Thursday, February 25, 2016

What does exist without a doubt

I am responsible for my beliefs, even thought as a child I was told what to believe, which it turns out was completely wrong. I have been wrong all my life. I know this now. Sacred is spelled wrong, it should be scared, just a dyslexic error, that is all. The void of space exists but not really, it is a void. The earth exists, and we exist. To the skeptics I say, if we do not, all this does not matter anyway.

The great void exists. About one billion light years wide. Was a big bang at the center, and everything flew outward from there? There is noting but matter and energy, in all it's forms. It all obeys the natural laws, and that which can exist does exist. There are also unstable and intermediate molecules. And there is the great void, and the even bigger void, within which this bit of matter exists in. Does that make us feel small or what?

Part of the matter since the big bang may be traveling through the void at greater than the speed of light away from us, relatively speaking, for we may be traveling, relative the void at something over half the speed of light, and the other half is moving away at a similar rate, so we may only be able to see half of the matter that there is. This number, half is just a guess, for the matter must be spreading radially, more of less so without the physics who knows. I do not know, but I do believe in the void that all exists in for that is the definition of nothing and the void, not to be confused with the smaller great void. If you do not understand this, it does not matter.

So what does this have to do with with overeating recovery? Well the truth shall set us free. We can believe in  the void, the biggest space there is, and is defined by not existing. So we are just opportunistic organic matter living on a rock that sucks air to it's self, and whirls about a hydrogen nuclear reactor that provides us with radiation energy. This is where we evolved, but we could have been seeded or developed here. Either way, it does not matter. So then there is no purpose but to reproduce, eat, grow and die. So we might as well just sit back and party, but if we do that we will die off for who will produce food. So then it is up to us to live the best we can, as equals, spread the resources out so that none/few starve, but those who work the hardest can get ahead. But now it is the inequality, the cornered markets, and the uneven distribution of wealth that make such a difference.   

Now when I start from this reality, the world takes on a different view, light or whatever. Life is not a sacred as it was. The who concept of scared sounds phony phony to me. There is no doubt that we all want to live, but with the overpopulation problem we have, there is no reason not to trim lives at both ends. At the tail end, it should be voluntary, and at the front end up to 80% of viable, 16 weeks or the like, if the parents like.  Many of the cultures exposed there old and unwanted young, which is just inhumane. We would not do that to a domestic animal now, but the religion forces us into that situation now. Oh well, that is religion, the group delusion of our ancestors.  All we really need to do is to educate women and men to the reality, and those who are honorable, society minded will limit reproduction. If that is not enough, we may need to take action against those who just want to reproduce. 

Those who are not rational, or think there is a god should have no say in the matter, they suffer from a group delusion. There is much that we do not know, but lets not promote ignorance. We do not have all the answers yet, but group delusions are not the way to understand the world. All we need to do is figure out how to live together in joyful peace and harmony. If you are not willing to do that, then what are we to do? Kill you? And eat you, as in Fiji or Easter Islanders did as a survival method for the last 200 years of their existence?

We are headed toward interesting times for sure. Wateves. Oh well, what do I know?


Tuesday, February 23, 2016


"I am responsible. When anyone, anywhere, reaches out for help, I want the hand of help always to be there. And for that: I am responsible."

(lifted from AA and modified)

I am responsible for my life. We each are responsible for our own life, our own decisions, regardless of who, who's or what advice we are following. The responsibility come back to us making a decision to follow or not. For this, I am responsible. This concept allows me to lay out my thinking or advice without any risk. It is totally up to the reader to accept or reject anything or everything I say.

Regardless of the advise taken or not, regardless of who provided the advise, regardless of the cost, even professional advise, we are all responsible for our own choice. All we have is choice. Some advise will be good, some irrelevant, or address the wrong problem, or is meaningless and some is just wrong, regardless of what it looks like. Some things are up to us, some are not. Choice is up to us, that is the most fundamental ability of the human animal. It is up to us to recognize this fact.

Buddha said some like: read, understand, analyze, contemplate, and if you find the advise good and sound, implement and test it, and if it is still good, adopt it and live up to it.

Overeating / obesity is a bitch of a problem; but even that statement is wrong. It is not a problem, it is a group of problems. It is plural, and each individual can have more than one. I will guess at one problem for each 10 Kg above ideal weight. I suggest that if we take apart the problem, one part at a time, one concept at a time, and apply and antidote for that part, the problem can be ground off. We need to acknowledge that the antidote only applies to that narrow part of the problem and may not be universal.

How big is this problem? How many parts does it have? How much time will it take? How much will it cost? How much is this going to change me?  How hard will it be? Will I ever just mature out of the problem? Ah there is one that I will take on.

Maturing out is a concept that shows up occasionally in addiction counseling. It is the concept that as we get older, learn more, change due to life and age, some problems just become smaller, less important, and we just mature out of the problem. At that point, the problem's solution is no longer a struggle, although we may need to be on guard of picking up the problem again, we no longer struggle. It is a concept, like me and tobacco, that I gave up nearly thirty years ago. Ultimately, this is the desired status of each problem part.

But then, what do I know?

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Ontology of Intangable Objects.

Existence is not a property of intangible objects. By definition, they are intangible, have no physical existence, so the question of the existence or non-existence of things like gods is somewhat a questionable question. Concepts exit only in the mind of those who hold the concept. It does not matter it we call those mental representations, abstract objects, precipitation objects, mental objects, mental methods, or some other handle. I prefer to refer to this whole class as mental objects, without consideration if they are noun or predicate, or compound or simple. These a intangables.

