Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Parasites of the Mind

Parasites of the Mind

I do not know what else to call them. These are concepts, residing totally within the mind that are wrong, and create problems for the person who's mind is infected... or perhaps not for the person, but those around him... or perhaps not causing them or anyone a problem, but are just obviously wrong, and that person does not know it, or perhaps he does.

I have one that says eat, eat. I know it is there, but how does one get rid of it? Identification must be the first step. I have dispatched some of these parasites that were culturally implanted. Several remain, including TV, eating, and personality disorders. Oh well. I have given up any concept of religion, and am trying to sort my beliefs out to that which is logical, or at least logical or needed for a modernish sort of life. I am not willing to go minimalist, for I was raised that way, with nothing but what was needed, as defined by others. I often feel like I was raised as a farm slave. Oh well, it is all done now.

Religion is the worst parasite of the mind. God lives only as a false concept in the mind. As a concept, it is beyond space and time, and has no physical existence, yet directs the lives of people, as long as they have the concept in their mind, and strongly controls their mind, just like that eat, eat, parasite of the mind. Each morning I wake up, and there it is, that damn eat, eat thought.

So will the next piece of evolution provide a truth test, is this though based on reality or is it a free floating concept that macerates as being real? Yet the eat eat is at least part real. Is it thinking that causes the problem?

If one cannot separate religion from there life, than perhaps they cannot separate truth and false thoughts. So then we cannot trust our political leaders to tell the truth, to base decisions on the important truths, and simpler issues.We see people who are clear of religion, and we see those who are not clear of religion. So which group functions better? Which have higher morals, ethics, values? Well as it turns out morals, ethics, and values are totally independent of a belief in a god or religion. Many religions promote a set of morals, ethics and values, yet these are not attached to a belief in a god.

Any religion that condones war, in any form, permits sanctioned killing, while there religion says do not kill. So right off there is a cognitive dissonance. Either address the dissonance, or you will lose the cognitive alert. Preach religion and armament is just not compatible; it is either one or the other. Guns bring violence, so the religions preach one thing and live another. Then either arm and defend free of any god, or have your god with peace and losses. The alternative is open sanctioned killing as with Islam, which is also a mind parasite.

It is only awareness that is the first step in removal of mind parasites. Oh well, in the end we will just die anyway.      


Sunday, February 26, 2017

Offensive... your problem.

We who have been raised in a primarily christian, agonist, atheistic society have a different concept of offensive than that of a muslim or arabic majority culture. To be offended, we need to take offense by learning to be offended at bullfeathers, or not have confidence in our own beliefs. The muslims have been taught to take offense at "pictures of mohamed", it is a learned reaction to disrespecting a bullfeathers quzi historical, fiction or mythical character. Belief in a fictional mythical character or the laws of such is a now a joke, hence, anyone who believes a fiction cannot be taken seriously.  It is impossible to take seriously any belief system that is just wrong. We can see now these are just juvenile meme systems.  Live this way and good will come, and if you do not, hell will come to you.

So once we see all religion as just meme systems, how can we take them seriously? Why would we ever be offended at a religions wild ideas unless we are in a religion, and trying to be living with ludicrous beliefs, aka, a big man in the sky concept.

Now should we have the right to offend them? That is there reaction to something that is acceptable in much of our society. So do we have a responsibility to clean our behavior of things that they find objectionable. It that is yes, then they also have the responsible to clean their behavior of things we find objectionable. This makes coexistence logically impossible, unless everyone learns to not be offended. How does one learn to not be offended at the pushing of bullshit onto the youth and others?

If we have confidence, we can separate out others crap beliefs out, and make a decision to ignore, avoid hearing, preach realism back, or let it all go as just their delusions or their beliefs. If you are offended, it is your problem.    


Thursday, February 23, 2017

Current Beleifs

Current Beliefs, they are a changing, to what is more likely true. This human uses a probability approach to what is likely true, not an absolute or traditional belief approach. Decisions mostly require some kind of "future knowledge" to determine if they are correct. Most likely positive outcome, conservative, lest regret, most probable chance of success, or some combination can be used as well or there opposites. A decision is a direction, not a future outcome. We do not have control of future outcome; anyone who thinks we do is inflicted with a mind parasite. 

There is no god, no soul, no life after death, no rebirth, no reincarnation. Only natural can occur; there is no supernatural nor miracles, now or in the past. Story telling was likely one of the first language art forms. Language produced a multitude of creation, old times, and historical behavior stories. We need to do what is rational and logical for any and all of the human species to survive in this current time frame.

