Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Does The Middle East Spell Doom and Gloom For the World?

There is (for me) a misconception of what the brain does and does not do. Chomsky and other cognitive behaviorists have it half right. They are correct in that certain behaviors are learned via stimulus induced unconscious abilities (genetic programs). In addition, the brain is obviously a device which stores information for later retrieval (memories) as well as for the purposes of recall (fire is hot). These memories are not accessed until some relevant stimuli calls them in to play. That is the extent (for me) of the so called unconscious. Science (behaviorists, anthropologists, etc.) mix and match morality and the motivations of morality with the unconscious because science continues to attribute moral behavior to the operation of the brain. Prompting not only a search for rational explanations of why we behave morally but also an extrapolation of the functionality of the cognitive operations of the brain to moral behavior. Giving rise to things like the creation of Freudian unconscious and preconscious theories. And an explanation of why logically Searle refuses to acknowledge an unconscious mental intentional phenomena.

The formation of religious groups (cults, countries, terrorist groups, etc.) is nothing more than the running or innate ANIMAL programs. Since they are nothing more than the formation of packs under the auspice of god, defending one pack at all costs is what is called for. And once you participate further participation is progressive - violence begets violence (etc.). The reason for this is rather complex, but essentially these programs are learned and reinforced through their use. As Darth Vadar learned the dark side is very strong once you participate.

When operating in animal behavior, our programs dictate our behavior. When we act morally, god (our spirit, conscience or morality) dictates our behavior. When we act at all there is a conflict and a duality.

The rules of animals in their survival are simple, evade danger (escape or be destroyed), confront danger and be victorious (face the fight and win or be destroyed), attack and destroy or be destroyed (start the fight and win or be destroyed). There are no other possibilities in the survival paradigm. Animals operating in packs (religions, countries, groups) have the same rules. Consequently, the opposing sides in the Middle East are operating with this inherent duality, Each of the sides or packs act in the realm of their animal programs (defense of position, dominance, etc.). They also are faced with moral issues (deferment, peace). However, in the Middle East (as is the case with most religions) both sides have distorted their morality to conform to their religious dogma. Which I might add is a product of not morality but rather their animal programs (we are superior because we have god in our pack, or god chose our group and we are dominant). Accordingly, they each use their created beliefs about their relationship with god to validate their actions in violence and killing and protection of their positions. As such, moral concerns are diluted and depressed in this instance in favor of animal tendencies.

Therefore, in the Middle East, we are strictly dealing primarily in animal programs. As such, the middle east is naturally doomed to continue it’s conflict until once side is defeated entirely (destroyed). I note that neither can escape to avoid destruction (escape or be destroyed). Whether this destruction occurs today, tomorrow or 100 years from now I believe it is ultimately inevitable. Unfortunately, the destruction of one side may lead to the involvement of other packs (other countries) whose interests will come in to view. Therefore the extermination of the conflict could lead (and should lead) to further escalation ON A GLOBAL SCALE.

While nothing is written in stone, the variables required to catapult the conflict in the Middle East in to a global event are present, dominant and in my opinion likely. As Carl Von Clausewitz “There are very few men- and they are the exceptions—who are able to think and feel beyond the present moment”.

Is Morality Divine?

I read in the New York Post under “Weird But True” that a pregnant woman about to give birth to twins rushed in to a burning building to knowingly save a paralyzed woman. “I knew it was a risk to myself but I couldn’t leave her she said” (July 13, 2006). This is clearly an irrational act contrary not only to the survival of this woman but her unborn babies. It is therefore actually an extraordinary act since the woman’s natural maternal instincts (which must be genetically paramount) were suppressed in favor of saving a paralyzed woman. How could this be possible? This of course got me thinking about morality and altruism. It has been by constant belief that altruism in animals is not the same as self-sacrifice. One is a conscious choice to give up something irrationally; the other has to do with animal programming overwritten by directly related social consequences.

