Sunday, October 4, 2009

Homeopathy = FAIL

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589

“This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603

“It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16376071

“Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17285788

“The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14973954

“There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535487

“In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14583972

“There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homeopathy as a method of [labor] induction.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212088

“The authors conclude that the small number of randomized clinical trials conducted to date, although favoring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14651731

“Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11872551

“There was no difference in most outcomes between placebo and homeopathic immunotherapy.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9251877

“Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homeopathic treatment.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092

“Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention.”


http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/9/1052

“We found no evidence that active homeopathy improves the symptoms of RA.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212083

“No discrete signals suggesting a difference between remedies and controls were seen.”


http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/4/15/abstract

“In conclusion, published results from NMR research on homeopathy indicating differences between homeopathic solutions and control samples could not be reproduced.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500843?dopt=Abstract

“None of the homeopathically treated groups differed significantly with respect to any of the parameters from the non-medicated, infected control group. It is concluded that the results of this study do not justify use of these homeopathic remedies for treatment of colibacillosis in broilers.”


http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/124/1/15

“There were no discernible differences between the treated and control groups in their manifestations of resistance to D viviparus or their clinical responses to the disease produced.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650548?dopt=Abstract

“These results support the widely held opinion that scientific proof for the efficacy of veterinary homeopathy is lacking.”


http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/mastitis.pdf

There were no significant differences between the SCC of the two groups.”


http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118788810/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

“Evidence of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond placebo was not found in this study.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8255290?dopt=Abstract

“Following as closely as possible the methods of the original study, we can find no evidence for any periodic or polynomial change of degranulation as a function of anti-IgE dilution.”


http://www.springerlink.com/content/h46222021483827m/

“We found no evidence for a different effect of strongly agitated dilutions, compared to dilutions made with minimal physical agitation. In fact, in our hands no effect of extreme dilutions was shown at all.”


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14973976

Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581

Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics." He adds: "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."

Friday, October 2, 2009

Why Boys are Jerks and Girls are Stupid

Originally written May 2009

To explain this, we are going to break the problem down into three levels of explanation, working from the bottom, up: Theory of Mind, Different Minds Fallacy, and Motivation Attribution Bias. Once we explore these concepts, we will have the tools to answer the individual questions of why boys are jerks and why girls are stupid.


THEORY OF MIND (ToM)

This is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. More specifically, it is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from your own.

For example, if I have a picture of a tree laying on a table in front of me, and there is someone sitting across from me, I am able to understand, via a ToM, that the person across the table sees the tree as being upside down.

This seems trivial and obvious. And it is. But while it is easy for most people to realize that a picture they are looking at would appear to be upside down from an observer across the table, there are other areas of life that are much more difficult to understand from a different perspective.


DIFFERENT MINDS FALLACY (DMF)

I made this term up, so there might be a different term describing the same concept. If so, I don’t know about it. The DMF is the false assumption that your mental experience of something is the same as someone else’s.

Everyone has something they are really good at, mentally speaking. There are things that come easy to some of us, while there are other things that might be quite difficult. With myself, I am quite good with visual/spatial problems. I can rotate shapes in my head quite easily. However, I am extremely bad at math. I always have been, and I imagine I always will be.

Some people are very, very good at math. Just as visual/spatial problems are easy for me, math is easy for them. No matter how hard I try, there is no way that I can imagine what it would be like to be in that persons mind—the person who is good at math. The only things that I can comprehend are things that my mind is able to comprehend or understand. I know that sounds trivial, but think about it.

What would it be like to be someone like Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman, where extremely advanced math equations just come easily to you? What would it be like to be someone who has Down’s syndrome, and can only understand the world in a very limited way? Or what would it be like to be someone with synesthesia—where you can taste colors, or see music?

Unless we have similar brain states, we have no idea what it would be like to experience that state of mind. We can understand that it happens, but we in no way can comprehend what it would be like.

A more appropriate example might be this: I have no idea what it would be like to not have a girl’s attractiveness be the most important trait. I can’t even comprehend how that would work. Likewise, girls have no idea what it would be like to have a guy’s physical attractiveness be the most important trait. Girls just don’t get it what it is like to place so much emphasis on someone’s looks, as opposed to their personality (such as confidence and sense of humor). And neither sex ever will get it, simply because we can’t understand what our minds aren’t programmed to understand.

So all that we are able to comprehend and understand is limited by our own minds. And we are unable to break out of that understanding, and completely understand what it would be like to be someone with a different mind. All you can know is what you know.


MOTIVATION ATTRIBUTION BIAS (MAB)

I introduced this concept in a previous blog, but I will explain it again.

This is when you attribute someone’s behavior, beliefs, actions, etc. to what you think the motivation is, rather than just asking the person about the actual motivations. Most likely, you are assuming that the person is doing something for the same reason that you would do such a thing.

Whenever someone does something, we have to guess about their motivation and reasoning (unless they tell us what it is). Often times, we might be right about their motivation. However, we are usually coming to our conclusions by trying to imagine why WE would do such a thing if we were in the same situation. However, we all think differently, and have different reasons for doing certain things. I might see someone do something and think “well, they did that because of X”, but I could be completely wrong, since that person might have a different reason for acting that certain way.