Species is often defined as the largest group that would naturally mate and produce fertile offspring. This can be psychological as well as range. The key word is "naturally"...mate. A sex deprived male will mate with almost anything, and that is not natural; the other common definition excludes "natural". Natural only mating provides the possibility that we h. Sapiens are composed of numerous species, and therefore I may not be of the same species as other individuals, this could include the group who consider mating with there own sex, and similar groups. This provides me with detachment from all perverted behavior groups, aka different preference groups, of h. Sapiens. This can be psychological or range. These other species have the right to live out their lives in peace, as long as they do not interfere with society. 

There is no self, only neurons in the brain that produce an illusion of self. That has been learned in the collective environments that I have physically passed through. These eukaryotic cells will just die off in the end, and with them goes all traces of non physical self or our outputs.   

We have free will over those thing that are rational and in our control, as Epictetus describes, but only influence over our body and anything that is instinctual. As emotions are based on instinct and beliefs, we have only partial control over emotions and instinctive behaviors. As children we can learn to modify our instinct drives better, to fit into the society we live in, and comply with social norms, even when the social norms are wrong. But only with great difficulty do we learn at age, but we can learn. What we learned as children is not consciously known or recognized, to us as adults, as learned behavior.

Grammar is convention, and different parts of culture have different styles and conventions, which is also limited by the memory and concern of the individual. No religious person has any right to talk about my grammar as they are unable to sort fact and fiction. I do spell poorly, have poor memory for spelling and words, am dyslectic, and do not care about conventional grammar as no one has been able to explain it to me so that I understood it rationally. My family of origin had no idea what good grammar was, and I missed that in school for the most part. 

We have an instinct to learn as learning is one of the human skills. As we learn, we see the need to understand other things, yet there is not enough time to do all that is needed. After adopting all these beliefs, language itself, needs to change, but how does one do that. All the belief based references needs to be removed, and only facts included.

Memes and meme systems are the basic building block of though, speech a communications. Tools, as Dennett says. Religions are mind parasites that control the recognition of reality of those inflicted with the parasite. Those mind parasites that do not permit peaceful coexistence should be inoculated against, or disinfected and that may destroy all mind parasites. Good.  

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Sorting out reality

What is reality, correct action and consciousness? Does consciousness even exist?

According to Dan Dennett, we have a predictive loop in our mind, and it conducts "data transfer." The conformation only comes back if negative if and only if a negative is encountered. Negative only confirmation signaling.  This makes the sending control greater but somewhat reliant on the transducer/ signal conditioner. We cannot correct for a zero signal return, as addressing a non existent identity. There is no god, there is no soul, and there is no self, but only an illusion. Wow. This puts the human mind at a disadvantage until we realize this. On someone can install a false concept in our mind, and until we test it, we take it for real. This is dangerous reality. We may need to quarantine unproveable ideas and concepts by saying to ourselves: Joe believes ...X....Y....

Once we realize that unless we get a negative signal, we can accept a non signal as a positive signal or no signal. We are free to go in outward or forward into the gaps between our knowledge and not encounter real physical resistance. Generating anything that is either non existent or confirms to our prediction from assumed facts, even when it is not. When we are thinking about the concept world, we are free to exploit this weakness in the human mind operating weakness or is it a feature that drives us forward without restraint. We live in a boundless world, unless we provide an internal, self imposed or collective society imposed bound. We need also to test it for reality, not just conceptual. 

Our mind is composed of hedonistic synapses and selfish neurons. That does not leave room for anything like a self, only room for an illusion/delusion of a self. Self is simply a way of thinking, and a collective delusion that we have learned, as children, and have never taken the time to seriously examine. We are all just opportunistic organic matter, living on a big whirling rock, and there is only a convenient illusion of self.

As the rock whirls, we have awareness of our selves, our thoughts, and our actions. We have complete control or confinement of our thoughts, but not of our bodies; that is the dichotomy of control. People like Sam Harris who say we have no free will, aka no self control have included some of what we do not have control of, within their measurement. We have control of our mind's output, but not what is thrust into our minds. We can pick up mind parasites and/or pathogens that drive us, just as a fluke drives an ant to destruction to complete the life cycle of the fluke. Religion is a parasite, imposed on us by others as a community delusion. It makes humans easy to control.