There are many so-called scientists who believe that morality is an extension of innate abilities and the mechanisms of the brain. Or like the physical development of humans, morality is a natural extension of evolution. Taking a look at just one such individual, Noam Chomsky, we can see the flaw in this reasoning. Chomsky seems to believe (as I do) that humans are programmed computers whose internal mechanisms can be both be turned on (programmed) and changed (re-programmed) by external stimuli. Chomsky's work reinforces the philosophical tradition of "rationalism," the contention that the mind, or "reason," contributes to human knowledge beyond what is gained by experience. He is opposed by the "empiricists," who claim that all knowledge derives from external stimuli, including language (Noam Chomsky , Major Twentieth Century Writers, 1991). The discovery of cognitive structures common to the human race but only to humans (species specific), leads quite easily to thinking of unalienable human attributes." ((Noam Chomsky , Major Twentieth Century Writers, 1991, citing Nation, Edward Marcotte). "Mind is the software of human psychology, and thought is individuated as instances of the mind's operations. The behaviorist is seen to be insisting ... on a very minimal sort of software; the rationalist is out to show that much more powerful and abstract, perhaps in good measure innate, software has to be involved (Justin Leiber in his work Noam Chomsky: A Philosophical Overview).

Unfortunately Chomsky and other cognitive behaviorists only have it half right - while our brains come pre-programmed as do the brains of animals ("Chomsky has said "if we assume that human beings belong to the biological world, then we must expect them to resemble the rest of the biological world"), what they entirely attribute to the innate software of the brain, I attribute in part to innate programs and in part to divine morality. Since we know little if anything about the brain and how it operates, I'd say our respective theories could each be as equally correct. But I also believe my theory is based upon logical and rational conclusions.

I suggest you try to suspend your beliefs and prejudices for a moment and imagine a regular old computer. This computer has pre-existing programs running which are intended to support both it’s survival and it’s ability to evolve in to a smarter machine. The programs are automatically changed inside the computer as a result of external stimuli. At some point this computer becomes so intelligent that it acquires a new ability (and desire) to determine that some of it’s programs are no longer required toward it’s own survival and it’s further evolution – non-computer software related abilities were inserted (morality). Or that some of it’s programs can and should be limited in their operation. Unfortunately it can’t erase the original programs because they were and are inextricably intertwined with’s it’s continuing functionality. So the computer is faced with a duality in the conflict between it’s preexisting programming (which it can not shut off) and it’s desire and new ability to limit or turn that programming at will (free will). And this is the fate of we humans. At some evolutionary plateau, we suddenly learn that killing, hoarding, stealing, etc. can be substituted by love, self-sacrifice, sharing, caring, etc. This ability is what makes humans distinct from animals who have no such abilities. It is worth noting that both the pre-existing programming and our morality are not constant in this battle. Our programming can be reinforced with it’s operation (i.e. habit, physical dependence) as can our new ability to be moral through it’s use (kindness, compassion, caring).

Animals, therefore, are not moral creatures. For survival alone, while "[t]he greater part of naturally occurring behavior in most animals, especially for those that live in relatively predictable environments, appears to be predisposed (see Boice, 1973), and it is released by external events (e.g., hormones that are produced in response to seasonal variations in sunlight or temperature)" (A cognitive behaviorist approach to the study of animal behavior, Journal of General Psychology, Oct, 2002 by Thomas R. Zentall), there remains a need in animals to be able to alter their behavior based upon environmental stimuli and behavioral consequences. This is not morality but simply a readjustment of their innate programs (see: Mary Cover Jones' work or Pavlov's dogs). Animals are not making conscious decisions based upon what they feel is right or wrong. They are reacting to stimuli and altering their programs. This is especially applicable in unstable environments. If I smack my dog on the nose he immediately stops eating off the table. Did he do it because he thought it was bad behavior? I think not. If I smack him every time he does it eventually his natural instinctual program to eat first and ask questions later is re-written - but not because he now know's it's morally wrong to do so. This ability in animals and humans to overwrite our natural programs makes sense because without it behavior would be unable to respond to an otherwise chaotic environment. It would seem necessary that our innate survival programs should be permitted change based upon our often changing environmental situations. Having been officially reprogrammed to act when the environmental situation has seemingly or actually permanently changed. For my dog continual nose smacks tell his program that says “eat! when there is food on the table" with “try to get the food and experience pain”. The ability of our programs to be re-written in response to our environment is in fact the true genius of our genetic programming. For humans, a prime example of this external stimuli which shapes our innate behavioral programs are our moral codes and laws (religious codes, criminal codes, etc.). Fear, pain, punishment and the like are the same tools I use on my dog toward changing his programing and they work in an identical fashion in we humans. But what give us this added ability to make a choice to ignore our programs? Or even to challenge our laws on moral grounds in acts of civil disobedience or protest? And what is telling us that our choice is the correct choice?