For example, people often claim that I am an atheist, simply because I want to lead a life of meaningless sex, and hard core drug abuse—all guilt free. Obviously, this isn’t true. But to those people, the only reason they can think of for being an atheist, would be so that they could do those things. And since that would be their motivation for not believing in God, they assume it is also my motivation.

So the bias is essentially the false assumption that everyone does things for same reasons that you do. Obviously, this is not true at all.


ALL TOGETHER NOW

Now that we have laid a groundwork on some of the basic assumptions that our minds operate with— and the problems that those assumptions—we can start to explain the questions.


WHY BOYS ARE JERKS

Guys tend to have a lot of other male friends. They might think differently about some things, however, there will be a general consensus about the most important thing in the world (from a biological perspective), the survival of our genes. Because of this basic instinct to reproduce, all men share the same basic instincts. That is, all men generally want the same thing: an attractive girl.

Now while the small details might different (blonds vs brunettes, for example), most guys can come to a consensus on what is attractive, and what is not.

So guys grow up, talking to each other about girls, checking out the same girls, and thinking about girls in a similar way. There is sort of a group reinforcement that goes on, since guys will come to see that “oh, you think the same way I do about girls, and like the same things that I do.”

So to guys, we share these ideas, such as “it would be cool if some random girl just came up and wanted to make out” or “wouldn’t it be sweet if that hot girl just grabbed my butt?” Most guys would agree, yes, that would be quite awesome.

And since this mentality is reinforced among other guys, guys will then think “well, I think it would be cool if a girl grabbed my butt while standing at the bar, and my friends think the same thing. So the girl standing at the bar would probably like it if I grabbed her butt too.”

So we can see some of the problems we have discussed earlier already popping up. The guy is unable to put himself in the position of the girl (ToM), and think about what he is going to do, from her perspective (DMF). This false perspective is because he is unable to understand her perspective to begin with. And this then causes him to assume that if he liked it, she would like it too.

So whenever a guy does something stupid, like grabbing a girls butt, or whistling/honking as a girl jogs down the sidewalk, or makes some crazy proposition, the guy is only doing it, because in his mind, he would LOVE it if a girl did the same think to him. He thinks “I would like it, so she probably would too.”

Every time a guy makes some ridiculous pass at a girl, and you think “What the hell is he thinking? Why does he think that would impress her?” just realize that he was thinking (assuming, actually), “I would like this. So she would probably like it too.”

Of course, as we have seen, this train of thought has a number of different problems with it. And unfortunately, no guy will ever be able to completely comprehend this, including myself. We can be told “that is not good”, and hopefully understand the reasoning behind it (“girls don’t like it). However, we will never truly be able to understand the underlying reasons of why exactly girls don’t like it. And this is for the same reason that I will never know what it is like to be good at math. The male brain works one way, and it is impossible to imagine it working in another way.

So guys really aren’t trying to be jerks. They just are making a mistake, assuming girls think like they do.

WHY GIRLS ARE STUPID

While guys have their fair share of thinking gone awry, girls are nowhere near from off the hook. The main thing that drives girls, and often guys, insane, is their ability and willingness to analyze every little detail of something, picking apart every word that was said in a conversation, or trying to find hidden, underlying meaning in any sort of interpersonal event – especially if boys are involved.

Like with guys reinforcing each other regarding how to think about girls, girls reinforce each other in terms of overanalyzing things, and this is done via their girl talk sessions.

From what I have gathered, girl talk consists of not only one girl rehashing every event that has her interest, and giving her theories about it, but all of the girls in the girl talk, giving their opinions and theories on every minute detail of the event in question.

Of course, having multiple opinions on something is very good, and can be quite helpful. However, the goal of girl talk is not to find the most reasonable answer, or the most rational conclusion. The goal is to find the most dramatic conclusion (since that is also the most interesting conclusion). If a girl went on a date, and the guy gave her a small kiss goodnight, it just CAN’T be that the guy didn’t put much thought into the length of the kiss. The REAL reason must be that he was scared to kiss her, because he doesn’t have much experience, or that he was nervous, because she is so pretty, or that he recently got out of a long relationship, and kissing had devolved to being short, and not as long and passionate.

There are a million reasons that girls could come up with in an attempt to explain the length of a kiss. Just taking a flip through a magazine like Cosmo reveals how much girls love to do this. There are always sections on “decoding what your man says” or “what your man’s bathroom reveals about his commitment issues” and other tripe. The worst I have ever seen was an article on the meaning behind the day a guy takes you out on a date, and what this can tell you about the guy!

Of course, girls don’t consciously make the choice to try and find the least objective, most dramatic reasoning behind a situation. They are doing this for the same reason that guys whistle at jogging girls. That is, the girls are looking for underlying meaning in things that guys do, because THEY themselves put meaning into everything they do. Humans are pattern seeking animals, and are able to find patterns and meaning where none actually exists. Girls just exploit this shamelessly.

A guy going on a date might put a little more thought into what he is wearing than on an average day. But girls put enormous amounts of thought into what they are going to wear every day, and especially on a date!

A guy might think “I will wear this shirt, because it is clean, looks good on me, and it might be a little warm, so I can always roll up the sleeves if I need.” A girl would think “Does this make me look sexy? Maybe too sexy? I don't want him to think I am a slut. But I don't want to look too conservative. Maybe if I wear this top with these pants I will look more mature.” Everything from shoes to hair style is there for a very specific reason.

