Daily cyber thoughts

I HAVE to show you something I JUST found out about!

I want to share with you a really cool thing I found!

Im earning awesome spare cash just by taking surveys for major corporations that spend so much to learn about me and you so they can put the right products on their store shelves.

I’m being paid $25 - $65 for every survey I complete and they barely take a few minutes to get done. And you can do these surveys from anywhere in the world you’ve wanted to go! :-)

There’s limited spots - don’t miss yours!

Culture is saturated. What I mean is, It’s saturated to say that culture is saturated. There is already, an entire subculture of ironic hip-self repudiation. Instead of working towards a livable existence people are content to mock their own ineptitude beneath thinly veiled sardonic snide. This is why everything hip must be sacrificed in order to redeem social progress.

From Williamsburg With Irony

3/27

From Williamsburg with Irony,

I was contemplating and pontificating Et cetera concerning the meta- post modern literary paradigm in my contemporary apartment. (as per usual). When suddenly there was a knock at the door. My companion had returned with the latest entheogen of interest, Dihydroestradiolaezpam. Street name, MGMT. Said chemical could only be acquired in Williamsburg from an obscure and reputably dyslexic craiglist prostitute. I had heard reports that it made underground indie music exceptionally mellifluous. But heresy could never be trusted on matters such as this. My companion had spent her childhood freebasing DMT in a dark alleyway behind a pay less shoes, surviving off only laundry detergent and “The occasional” American Spirit cigarette. Between us I think there was enough pharmacological knowledge to safely stock an entire Roche laboratory. I opened the contents of the package from the mythical craiglist harlot onto my ikea furniture modern coffee table. Aforementioned table immediately collapsed due to poor manufacturing surely by a homeless man with some vague somatoform disorder.  Luckily none of the dopamine stimulating compound fell onto the mountain of debris accumulating on the floor. My associate had been badly burned by hydrochloric acid during a dispute at an empire of the sun concert and as such she was horribly disfigured. She enthusically  recommended freebasing off a modest mouse vinyl, but I was out of modest mouse vinyl so instead we opted for intaoccular injection.  

 You’re pal,

-Obscure and illegible signature

Hey, everyone.

Hey, everyone. My name’s Jimmy. *stutters uncontrollably* 

I was raised in an abusive household. Yeah It sucks. My dad’s a social worker. Every night he would beat me with a tire iron until I would recite the lord’s prayer. At the age of 13, I dropped out of middle school and slowly became addicted to abusing inhalants/industrial solvents/ Elmer’s glue. I’m better now though. My moms an addiction specialist. Thank god. My best friend is probably my Chihuahua Benny. He keeps me company, even though he’s dead. I work at the gas station. It’s sketchy. In a good way! I have a rare disease called maple syrup urine disease. You wouldn’t know if I didn’t tell you, but it causes my urine to be unusually sweet smelling. Sometimes I smell it. My psychiatrist thinks I suffer from severe autism rendering me unable to comprehend the concept of irony. Also, I am quite fond of disco music, The captain underpants novels, and anything concerning/relating to the erectile dysfunction medication Levitra. (stop emailing me. I’m not going to tell you) Unless you’re Mikey Avalon.

philosophy and bioethics of suicide

There are two competing theories or deductions if you will in neuroscience addressing suicide. One view we shall call the diagnostic view and the other the philosophical objection. The diagnostic view incarnate would hold that there is absolutely no sensible reason for a cognizant organism to wish to die and that a wish to die would be a manifestation or symptom of depression. In it’s purest sense the diagnostic view would argue that even terminally ill people or those enduring great physical suffering commit suicide or desire death because of comorbid depression. 

The other view, the philosophical objection would hold that there are logical and tangible reasons for euthanasia or suicide and someone who wishes to die who is acting on an intellectual reason is not suffering from depression, insanity or neurosis. A proponent of this belief system would be quick to argue that everyone must die eventually and if one choses, it is ethical to die at a superior state of well being than face cognitive and physical decline or endure palliative care. I do not believe this necessarily leads to nihilism. 

 Can it be said there is no rational grounds for suicide? If morality is about maximizing wellbeing can it be said that death limits suffering similar to euthanasia? Or can it be said that a living organism is inherently and consistent better to a dead organism. As I believe is the case in principle.  Although  I think relative wellbeing measured against previous conditions should be a factor.

Is someone who wishes to die because of intellectual reasons necessarily depressed? how can this be answered?  If anyone can point me to FMRI studies or any type of data on current or suicidal patients I would be much obliged.

On belief

As Dawking’s once observed, “Science cannot answer why questions only how questions.” In response to some of the most difficult and fundamental questions concerning human existence science can only offer an apathetic shrug of the shoulders or pure agnosticism. 

Faith in erroneous beliefs does not rectify human uncertainty. To quote Sagan, “Science is a candle in the dark. Religion is cursing the darkness.” 

“[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

- Donald Rumsfeld

I suspect religion is rooted deeply in human psychosis. Denial and self deception are of course the most primal of all human psychological defense mechanisms. Delusional on an individual level is called psychosis, but on a collective level we call this religion.

If you ask a Christian the physical location of heaven, the question is met usually with scorn and from sophisticated “believers” and a response that you are taking their claims too literally or “misunderstand teleology.” But isn’t there a logical and apparent truth value to any of these assertions? Mustn’t one take these claims seriously? Why is it that religious people are not concerned with any of the logistics of their beliefs?