Buddha, in his meditations, realized there is no self, but never explained what he really meant. He likely did not have a better description. This no self is quite possible to see in meditation, once we realize what we are looking at. But is that reality? It certinally is the space between concepts, but is there anything further beyond. Self was certinally one of the concepts loaded into the necktop by community delusions, that can also be removed.

We have free will and responsibility for our actions, and that is enough to go forward with. I live with an alien species, that I am sure of.

Friday, February 10, 2017

What is after Atheism?

 Having stepped from being raised within the "Anglican Church", and rebelled into agnostic thinking, becoming somewhat educated, becoming atheistic, I need to ask what is next, or as the some says, Is that all there is?  Searching about the internet, I came across:


which, in a way, addresses this same question but from the view of Buddhism. So does the term "post theism" really apply to my belief system? What I believe has been assembled a piece at a time, from where I was raised, what I did and saw, heard, witnessed. Some wore me down, and oppressed me. Some was freeing. We now see the likes of Trump providing alternative facts, false news, providing a alternative reality as presented by the media. Just do not look at the parts we do not like.

There is little doubt that for an individual, going to theism from atheism is not a common occurrence, but playing the role, a "closeted atheist" could have the advantages of both a religious community and truth. But anyone believing the truth today, or science of today would suffer cognitive dissonance to believe both science and religion, if they were detail orientated, and rigid in their thinking. So what come after no god, no afterlife?

Immigration or redistribution within the political identity has taken care of environment population saturation to this point in time, but there is little space remaining in this world. Carbon dioxide levels indicate that we are over the earth atmosphere carrying capacity.  CPAP machines indicate we are at the limit of carbon dioxide concentration for unassisted human population. So are we going to stop reproducing or are we going to keep going until our environment starts to kill off people, to control the population? If we keep going, are we going to be able to let people die? Or are we going to destroy ourselves keeping sick people alive to where it is a bankrupting activity? It is not going to be a shortage of water or food that takes us out, but adequately clean air which is a world resource. It will kill the old first, which will not stop reproduction. 

We have " turnip patches" where the governments house "human animals", the ungifted and physically incomplete people for there natural lives. We have such high disease rates, and healthcare costs in Canada. As the carbon dioxide level rises, we will have more of these, so the cost will increase until this become such an economic draw that it will bankrupt the government. Canada is at the point of hurting from this; the US lets more people who cannot afford to keep themselves alive to die off. Oh well.

It is my prediction that there will be much screaming and gnashing of teeth before the population stabilizes at a healthy value. My estimate is 3.5 billion; the population when carbon dioxide was last nearly stable at.

So the ultimate question is what should I spend the remainder of my life doing? Carbon sequestering is the obvious answer, but that is so highly taxed, and so little revenue off the practices. And nobody cares much about it yet. Carbon sequestering is against government policies, as they depend on revenue that depletes good farm land with housing. Oh well, in the end we just die anyway.   


Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Confidence Source.

Our beliefs lead to confidence. When we can say, without out any doubt, that "What I believe is correct without any doubt", how can we not have confidence. This is why religious and political leaders can do stupid things, but have confidence that what they are doing is correct.  Yes, this is founded on circular logic. But even the scientific method is circular logic, but a five step circular logic.

The thing with small circle circular logic is that it always appears correct, even when it is not. What is one to do? any religion thereby appears correct. There is a god because I believe there is one. I believe there is no god because there is no place other among the concept class of objects for a god to hide. The concept class has no physical existence, and exist only in the mind of the believer. Existence is not a proper attribute of the concept class. End of discus ion. What more can be said. If no god, no after life, no soul, no moral imperatives beyond what we must do to all live in a community, for we cannot know or do enough to live well. We could live simply, but not advance very far as individuals. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

To advance, man must live in communities where division of labor can occur. Yet in communities there is so much bullsh*t and waste. As communities grow beyond a point, there must be declining returns. Wasted time searching for customers, searching for products, and along comes the internet with mostly false information. Look at the US political system. Look at all the religious wasters, and we atheist escaping the influences of the religious wasters. It is a difficult struggle, and we must live among the religious wasters, for they are not going to change. We can only save the young from such delusions. The old are not worth the effort, unless they want it. Oh well...

So where is the effort best placed? In the young before there minds become fixed, in any age that are questioning, and looking for truth or just change. Or we can just broadcast to whoever and not worry about anything more. Once we have cast out religion, then what? That is where the ongoing struggle that is life occurs. That is where we humans get sorted out. That is where our found confidence in knowing what is right provides value to those who want it.