Unfortunately, the guy won’t pick up on any of the meaning the girl has put into her outfit, while the girl will attempt to find meaning behind the guys outfit, even though none exists. And then after the date, the girl will have girl talk with her friends, and attempt to find even more meaning where none exists.

The reason that girls analyze, and overanalyze every little thing a guy does and says, is because girls assume that since they puts meaning into things, guys must do the same thing. And since girls are unable think any other way than how they think (DMF), they assume that guys think and act with the same reasoning that they do (MAB).

So girls really aren’t stupid. They just are making a mistake, assuming that guys think like they do.


CONCLUSION

As we can see, the main complaints that are thrown between the opposite sexes are actually a result of a few missteps in thinking. We assume that the opposite sex thinks the same way that we do, and in turn, act in ways that reflect that false assumption. When in reality, guys need to recognize that most girls don’t find the idea of getting groped or whistled at to be very appealing. Likewise, girls need to realize that there isn’t any hidden meaning behind what a guy says or does, and not feed into the lure of overanalyzing every little detail, even when you friends insist.

Unfortunately, it is easier to acknowledge the differences in thinking than it is to really internalize it. But recognizing the mistakes in our own mental processes are the first steps to understanding the seemingly bizarre behavior of the opposite sex, and understanding why boys can seem like such jerks, and why girls can seem to be so stupid.

The End.

Gentlemen Prefer Brunettes

Originally written June 2009

One of the biggest non-debates out there is in regards to human psychology, and what is responsible for it. Is it nature or nurture? No serious scientist thinks that you can explain all of human psychology with just one of these explanations, you need both nature and nurture, since they have each had a role in shaping who we are. The trick is to try and tease out which aspects of ourselves are the result of which, and to what extent.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people who often want to only attribute human psychology to either nature or nurture. Some post modernists and feminists make the mistake of trying to attribute all aspects of human nature to the environment someone was raised in (nurture). While another group is often attributes everything to the nature side. These people are evolutionary psychologists.

Evolutionary psychologists (EPs) are given the task of explaining why human psychology is the way it is. Unfortunately, they are often a little too hasty, and attempt to find evolutionary reasons (nature) for our behavior, when a nurture explanation would be a much better explanation. For example, some EPs will try to explain something like color preference. The EPs see that women tend to like the color pink, so they come up with a reason that explains why women would like the color pink. Their answer is that women like pink, because back in hunter/gatherer societies, it would be advantageous to see red berries, and collect them.

Clever, very clever! But berries aren’t generally pink when they are ripe. They are red or blue. So that explanation, while clever, doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. It is more likely that pink has just become associated with femininity because of societal pressures, and nothing else. If blue was considered feminine, women probably like it too.

In order to tell if something is the result of nature (and not nurture), there is an easy test: cross cultural studies. If every culture has the same opinion on something, it is highly probable that the characteristic in question is the result of biology, rather than culture. Or more simply put, traits that transcend culture are the product of our biology.

If it turned out that women in every culture preferred the color pink, then the EPs would have something to go by. Until then, the evidence suggests that women’s preference of pink is completely a product of American culture, and has nothing to do with our evolutionary past.

Another one of these clever explanations is an attempt to explain why “gentlemen prefer blondes.” There have been several attempts to explain this, and scientists from other disciplines found it so ridiculous that one neurologist, V.S. Ramachandran, actually wrote a satirical paper, proposing an explanation.

Ramachandran argued that men prefer women with blonde hair, because blonde hair tends to go hand in hand with fair skin, which is a sign of youth, which is one of the key factors in beauty. However, Ramachandran later revealed that the “article was a hoax, designed to reveal evolutionary psychologists' gullibility.”

While his paper wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously, EPs didn’t realize it was a joke, and bought onto it. One EP even referenced Ramachandran’s paper in her book!*

In the first example, it seems obvious that the EPs prematurely assumed that color preference is a result of nature, and didn’t bother to check if that was true or not. The same thing goes for EPs who assume that men prefer women with blonde hair. Instead of questioning if this was true or not, they assumed it was, and went searching for an explanation. Unfortunately for the EPs, men do not prefer blondes, and there are multiple lines of evidence to support this.

I first was tipped on to this, when I looked at my own personal preference. Over the course of my life, only 16% of girls that I have liked have been blonde, only 12% of the girls I have kissed have been blonde, and 0% of girls I have dated have been blonde. But I am just one person, so those stats don’t mean much. Men might still prefer blondes, and I could just be the outlier on the bell curve.

I then asked my friends what they prefer. Overwhelmingly, guys I have asked claim to prefer brunettes. And as an interesting observation, if you happen to flip through a Victoria’s Secret catalog, (as I often do, hahaha) the majority of models are brunette (only 28% of the models in the particular catalog I looked in were blonde).**

Finally, for some legitimate scientific evidence: research from Florida State University has shown that men prefer women with long brown hair to anything else. Of the men polled, 46% preferred women with brown hair, 27% preferred black, 19% preferred blondes, and only 7% preferred redheads (if you are a redhead, don't be sad. Oddly, research shows that redhead women have more sex than brunettes or blondes.).