While animals and humans have innate survival programs which can be changed according to external stimuli, clealry humans have the additional ability to ignore or actually turn those programs off in favor of alternative solutions. Nevertheless the pregnant woman not only suppressed her innate survival programs, she was spurred to action by her sense of doing what she felt was right. The behavior of humans, therefore, while similar to animals, has an added component which permits actions which are directly in opposition to our very survival programs. These actions are often irrational in the context of survival. And especially in the context of survival of the fittest. How could such an ability possibly be tied to some evolutionary development?

The distinction I am amking here is between pre-programed abilities (which initially need to be turned on and then can be changed in response to external stimuli) and the ability to make contrary (irrational) decisions based upon what we feel is right (morality). And while science clearly supports the idea that man evolved from a primitive animal in to an intelligent creature by way of evolution, it would seem that there is no scientific evidence to support a similar development of morality. In fact, moral decisions like the one made by the pregnant woman are contrary to our survival as a species.

Clearly, our survival tools and programming (what we now label evil) are natural behaviors necessary in both the survival and evolution of a (primitive) pre-moral human. Consequently we see (quite correctly) in most creation myths that it is an EVOLVED intelligence and wisdom (symbolically a serpent or snake) which was necessary for god to insert himself in to man. In his pre-conscious state (in the symbolic Garden of Eden) man was in fact just an animal - that's why he didn't need to be clothed - he (like my dog) had no sense of awareness. Clearly then, “original sin” is just another term for our animal programming (evil) which we still are all continually born with - just now (in a post-moral state) with the opposing force of god (spirit, soul, morality, a conscience) operating against it. I'm certainly not a creationist in the six day traditional sense. Science is real - just not the answer toward explaining morality and god..

Let’s return to altruism as the basis and support for the evolution of morality. Again, like repeatedly slapping the dog on the nose toward modifying his natural tendencies, altruism is strictly a tool toward survival learned vis-a-vis the external stimuli of the animal's
environment. There's no conscious choice to act irrationally present in animals. Nor any plausible (i.e. evolutionary) nexus to suggest that altruism developed as such in humans. I have tried extensively to find cases of altruism in animals which are not directly related to their own survival – and can find (by my means of examination) none. As an example, deferring in the eating order of pack animals has a rational relationship to the survival of the weaker members - by permitting the strongest to eat first the weaker members increase their survival potential. Compare the pregnant woman above who risked three lives to save the paralyzed individual in that burning building or a starving mother on a deserted island who gives her baby (who can not thereafter sustain himself alone) the remaining food toward her own demise.

In conclusion, morality is not evolutionary but divine.

Your comments are welcome.

Hoarding Your Nuts and Tendencies of Good and Evil

Did you ever wonder why a squirrel hoards nuts? How does he know to do that? Do the other squirrels get outraged when one squirrel has all the nuts and there are starving squirrels all over the forest? Everything considered "evil" (it seems) is acceptable in the survival of an animal - theft, hoarding, killing, even eating their own young. However, when we humans engage in this behavior there is a reactionary judgment and this reactionary judgment is caused by our morality - there is something that separates us from animals - religious people call it a spirit, atheists call it morality, spiritual people call it our soul - no matter what we call it (even god) it causes us to judge what is considered an otherwise natural reaction in our survival programming to be (now) bad. If we are the evolutionary products of some creator, and we required this animal programming to get to this stage (i.e in our survival from animals to an intelligent being), and we are then given conscious understanding of our actions (at some later level of intelligence), than the evil (our natural animal tendencies) served a purpose in getting us here. Killing, hoarding, stealing and the like all work perfectly well toward survival. And it would be perfectly understandable for this or that creator to have created both evil (natural instincts in survival) and good (a later ability to understand that these actions are now bad). The problem is not understanding all this but actually having some motivation to develop your morality in lieu of your animal. And most of us do not have the ability to recognize when we are stickily following our innate programs at the expense of the development of our morality. This is essentially what habits are - looping our programming. Serial Killers are really just running programs which are innate in our genetic code. Killing is perfectly acceptable to animals. Serial Killers have suppressed their concepts of right and wrong to satisfy a program. The way in which this program comes to fruition is through it’s use. Once a serial killer kills the program recognizes itself. Killing then becomes progressive as the serial killer’s mind is indicating that this program needs to run again (that is why it’s there). All programs we have seem to me to be progressive - that is the more we use them the more we need to use them. For example, people who engage in deviant sexual behavior like sado masochism are running programs concerning our innate genetic programs of dominance and submission as well as violence. The more they engage in this behavior the more they want to engage in this behavior often leading to behaviors which transcend fantasy (i.e. actual rape and killing). People who have a sense of moral outrage at specific immoral acts do so as they have developed their morality to a level which no longer permits one or more particular programs to take hold. Original sin is simply our genetic instinctual programs which without morality (often called god, spirit, soul, consciousness, etc.) would result us in simply being animals . Genetic code predisposes some individuals to have variations of the functionality of these programs. That is to say our genetic code predisposes us to use this program or that program more prevalently than it may be used by someone else. In short, we humans aren’t all that hard to figure out. It’s dealing with our inherent duality which is the tough part. The key I believe it to avoid behaviors which mimic our programming. Because engaging in these behaviors is, as I noted, progressive.

