us all the time, perhaps we need to learn to be more accommodating of them. One example of success in this area is specialisterne, a company that specializes in contracting and placing autistic employees. They have taken the time to understand their employees, and they have adapted the workplace and job selection to the specific talents and challenges their employees face. An entire class of "useless eaters" are now productive participants, as a result.

And that ultimately is the way to eliminate the disabled. Understand them, accommodate them where possible, and give them the means to be self-reliant and successful. Don't limit them.

We humans are uniquely able to engineer the means to enable our success, to alter our very environment if need be. We use that ability daily to enable us to live in environments whose conditions exceed the significant limitations of our rather frail bodies. We can do the same thing for these, so-called disabled, and in doing so, we can remove the disability. No longer charity cases, no longer "useless eaters", no longer dependent on the good will of others, or the strength of the economy, because they are themselves contributors to, drivers of economic success.

Mental Health: Is it really a disorder/illness?

I was just listening to a radio program, talking about mental health, and the need to have a "real conversation" about mental illness.

They of course talked about the usual suspects. Dealing with the stigma of mental illness, recognizing that mental illnesses are as real as other illnesses, handicaps, etc...

I had a thought though, which I have never heard addressed: What if some of these disorders, aren't actually disorders? What if some/many of these disorders are only disorders because we as a society have overly-restricted the definition of  "normal"?

Take ADD/ADHD as an example: This country, I would argue, only exists because of ADD/ADHD. It would take a person with ADD characteristics to overlook the enormous risks and potential consequences, abandon all they had, and cross thousands of miles of ocean to come to  an unknown, wild land and try to build a new life from nothing! And it would take an ADD brain to survive some of the events the early settlers experienced.

What if many of these people are in fact perfectly healthy, normal people, who are struggling, suffering because society has allowed a few nut-jobs to incorrectly define "normal"?

What if there is a simple way to "fix" them, not by medicating them, but by accommodating them?

Autism is one case where this is starting to happen. What about other "disorders"?

What if many of these shooting tragedies suicides, etc... could be prevented by changing the conversation from disorder/illness and treatment to understanding the different characteristics/qualities of people, and adjusting our society to accommodate them?

Modern Disease and Mobility

Random thought of the day:

I have hear a fair amount of speculation regarding the causes of modern diseases (including cancers and various autoimmune disorders), Some of the more popular theories I have read tie it to diet, or to the increased use of chemicals, pesticides, etc.. (one more recent theory I mentioned in a previous post suggest a link between 1st world poverty and modern disease).

Of course, some of these seem unlikely, because the timelines don't really fit. For instance the assertion that the introduction of Grains, or the agricultural diet is the cause. The modern disease timeline goes back hundred of years, agricultural diet goes back thousands. The processed foods, or pesticides argument is closer, though there are still some holes in the correlation.

But I just had a random thought this afternoon. What about modern mobility? We have, and take advantage of an increasing ability to traverse in large numbers over vast distances. A simplistic but supporting example:

It has been reported that small, isolated groups tend to have less disease. a family, living in complete isolaion, for instance. However, if they come in contact with other groups, they tend to have low resistance the bacteria and virii those visitors are carrying with them. This was considered to be a major contributor to the decimation of native american populations when Europeans arrived in the new land. Native Americans lived primarily in smaller tribal groups, with relative isolation, and limited travel. Their immune systems weren't prepared for the disease the white man brought from Europe.

But if that were the case, why then were the pilgrims not equally decimate by Native american diseases? Much of it may be explained by the points in this article- in short the introduction of rats (specifically the black rat) and fleas as carriers/transmitters, and comparatively poor hygiene of native american populations (respecting soil, water and food).

But what if there is something else that plays in as well? What if there is a (complicated) equation which can be derived, relating...

Population Size
Population Mobility
Range of Mobility
Viral and/or bacterial interactions relating to population, distance, and time

vs. rate of adaptability of the human immune system?


(Yeah, probably some multi-variable calculus involved in that).

What if, with our increasing ability to traverse increasingly large distances, in increasingly shorter times, we have created an environment in which our immune systems simply can't evolve fast enough to keep up with the intermingling and evolution of bacterial and viral strains?

That was my random thought for the day.