A few decades ago, men might have indeed preferred blondes. Though, this is probably because Marilyn Monroe, who was the dominant sex symbol at the time, had blonde hair. Since women realized that men found her incredibly attractive, they tried to copy her, which meant trying to be blonde.

As for right now, why would men prefer brunettes? This brings us back to the question of hair color preference being a result of nature or nurture, or a little of both. The first thing we can see is that blonde hair is not that common. It’s only seen in people with Northern European ancestry. The vast majority of the world’s women have dark hair. So it’s not likely that we would have evolved the attraction to blondes over brunettes in such a short amount of time.

Also, light skin is viewed as less attractive than darker skin (at least nowadays). But fair skin is a common trait of many young children. So if men preferred women with blonde hair, because it is a sign of youth, they should also like women with light skin. But this isn’t something we see at all.

So do gentlemen prefer blondes? Apparently not. There is no biological reason that men would. And the evidence seems to suggest the opposite-- that men prefer brunettes. As for if this preference is based on nature or nurture… I don’t know. Like many things, it’s probably a combination of both.


*"Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.

**I looked at a Victoria’s Secret magazine and counted how many of the pictures featured blonde or brunette girls. There were 191 brunettes and 68 blondes. Though, for the blondes, I also counted brunettes who had a lot of blonde highlights.

To Live… or Not to Live (Together)?

Originally written September 2008

Today, it is pretty much the norm for people to date, move in together, and then get married. It seems like everyone does it, so there probably isn't much harm in it. But what is actually the case?

Unfortunately, there isn't much data to support the idea that living together prior to marriage is a good idea. I am not going to attempt to analyze it or present any theories I have about it. I am just going to present the data, and you can take it as it is.

A study by Columbia University found that only 26% of women and 19% of men are currently married to the person they were once living with. That means that for every 100 couples that are living together, approximately 78 of those couples will not end up married to each other.

A more comprehensive National Survey of Families and Households study found about 40% of relationships in which the couple lives together, break up before the couple gets married. This is based on interviews with 13,000 different people.

So we can conclude fairly confidently that living together prior to marriage is not a good idea, when it comes to protecting your relationship. But what about the couples who live together, and do end up getting married? Are they better off because of it?

Well, in a study by Cornell University, it was found that women who married their boyfriends that they had been living with were 28% LESS likely to get a divorce than women who had not lived with their boyfriends.

Western Washington University surveyed 6,577 women who lived with their boyfriends prior to marriage, and found that they had no greater risk of divorce than women who did not live with their boyfriends prior to marriage. However, it was also found that if a women lived with someone else, in addition to her eventual husband, then there was indeed a high risk of divorce.

However, the National Survey of Families and Households found that based upon a survey of 3,300 different families, couples who had lived together prior to marriage were 46% more likely to get divorced than couples who did not live together prior to marriage.

Another study from Yale University found that women who live with their boyfriends prior to marriage were 80% more likely to get divorced than women who did not live with their boyfriends prior to marriage.

And Rutgers University found that unmarried couples who lived together reported having lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity, lower levels of sexual satisfaction and were three times more likely to suffer from depression.

So apart from the study by Cornell, and somewhat by WWU, most of the data seems to suggest that your chance of divorce goes way up when you live together prior to marriage.

For a fantastic resource with data regarding relationships, marriage, divorce, etc. go to
www.marriage.rutgers.edu. You can read all of their research findings, under the "Publications" link.

God and Neurology

Originally written November 2008


How the Brain Kills Theism


Consciousness stands alone today as a topic that often leaves even the most sophisticated thinkers tongue-tied and confused. And, as with all of the earlier mysteries, there are many who insist -- and hope -- that there will never be a demystification of consciousness.

Daniel Dennett

It is no surprise that many theists are not fans of evolutionary theory, and it is not hard to understand why. If the scientific view of earth's history is correct, the entire basis of Christianity, and reason that Jesus had to die on the cross (sin), is rendered as nothing more than mythology.

However, many theists are able to square the circle of biology with Christian theology. Many point out (and I would agree) that evolution does not disprove the existence of God. In my mind, it just disproves the traditional monotheistic religions.

As someone who is interested in cognitive science, philosophy of the mind and consciousness, I have always found it odd that such topics are met with resistance from theists. I have never understood why this was. What is so scary about the brain?

Upon reflection of this issue, I recently came to realize what the threat of cognitive science was to theology. God is defined as an immaterial mind. Christianity teaches that each person has an immaterial mind -- a soul that will survive death. That is, our mind, our awareness, and our consciousness survive after our bodies have perished.

The threat from cognitive science is this: If the mind and consciousness are found to just be products of a physical brain, that means that not only does our mind/consciousness not survive bodily death, but that God (an immaterial mind) does not exist either. If everything mental requires something physical, an immaterial God (who is a mind) cannot exist.

In this blog, I will attempt to show you that theism has no hope of surviving modern cognitive science. I will not be attempting to explain consciousness in general. But I will argue, I think successfully, that what we already know about the brain does not leave any room for the immaterial or the supernatural. There is no soul which can survive our bodily death, and the idea of God being an immaterial, disembodied mind, is completely impossible.