For example, If I ascertained that there was a magical land over the horizon where suicide bombers are rewarded with virgins and swimming pools of money by the flying spaghetti monster why is the location of such a place irrelevant? Better yet, I would have to provide convincing irrefutible evidence that such a hypothetical place existed. What are the weather conditions of heaven? Does an immaterial soul require food and water etc?  

The reason these questions are not postulated is because they are answerable in both and principle and practice. And the answers are quite silly. Heaven exists only in the figments of human imagination.  (Probably somewhere in the temporal lobe) 

Now for the most pressing question of all. Why does the Academy of science, composed overwhelmingly of atheistic (93 percent) not utilize this reduction ad absurdum to expose religious belief for wishfully thinking, folly and sheer ignorance.

In the United States in particular, religious belief is often accorded a special closure and respect. Correct etiquette in society is not to question or challenge another’s faith. People are just permitted to believe as erroneous and imaginative things as they wish and this somehow masquerades flagrantly under the banner of “tolerance” How this could possibly be conducive to societal well being, tolerance, intellectual understanding, human progress, etc is incomprehensible. Bad ideas should not be tolerated.

On religion just as on any other subject there should be an open dialogue with ideas competing for supremacy. This is the only way to discern good ideas from bad ones. As Sam Harris put poetically yet laconically ” good ideas should not be protected from bad ideas.” 

Still, The United States is still an overwhelmingly religious society. The majority of Americans believe in Angels, Heaven, Yahweh, Miracles, The immaculate conception, That a first century carpenter is the savior of humanity, so on and so forth. Does this say anything? It does. Throughout human history, the majority has been consistently wrong. Consider the following. The doctrine of illusory superiority confirms the bias of doxa. Consistently, people over estimate their cognitive abilities, self esteem, sexual desirability success, happiness, teaching ability, driving ability etc. 

80 percent of people evaluated their driving ability as above average. For those who aren’t mathematically inclined 30 percent of people over estimate their ability. That’s one in three.  In another study 25 percent of teachers put themselves in the top one percent of teachers. 87 percent of Stanford MBA’s estimated their ability as “above the median” The problem with superiority and opinions in general is they are self determined. This is why it is imperative for debate to determine which opinions match reality the closest. 

If we cannot even evaluate our own driving abilities accurately or know certainly if it will rain tomorrow, what are the chances of the majority of people being able to accurately access metaphysical conjectures such as the existence of god? As the millions of antagonistic and disparate belief systems, cults and religions articulate, slim to none. 

Alternatively, maybe religion is not a mysterious esoteric  phenomena and thus not immune to the tools off scientific analyzation Perhaps religion is deeply imbedded in human neurobiological pathways or consists of a psychobiological adaptive response to environmental conditions, particularly human mortality. 

For something to evolve there has to be a few prerequisites. There has to be a reason,  a mutations and what is called evolutionary stability.  The reason religion could evolve is obvious. In certain circumstances self deception can be very adaptive. Consider this. In the past 50,000 years the human mind has expanded and become the most complex evolutionary structure ever contrived. This is mainly due to the increasing size of the prefrontal cortex, most likely brought about by bipedalism, language, etc.

To paraphrase Noam Chomsky in “Hegemony or survival” sometimes its not the biggest, faster or even smartest creature that survives. The Average life span for a species is roughly 100,000 years. Homo Sapiens have been alive for roughly 100,000 years. In the advent of nuclear proliferation cock roaches would stand a far better chance of survival than humans due to radiation resistance. The anecdote: Sometimes its not the most complex creature that survives, but the one that can scurry into the corner the fastest.

Its unlikely to assume evolution inherently favors intelligence or for that matter complexity. One can imagine a very real situation where having a very developed cortex is hindering to survival. Anyone who has OCD or anxiety disorders stands as modern testimony to that. People with OCD/Anxiety disorders often are keenly aware of the negative consequences of their action. They are often a victim of their own cautiousness. But evolutionarily, isn’t cautiousness a hallmark of intelligence for mortal and sentient creatures?

Yes it most certainly is. This is why if intelligence is to be retain their must be selective pressure to evolve something to negate this fact or intellectual regression may occur. This may help explain a link between OCD and religious belief. 

In the book “God and the brain” advances this argument

Bukowski

a womens shirt

liening naked in the grass

torn, dull, expressionless and lifeless

the past laying before me on the ground

how fun you are to urinate on

July 19th 2011

In the keys. I haven’t written anything since I got here.

idealization of happiness

Roy Williams did not care for fundamental concepts. He could not be bothered by Libya, Tripoli and Africa. Stock Markets, human poverty, suffering and misery. He took no notice to his own approaching mortality, and the certain mortality of others. He did not contemplate the past or imagine the future. Those events were so far away. Roy Williams was concerned with only one thing that afternoon. Drinking his beer, sprawled over a comfortable arm chair, his feet digging into the warm sand of a beach, somewhere.. In this state he found serenity, hedonism, almost peace. An ignorant liberation. He smiled languidly,”The REAL American Dream” It all seemed so far away.. 

1 note

ecce homo

to love, to gain, to cherish. 
to hate, to lose, to perish.
to live to try, to cry .
to smile, to die, to lie.
to overcome & be overcame.
Human. All too, human.