North Korea Launches Some Conflict

Like animals we humans like to defend out positions - even when they’re ridiculous. I don’t think it matters what we really believe - it’s all about conflict. That’s what the world is selling you in case you didn’t realize - they’re selling you conflict. In fact, when see a movie the principle element of that movie is conflict. Usually evil verses good or some offshoot of that principle. When you listen to some conservative talk show host talk about liberals with disdain - he or she is selling you conflict. What makes a sports rivalry great? The conflict creates the drama. Don’t we just love it when a fight breaks out at a baseball game? How about the show cops? Is it just the conflict that make us want to watch? So conflict sells as well as sex if not better. So what’s the problem with this? Well the problem is to varying degrees (based upon our genetic predispositions and environmental history) we humans are naturally aggressive. We are easily drawn in to conflicts (did you ever see a riot break out at a soccer game?). In fact, once we get started conflict is progressive. Take for (an easy) example the Middle East. I heard on the news today (it could have been any day) that more people were killed. Sadly today it was a 12 year old Palestinian girl. So there’s an inciting event and then more conflict and then another inciting event and then even more conflict and so on and so on. Conflict is naturally escalating and humans naturally escalate conflict. Did you ever get insulted? What was you’re first reaction? Were you ever robbed? What was your first reaction? When someone hurts us do we do the godly thing and forgive them or do we want revenge and satisfaction for what they have done to us? So the media (television, movie industry, news stations) are constantly selling us conflict almost like drug dealers. They’re preying on our genetic weaknesses and we fall for it like addicts. The Michael Savages and the Rush Limboughs of the world are really just connflict dealers and the people who call in to argue or side up are really conflict addicts. The news media not only sells you conflict it likes to show you pictures of the conflict so you’ll get even more hooked. Just picture a cocaine dealer showing you pictures of not the cocaine itself but what cocaine can make you feel like.
So we have all this conflict going on in the world and I have to wonder how the people in charge of selling it to you really feel about it? I mean without all this conflict what would they talk about? What would they sell us? I can picture some news media executive hearing the news about North Korea firing a few missiles and saying, “thank heavens, I thought they were going to back down”.

Johnny Depp’s American Stress Syndrome

Not surprisingly, our great democratic right to vote is a sham because the candidates are all card board cut out of themselves. Do the millionaires of this country really represent the interests of the poor and disenfranchised just because they say they are liberal or democrat? How come some poor guy from Ohio isn't our president? They always own oil fields lately.
I realize that with the way we live in America we can and do find all sorts of sides to jump on (and that is our nature). We can call in every week on this radio station or another but there’s not a lot we can actually do to change anything. We are either powerless or apathetic. Patriotic of Anti-American. Conservative or liberal. And the guys in the suits just keep doing whatever they want anyway. Fed a higher standard of living we’re sort of like fat branded cows in the field who complain a lot but never get out of the pasture.
And so maybe this obtuse character Johnny Depp has it right? If you’re well off why would you want to be a part of all of this American Stress Syndrome? As soon as I make my first twenty million dollars I’m getting the barn next to Depp’s. Maybe he has satellite TV and I can still catch the Met games at his place? Johnny I'm home...