Split-Brain Patients

Many people suffer from epilepsy. A select few of these people suffer from seizures that are so severe, that the only thing that will relieve them is to have the neural pathway that connects the left and right hemisphere, the corpus callosum, cut. When this pathway is severed, electricity from each hemisphere can no longer be passed back and forth, and the seizures stop. However, the pathway is also the only way to get information from one hemisphere to the other. Because of this, there are very strange effects that occur as a result.

For example, if you were to whisper into the left ear of one of these people, and say "my favorite fruit is an apple" and then whisper into the right ear, asking "what is my favorite fruit?" the person will have no idea! But if you return to the left ear and quietly ask "what is my favorite fruit?" the person will answer "apple."

Now this comes as no surprise, since information cannot be passed between the two hemispheres. However, it also turns out that both hemispheres do not always agree with each other. If you ask one side "do you prefer chocolate or vanilla?" one side may say chocolate, and the other might say vanilla. One side might prefer blondes, the other brunettes. And interestingly enough, in one case, one side believed in God, and the other did not!

The point is that when you cut the brain in half, you then have someone who has two spheres of consciousness—two minds, separate from each other. So if someone has two spheres of consciousness as a result of their brain being cut in half, we have to ask: is this something we would expect to see if the mind was a result of the physical brain, or if the mind was immaterial? Obviously, this only makes sense in light of the fact that the brain is not controlled by an immaterial mind. If it were, then there is no reason for there to be two spheres of consciousness, or two minds, when the brain is cut in half. Physically changing the brain should have no effect on something immaterial.

This, in my opinion, is the nail in the coffin for theism. Looking at this evidence, there is no doubt that the mind is completely a product of the physical brain. But to drive the point home, let's go through some more examples, and then counter the one (and only) argument theists have against this.


Brain Damage

There is a certain part of the brain that control your ability to recognize faces. If this part is damaged, your ability to recognize faces no longer exists. This disorder is called prosopagnosia. Recognizing faces is definitely part of our consciousness, and losing that ability undoubtedly renders one aspect of our consciousness inoperative.

So are we to believe that when part of the brain is damaged, we can't recognize faces, but if the brain is completely destroyed, we float through a bright tunnel, and are able to recognize grandma?

If you have damage to the language part of the brain, often times you will suffer from what is called aphasia. People who have suffered such brain damage have all sorts of strange problems regarding speech and language. In some cases, people are unable to comprehend language. In others, they are unable to name certain objects, other times they can no longer read, sometimes they cannot write. In some cases, when trying to speak, instead of saying "the dog needs to go out, so I will take him for a walk" they might say "You know that smoodle pinkered and that I want to get him round and take care of him like you want before." These people have no idea that they are engaging in such a thing, and become frustrated when no one can understand what they are trying to say.

Language is an enormous part of our conscious experience. It is how we communicate, and it is how we think. People who have not been exposed to language have very limited abilities in regards to abstract thinking. So language is a hugely important aspect to our consciousness, and suffering from aphasias wipes that aspect of ourselves out.

Another part of the brain controls your body image. I don't mean how you feel about yourself, but the model of your body that your brain uses to figure out where your body stops, and everything else begins. If this area is damaged, the person feels disconnected from their body (stimulation on parts of the brain can also induce out of body experiences). People have suffered damage to this part of the brain, which then causes very strange results to occur. One patient went as far to state that his own leg was actually a severed leg that someone had put in his bed, and was not his own! Your body image, the ability to recognize that your hand is your own hand, and control it, is obviously part of your conscious experience-- part of your mental world. And if damage to that part of the brain occurs, part of your consciousness is destroyed.

Other parts of the brain, if damaged, render you unable to process things on the left (or right) field of vision. This is simply called neglect. With neglect, not only do you not see anything to the left side of the field of vision, but you become completely unaware that it even exists. People have this problem won't eat food on the left side of the plate, won't shave the left side of their face, are unable to turn left, etc. The entire left (or right) side of the universe is no longer exists for them.

Of course, your ability to recognize and comprehend the world (not just the left or right side), is part of your conscious experience-- part of your mental world. And if damage to that part of the brain occurs, part of your conscious awareness is gone forever.

Most people know that there are specific parts of the brain that store certain types of memories (visual, auditory, etc). Likewise, there is an area in the back of the brain, the visual cortex, which processes all of the information that is received through the eyes.

In one case, a man had damage to both the visual cortex, as well as the part of the brain that stored his visual memories. So not only did he lose his vision, he lost his visual memories—memory of anything he had ever seen. So he went blind, and had no idea! As a result, he no longer understood what was meant by "light" or "color". He couldn't comprehend it, since, as far as he was concerned, he had never had any experience vision in the first place.

Your perception of the world is made up mostly from your experience with it (your memories). All of these past memories help create the conscious experience that you currently have. But if such memories, as well as the ability to see are taken away, you lose a very large part of your conscious experience in the world.

There are many other examples of this sort, but with these few, a pattern has started to emerge. The people that have suffered such brain damage have lost part of their consciousness. But why? If we have a soul or immaterial mind that is responsible for these things, like consciousness and memories, then there should be no problem. But if consciousness is a result of the brain, then isn't this exactly what we would expect? Absolutely!