We need to consider these similar to rainbows, as these are perception objects, what our mind sees is not real but a projection of the refracted light by our mind to make sense of the light entering the eye. It is just like floaters and blank spots, what we see is our mind making send out of the light.

So what does all this have to do with reality? The I of my mind does not in fact exist, but is just a constructed intangible object to make sense out self awareness, which in itself is either a cultural religion illusion/delusion or an evolutionary accident of increased intelligence. An unintended consequence, no wait, we are all unintended consequence of evolution. Evolution has no intention, only survival of the genes that occur. It is just consciousness trying to make sense out of data, within a cultural and religious environment.

These massive cultural and religious delusion need to be dropped in a big way. It is not only the god concept that needs to be abandoned but all beliefs not based on science or evolutionary advantage. God concepts may have provided a group survival advantage to the believers, but I suspect that those beliefs are now holding us back. In this information age and culture, those who are unwilling or unable to learn bullshit separation methods may be at a disadvantage. Gods do not make it through the bullshit separator, along with a bunch of cultural and religious detritus.

But then what do I know?       

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Religion Provides Community

So what do I miss about the OA cult community? It is just that, community. What do I miss about the Church of my youth? community. Once I came out as an atheist, I was cut off, or shunned from what had been my community's. Much of my extended family quit talking to me. Oh well. So called Christians ah. Archery and AABB still provide some limited specific community.

Schopenhauer said we have a need for food and sex, and once these needs are satisfied, we are left with boredom and emptiness of life. Life is only empty until we put something in to it and then it fills with flourishing of some kind. Religion provides something to put into life, any purpose greater or more important than ourselves can provide the seed for a fulfilling life, even if it is wrong, as is the case of religions. There is nothing wrong with compassion, altruism, helping the poor, and all those other things religions did, but without community, something seems lacking 

But Schopenhauer may have been wrong for some of us; there is also an attachment need for some of us, not a strong need but there. As children we attach to parents, and as seniors we attach to the next generations, if we have them. As adults, many are driven by the needs of their children. Religions of old assisted in child rearing by providing education facilities, teachers, and the like. The government has taken this over, but is not doing a very good job.

Religions of old provided the medical help, and acted as depositories of information; however, tightly controlled both. It did not let to much information out, the well educated could challenge there authority, and soon did. Some of the hospitals are still run by church charities, which provides some revenue to the churches and free space for them recruit. Oh well.

Community is critical going forward. We have some community in the form of service clubs and some community organizations, but these are limited and do not have much success beyond specific projects.

If we non-believers wish to take over, we will need to provide similar services to the churches and mosques of old. Going forward, what is in store for us mere mortals?  

So what do I have against religions? I have difficulty with adults actually believing myth, parables, and "miracles" as real facts. I have difficult with adults not being able to separate story's from science, or choosing religious story's over science when there is conflict and mutual exclusion. I have difficulty with people committing child abuse in the name of religion; I have difficulty with people shrugging and saying "It is God's will." to something that science can solve. I have difficulty with the like of AA not telling the people the facts in modern times, after we know the problem of addiction is chemical and psychological.

But what do I know?

Monday, February 15, 2016

Learning Iteration

When we are learning, we go through iteration after iteration, making corrections to our beliefs as we go, increasing our knowledge at each iteration. When I read this piece, I had some issues.

First, pagan is a derogatory term. When you become negative, it is difficult to keep reading.

pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius - although their systems are not suitable for us today  ...
 As confusing as the Stoic system is, it is the foundation of the christian ethics that were adopted by Christians in the second to fifth centenary CE. Epictetus's Discourses and Enchiridion were used with minor changes as a training manual, changing Socrates to St.Paul and the like. Marcus references Epictetus. It is suitable for use today, far better than christian, but much of it is not needed in our second world environment.

As human beings, we are social animals. Our sociality is the result of evolution, not choice. Natural selection has equipped us with nervous systems which are peculiarly sensitive to the emotional status of our fellows. Among our kind, emotions are contagious, and it is only the rare psychopathic mutants among us who can be happy in the midst of a sad society.

Who says we are social animals? We are a group of individuals who realized that we do better when we cooperate. We are dependent on the previous generation when we start life, and dependent on the subsequent generation at the end of our life. There is a big difference between being "social animals" and learning to cooperate. It is this learned behavior that allowed us to progress from clan based thorough village, city states, nations and hopefully world peaceful units. The most we can say is we are socially inclined animals, but there are many hermits, and isolated happy people who mix very little with others.

It is easier to maintain a happy outlook by not associating with people we find negative, even if they are family.

Among our kind, emotions are contagious, and it is only the rare psychopathic mutants among us who can be happy in the midst of a sad society.

We have two facilities, one emotional based, one rational. Each person has difference in the strength of these two separate centers, some genetic, some trained in. The ease of influence is dependent on the relative strength of these two, and the argument appeal to each. Reason is useless on a primary emotional based person, and vise-versa. Once we have become trained in reason, emotions lose there strength and utility.

"here's-how-you-rub-the-sticks-together" phase of technological evolution. 

Note that there have been religions based on the keepers of the fire as Native Indian and Zoroastrians.

The person who practices "enlightened" self-interest, by contrast, is the person whose behavioral strategy simultaneously maximizes both the intensity and duration of personal gratification. 

Enlightened, more as a candle being lighted as opposed to Buddha's awaking to reality, or his recognition of much truths relatively suddently. We can also undergo major abrupt changes in personality, which may seem like a rebirth or birth of a new person. This is what Alcoholics Anonymous tries to induce it its' people. If this change is permanent, as Paul on the road to Damascus or any of William James examples, then what do we call it?

But then what do I know about anything anyway?