Superman Returns Full Of Holes

I’m not in the habit or reviewing movies, but I just saw Superman and need to vent. If you have not seen this movie and intend to do so, please do not read on as I give it all away. I usually have no problem dispelling my disbelief when I go to see a movie. However, some movies just insult even my most unimportant and unintelligent sensibilities. Superman is one of those movies that drives me nuts! Here’s a brief run down of all that’s wrong with the movie (and the poorly written script):

Lex Luther
In the movie Lex Luther somehow finds superman’s unguarded all powerful crystals (how does he find them and why are they unguarded?) and (after playing the Superman instructional video) decides to make his own continent by dropping them (like alka-seltzer) in the ocean off the coast of the United Sates. While Lex Luther understands the value of owning real estate, he apparently doesn’t see the problem with owning land that looks like parts of the moon since the land this process makes looks post-nuclear. He should have at least had a landscaper in his crew of three (yes three) bad guys. Also, as far as I can tell, when he decides to make his land mass he has just one helicopter (and a multi-gazillion-dollar disposable yacht that he abandons to be destroyed). Why not develop all the futuristic weapons that these crystals can supposedly provide (I bet they would be weapons with jagged edges) before you start making noise? Oddly he makes a new land mass in the ocean which ripples NYC and no one shows up to investigate! I knew our intelligence was bad but come on. Aside from these annoyances, while there’s mayhem all over the world Lex Luther and his cliche (oh it’s so sad when Superman get’s hurt) idiotic girlfriend use an out of control car to attract (distract) superman so they can easily steal the (rather common?) chunk of kryptonite that is coincidentally a story in the newspaper just when Lex needs it. Of all the (simultaneous) disasters in the world how did they know Superman would go for the loopy girl in an out of control car trick? After walking in to the museum and politely stealing the kyrptonite (did they really just kill the lights, break the glass and walk out?), he mixes it with the crystals and shoots it in to the ocean to make a sort of a Superman weakening land mass. Lex fails to kill Superman when he shows up and gets de-powered (I was waiting for the chain saw but instead he stabs Superman with a small piece of kryptonite and lets him float away in to non-kryptonite water with a small shard of krypto-meteor stuck in his side). Lex later entrusts the remaining super powerful crystals to the lap of his I’m-so-upset-this stuff-is-happening girlfriend who promptly dumps them out, and he and her finally end up on a (Gilligan’s) deserted Island the size of my back yard (good thing she took a sun umbrella on the helicopter). I also want to know what kind of he-almost-previously-annihilated-the-world-bad-guy has a double life sentence and gets off on appeal because a (post trial?) witness (here Superman) doesn’t show up - as an attorney it boggles my mind that Hollywood can’t at least get some paralegal to make up some plausible procedural explanation in a two hundred million dollar movie. In short Lex Luther and his jagged story line are hard to swallow.

Lois
We first see Lois aboard an airplane which is acting as the mule for a new space shuttle. I’m thinking the writers thought that they needed to have Superman save Lois and that they needed some exciting and spectacular vehicle to save her in. Ah, Boat? No, kind of boring.
Train? Eh, too mild. Airplane? Not bad, but..I got it! An airplane with a space shuttle launching on it’s roof. Cool! Over all, this Lois is beautiful (about time) and a little vulnerable - giving her character some sympathetic qualities that the prior portrayals failed to muster. As far as the love story (which is basically paramount here) we get the same old he-flies-her-around-town-in-the-moonlight cliche that is so tired even sappy romantics must have been bored.

Superman
The big guy! The back story here is that Superman leaves for two years to see if his home planet is still out there when (earth?) astronomers think they may have seen it. My first thought was, Superman flies in outer space and he thinks our astronomers can figure out if his planet is out there? Why didn’t he just fly out to the hubble telescope himself with his super eyes and take a look? Did he need to fly to the door step of Krypton or could he see it was gone when he was half-way there? During the movie Superman learns that the crystals are gone, that the electrical power grid has been blacked out, and that a meteor was stolen from the museum, and yet he never seems to put two and two together - sort of wondering around waiting for things to happen before he reacts. Despite his super vision he can’t see the green glowing material in Lex’s new land mass and flies right in like some sort of pizza delivery guy. Neither a thinking man nor a proactive force are you Superman? Included in this movie is the out-played he’s-a-boy-running super-fast-through-the-corn-fields-and-jumping-on-barns starter kit. What the heck? Two hundred million plus dollars and they bring us back to the corn fields to watch super-boy barn hopping? I’ll just say, I’m available to write scripts if anyone needs me.

Unlike the Spiderman movies were each plot point and event in the movie has a rational relationship to the characters and the story, this movie fails to remain connected. With it’s very simplistic plot, it’s basically just a sappy love story wrapped in a few eye catching action scenes.