Anesthesia

Now, if we anesthetize your arm or leg, you won't be able to move it. But why not? If your brain is responsible for moving your limbs, this makes sense. But if your immaterial mind is responsible, then why is your arm unable to be moved? Why is your immaterial soul/mind being affected by something physical--local anesthesia?

If immaterial minds are all that are needed for consciousness, and immaterial minds able to affect physical objects (like brains), then what is the point of a brain to begin with? Our brains are big, heavy, and biologically expensive. They are delicate, take a lot of energy to run properly, and are easily damaged. If it weren't for modern medical science, many women would die giving birth to babies with enormous heads.

If the brain was only around to run things like the heart and lungs, that would be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial mind. If there was no evidence that our brains stored memory, or ran all the programs necessary for us to perceive and understand the world around us, theism might have a chance. But modern brain imaging techniques have tied literally every thought and emotion to neural activity. Literally everything your mind does has a neural correlate.


Counter Argument

The only argument that exists in response to this type of argument follows as such: The brain is like a television, whereas the mind/soul is the signal. Sure, you can fiddle with the knobs on the TV, which will change the color, brightness, etc. But that doesn't change the signal that the TV receives. And if you unplug the TV, that doesn't mean that the signal still isn't out there.

Likewise, the brain can be fiddled with, changing our perception of the world. You can even turn off the brain, but that doesn't mean that the mind/soul does not continue to exist.

While this argument is clever, it fails on multiple counts.

First of all, it completely ignores the first line of evidence I presented. Sure, tweaking with TV knobs will change the picture, but will cutting the TV in half create two separate signals? Not a chance. So already, that example takes care of the attempted counter argument.

Secondly, it doesn't explain what the purpose of a giant brain would be. If the immaterial mind can somehow control the physical brain, which then controls the body, why not skip the middle man and leave the brain out of it?

Thirdly, it presumes that an immaterial entity has causal power in the material world. This has been a problem for theists for centuries. And to this day, there is absolutely no explanation on how such an event could possibly occur.

There are many other objections to this counter argument, and many other examples of consciousness being eclipsed by damage to certain areas of the brain. But I think it is safe to say, that while consciousness on a whole may still be a mystery, it is no mystery that it is purely a result of our brains. When we die, our brains decompose, and all of our memories and experiences, everything that made us who we are, die as well.

And since immaterial minds cannot exist independent of a physical brain, it is safe to say that the immaterial mind in the heavens, God, cannot exist either.

  1. God is a conscious, immaterial mind.
  2. Conscious, immaterial minds exist independently of physical brains.
  3. A change in a physical brain will change the conscious mind.
  4. Therefore, conscious minds are not immaterial or independent of physical brains, and an immaterial mind (such as a soul or God) cannot exist.

To wrap things up, here are a few quotes by some of the very top neuroscientists and philosophers of the mind around...

It never ceases to amaze me that all the richness of our mental life, all our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts, our ambitions, our love life, our religious sentiments, and even what each of us regards as our own intimate, private self, is simply the activity of these little specks of jelly in our head, our brain. There is nothing else. –V.S. Ramacahndran

All mental processes, even the most complex psychological processes, derive from operations of the brain. –Eric Kandel

Modern neuroscience has shown that there is no user. "The soul" is, in fact, the information-processing activity of the brain. New imaging techniques have tied every thought and emotion to neural activity. And any change to the brain—from strokes, drugs, electricity or surgery—will literally change your mind. –Steven Pinker

There's a scientific consensus that hard-core dualism, which says that people can think without using their brain or that memories will survive the death of your body, is just flat mistaken. Your mental life is a product of your brain. –Paul Bloom

There is something approaching a consensus among philosophers and cognitive scientists: no immaterial mind/soul makes any sense at all. –Daniel Dennett

No dualist has ever been able to give an account of how a brain can affect a mind, or how a mind can affect a brain. Dualism, for most philosophers today, is not a real option. –John Searle

All conscious states are caused by brain processes. There aren’t any exceptions. Every single conscious state is caused by brain processes. –John Searle

Dealing With A Heartbreak?

Originally written July 2008

One of the biggest Catch 22's in life revolves around love. For some sick reason, it turns out that someone who has the ability to make you feel the best, also has the ability to make you feel the absolute worst.

When you have your heart broken, the pain seems almost unbearable. The only escape from the pain is to go to sleep. But then when you wake up, you have to re-remember everything, and the pain seems to hurt even more than before.

Unfortunately, there isn't any quick fix to a broken heart. But there are things you can do, and keep in mind, that will help you deal with the pain.


REALITY CHECK

First, remember that even though you feel hopeless, alone and crushed, you WILL get over it. This is a fact. Even if you can't imagine not feeling how you do, remember that almost everyone has gone through what you are going through, and they all turn out ok.

I was once told that for every hardship we go through, we come out stronger, and know more about ourselves. I first scoffed at this idea, thinking it was just after-the-fact rationalizations. But from my experience, it is very much true. It might not seem like it at first. You probably will feel lonely, vulnerable and scared. But that will pass as well, and in the end, you will know more about yourself as a person.

Try to self reflect as time goes on, and realize that you are in fact getting better. After two weeks have gone by, remember how much more it hurt before. Pay attention to the fact that you are feeling better over time.


LET THE FEELINGS OUT

Don't try and hide how you feel. If you need to cry, cry. If you have things you want to say, write a letter—you don't have to mail it. Whatever you do, do not hold your feelings in. This will just make things harder down the road.

Listening to sad songs is a good idea, but only to an extent. But when listening to sad songs that seem to have been written for you, realize that the reason that they seem to have been written for you is because what you are feeling is a common human experience. Someone else felt exactly as you did, if not worse, and they overcame it. However, don't listen to sad songs forever.


REALIZE THAT THEY AREN'T THAT PERFECT

When you really like someone, or are in love with someone, it's easy to get ahead of yourself, and imagine how things could be 2, 5 or even 20 years down the road. It's easy to imagine perfect settings, where you are with the person you care for, and are perfectly happy.

When you care deeply for someone, it's easy to only see the positive qualities of them. Sure, this person might seems different than everyone else, but part of this is because you have put them somewhat on a pedestal, and made them out to be better than they are. When you first meet someone, you don't know that much about them. But as you get to know them, and start to have feelings for them, people will focus on the positive aspects, while overlooking the not so great aspects. This is not a bad thing, it's normal. But just try to remember this, and think HARD about the aspects of the person that weren't that great. Write these bad qualities down if you have to. Just don't forget them, because you need to remember that this person isn't perfect.


SPEND TIME WITH FRIENDS

You have been there for your friends in hard times, and they will be there for you now. Chances are they know how you are feeling. So talk to them. But besides just talking with friends, try and accompany them to dinner, or a movie, etc. Get outside and go for a walk to the store with them. Go for a jog. Do anything besides sit around, where your mind will wonder back to the person who you care about. If you are around your friends, you will feel better.

When you sit in your room, and are feeling awful, and your friends invite you to do something, it's easy to say no. You just want to curl up and die. But you have to force through these feelings, and go participate in actives. I guarantee that this will make you feel better, and you will be glad you did it.

It's quite obvious that when you are alone, and with nothing to do, your mind will wonder back to the person you care for, and you will just get overwhelmed by the pain. This is why it's so easy to cry in the shower: you have nothing else to think about. The wall isn't that interesting!


DISTRACT YOURSELF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE

And besides just doing things with your friends, try and keep yourself busy in general. Do things you enjoy. Go to a movie, ride a bike, read a book, go for a walk, focus on work, etc. Try and do things that make you happy. The key word here is Distraction. Distract yourself as much as possible.

As tempting as it is to just wallow in the pain, try putting on some of your favorite, happy songs, and dance around. Get your blood pumping, and have fun!

However, do not attempt to distract yourself by finding a rebound person. This may seem like a good idea at the time, but in the history of heart breaks, it has never worked. In fact, as everyone knows, it just makes things worse.


WHAT NOT TO DO

With things like myspace and facebook, it's increasingly easy to see what the person who hurt you is up to. Try and not do this, it only makes things harder. If you have to, write yourself a note and put it on your computer, just as a reminder that it's a bad idea to go snoop around on their profile. It's easy to see their picture, with them smiling and happy, and feel that that's how they actually are feeling right this moment. And how unfair is it that they are so happy, when you are so misearble!?

Also, try to resist the urge to overanalyze things. You will want to try and find someway to want to blame yourself. Cause if you can take responsibility, then maybe you can fix the problem, and convince the person to get back with you. And don't spin wild scnearios in your head about what the person you care for may be doing. This will just make you more upset.

And don't drink your sorrows away. You have to face the pain at some time, so it's better to do it now and get it over with.

LASTLY

Remember that the person who broke your heart did not do it out of malice or cruelty. The person more than likely cares about you greatly, and would never want to hurt you. Chances are, they feel really bad for hurting you. Unfortunately, not all relationships are meant to be, and sometimes, this is just how things turn out.

Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok, it's not the end.

Indiana Jones

Originally written May 2008

Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time. I think Indiana Jones is the greatest action hero ever created, and the Indiana Jones theme song is possibly one of the best movie scores ever. Point being, I LOVE Indiana Jones!

There had been talks of another Indiana Jones movie since I was in high school. There was always some excuse though. They couldn’t find a good script, Spielberg, Lucas or Ford had conflicting schedules, etc.

So when I heard rumors that they really were going to make another one, I was really skeptical. I basically thought “I will believe it when they start filming.” Well, that has come and gone, and after years and years of waiting, Indiana Jones is back! Sort of…

To be blunt, this movie sucked. As an action movie, it’s perfectly fine. But for Indiana Jones, it was just all over the place, and on more than one occasion, truly stupid.

Where do I even begin? How about the very beginning. Every Indy movie begins with the Paramount Pictures mountain dissolving into a real mountain, or at least a picture of one (Temple of Doom). On the trailer for this movie, it dissolved into something on a map, which I thought was clever. Well, in the actual movie, it dissolves into a pile of dirt that is the result of a little gopher. Stupid. It’s like a cartoon. And what is the point of having a gopher? Well, throughout the first scene, the gopher and his little family watch all the action. It’s like Caddy Shack or something. Whose idea was this? And why did they think that such stupid comedy belonged in an Indy film?

Anyway, so we come to find out that Indiana Jones and his friend, Mac, have been kidnapped by the Commies, and taken to a secret warehouse in Area 51. How did this kidnapping happen? We are never told.

So once at the warehouse, there is some “witty dialogue” between Indy and Mac. That’s fine, except for the fact that Indy isn’t really that witty, and he acts WAY too cocky. In Raiders, when Indy is in the Well of the Souls, and Belloq says “Why Dr. Jones, whatever are you doing in such a nasty place?” Indy responds with “why don’t you come down here? I’ll show ya!” And that’s about as clever/cocky as he gets, in those situations.

One thing that makes Indiana Jones so awesome is that he is vulnerable. He gets hurt, BIG TIME!! Just in Raiders, he gets shot, drug under/behind a truck and gets the crap beat out of him by a Nazi. He tries to stay calm as long as possible, but when he is really in a jam, he starts to sweat. Remember in Temple of Doom, when Willie won’t pull the handle to open the door, which will save Indy and Short Round from the room with the ceiling spikes, and Indy says “weeee arrrre gooooing to DIE!!” And throughout the whole scene, Indy is not exactly calm. Man, what an awesome scene!

Anyway, so Indy does some running and jumping in the warehouse and escapes, and that’s fine. I was surprised at how well Harrison (if it was actually him) pulled that stuff off.

He then runs into a pseudo-town that is apparently made to test the effects of an A-Bomb. Unfortunately, he finds himself in this little town just about two minutes before the bomb is dropped, so he hides in a refrigerator. The bomb goes off, the town is destroyed, and the fridge goes flying, hundreds of feet through the air. It crashes hard in the desert, and then Indy opens the door and climbs out, no problem. That is something you might see in a cartoon, but not Indiana Jones.

One thing that I always liked about the Indy movies was that even though they are farfetched, they have a very slight hint of realism. That is, the things he does ARE possible, just very dangerous. We know they are possible, because someone actually did the stunts. The giant boulder in Raiders is real (while it’s not rock, it is still heavy), someone actually was drug under a truck on a dirt road, someone actually dove from a horse onto a moving tank. No one is actually getting blown through the air in a refrigerator. And even if they did, the gophers still wouldn’t care.

The movie continues, and we meet Mutt, who is a stereotypical 1950’s tough guy. For dropping out of school, he has a very strong interest in archaeology. So Mutt and Indy chat about something, I don’t even know what, and somehow the plot moves along. I still have no idea what’s going on, or what the point of anything is. Maybe if I watched it again, I would figure it out. But it seemed like we were never given a very solid explanation for anything.

So Indy and Mutt fly to South America, and have some adventures down there and are eventually caught again by the Commies. While caught, Indy runs into his ex, ex lover, Marion Ravenwood. Apparently they were engaged, and then Indy got cold feet. Well, after about two minutes of arguing, they are in love again.

So Mutt helps them escape into the woods, only for Indy and Marion to be caught in some sort of dry quicksand. Indy takes a few seconds to explain the difference between dry and wet quicksand, which is REALLY not something he would do. It reminded me of some nerdy scientist who takes every chance he gets to explain how something is. Indy is not that thick.

So while stuck, there is some madness, and yelling. I find it odd that they were yelling so loud, since the Commies were looking for them, and were no more than 100 feet away. One would think that you would try to be quiet, but whatever.

So then there is a chase scene through the jungle, and it’s ok. It looks pretty fake most of the time, probably because of all the CGI or something. Everyone then crashes into a giant, killer, ant hill. The ants belong in movie like “The Mummy”, not Indiana Jones. Of course, Indy always faces something nasty like snakes, bugs, or rats. But these creatures are always real, not made up.

One thing that was always so awesome about Indiana Jones, was in his fights, he would go all out. He really put a lot of “umph” into it. 4:00-4:15 of this clip is for my money, some of the best punches ever filmed. In every fight scene I have ever made, I have tried to copy those punches. Now contrast those with the punches from the current movie. Pshhh. I guess it’s not just the mileage anymore.

Ok enough whining about that stuff, let’s get to the heart of the problem: Aliens. I was ok with the alien skull. But soon as the alien skeletons formed together and made an actual alien, I was pissed. ALIENS!? I mean, c’mon. At least the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail have some historical aspect to them, even if such things did or did not actually exist. Tons of people have wondered about the Ark, as well as the holy grail, and searched for it. But aliens? C’mon. This is the realm of new age hoo-haws, and conspiracy theorists. I bet that if an archaeologist said he was going to try and find the lost Ark, his colleagues would say “…ok, good luck with that.” But if he said “I am going to try and hunt down the sources of these alien skulls”, he would be laughed out of town. And then the giant UFO, oh man oh man. It was like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Stooopid.

The movie also lacked excitement. There was never any time where I thought “OH SNAP!!!” or anything of the sort. The movie also lacked a theme song. Of course, there is the Indiana Jones theme, but the second and third movies also have a theme of their own.

Ok enough complaining. I’m sorry, but I just really didn’t like this movie at all. I waited for so long, and it was really disappointing. Nothing about it had the Indiana Jones feel. The characters were totally different, there wasn’t the excitement, suspense or thrills of the original.

So go see it if you want. But as for me, I am gonna stick to the original.