Remembering our Loss of John F Kennedy, and it's long shadow

 On this day in 1963, at about the time I’m typing this, recess was over for the younger kids at John J. Audubon elementary school. I found myself climbing back up the stairs to my third grade classroom when I overheard an older boy coming down the stairs for their recess time. He was telling his friend, “did you hear, they shot the president.”

My parents being civic and interested in the politics and world affairs, plus proud Democrats, we knew all about our President. For my sibs, along with millions of other Americans back then, the Kennedy’s were like distant relatives, meaning it was personal - and the words were like a punch in the belly. Reinforced by our sad struggling teacher explaining what was being broadcast on the news and informed us school was over for that day and that we should go home to our families. We left school and all of us walked back home to be with our parents.

Dear Sabine Hossenfelder, why blame climate scientists for the politicization?

Dear Sabina Hossenfelder, 

I’ve been watching your YouTube videos for a while and for the most part, I enjoy them, because I love the topics, your informative sharp style, and you were refreshingly free of red flags. As I became a fan, I’ll admit I got some weird vicarious kick at discovering you were born in Frankfurt am Main during the time I was living there, during my 3 years in BRD & CH.

Then you started talking about climate scientists, people I’ve enthusiastically followed and learned from since my high school science classes (grad of ’73), and a topic I have closely followed for over a half century since.  Now, listening to you harp on climate scientists, I do see red flags cropping up, which I feel obligated to share as far and wide as my meager efforts will afford, via an email and posting at my blogs.

Your July 20th, “Fossil Fuels Don’t Come From Fossils? Tucker Carlson Fact Check” brought my feelings to a boil.  Now I want to do a little fact checking of your attitude and words, along with their unfortunate implications, in a society where determined willful ignorance runs rampant.

Fossil Fuels Don’t Come From Fossils? Tucker Carlson Fact Check

Sabine Hossenfelder - July 20, 2024 

5:44

“The world is full of untruth and half truth, right that's the whole problem right.”

8:14

"… Dr. Soon then goes on to complain about how climate scientists reacted to the opening statement from Al Jaber at the COP meeting earlier this year.

In the beginning of this cop 28 meeting,  the chairman, …  was saying that ‘there's no scientific reasoning to say that we should phase out fossil fuels.’ “

“He’s right. But then he backed off because of all this, baa-baa. …”

“There's no scientific reasoning to say that we should phase out fossil fuel.”

This isn’t an academic argument.  This is the stuff of rhetorical gamesmanship.    

No parameters, no nuances.  Give it a think Sabina. 

 

On Abortion Rights, considering the fundamentals.

 

I want to start with the greatest truth humanity has achieved, we are born out of Earth’s processes.  It’s a truth born out of our increasing understanding of human history going back into the dimmest reaches of Earth’s deep time.  Beginning with geology, then biology, then complex biology, then living sensing creatures that created environments and ecology in an ever changing world.  Folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity flowing down the cascade of time, rushing into a future inhabited by humans.  

Birth and death is our lot.  It has always been part and parcel of our human condition.  It can’t be moralized out of existence by idealistic extremists who believe “God” is personally speaking with them.

Pregnancy is never a guarantee.  A fetus is a seed, a being, a human potentiality.    Spontaneous natural abortions, miscarriages happen.  A fetus may be a human, but it doesn’t take on the mantle of personhood until those first breaths of life-giving air are infusing its lungs and pumping through its arteries and veins.

It should be significant that the fact of practicing abortions is older than civilizations, with Jewish scripture going into details on the topic, explaining why within particular circumstance abortion is a sad inevitability and that it is okay in the eyes of their God.  (God never promised us a rose garden!)

Beyond that, in a free society, legally speaking, why doesn’t a woman deserve the Right to Self-Defense along with Sovereignty Over Her Own Body?

Pregnancy is a difficult gauntlet, always will be, there will be deaths.  Those deaths aren’t confined to unborn beings, all too often the mother is also at mortal risk.

  

When push comes to shove, a just law would clearly acknowledge that a woman’s life is more precious to her existing family and society than an unborn potentiality.

Another factor all too often forgotten is that facing an abortion situation is nothing any woman (or young girl & her family) ever wants, life thrusts the situation upon her, and it is foremost she, herself, who must continue carrying the consequences of her choices, as others lose interest with the passage of time.

Another unspoken matter is that most often she’s also acting with the best interest of the unborn life within her at heart.  The fetus inside of her will always matter more to herself, than to any moralizing bystanders.  Women should be entrusted above all others, with the responsibility of making their own best informed choices about their own pregnancies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Do Religions Start Wars?” - FLC Philosophy Club - April 17, 2023

 For the past couple years I attended some of the Philosophy Club meetings at our local college when I can.  It's interesting and a nice break interacting with college students.  The last meeting provided me with some food for thought and an excuse to work on these ideas some more.  Any feedback would be appreciated.

“Do Religions Start Wars?”  

To me, it's an empty question because it defies resolution since everyone works with their own specific definitions.  

The conversation then drifted into the notion that Religion & Science are both simply faith systems of a different flavor.  The following discussion seemed surprisingly superficial to me, I stayed out of it since it was lively discussion, simply listening, keep my mouth shut for the most part.  Still it's been on my mind

Hello Professor,

May I ask you to consider some observations regarding  the Philosophy Club’s last discussion and to challenge a little.

I couldn’t help but feel that it’s a futile question that defies resolution because everyone works outward from their own specific definitions, and our discussions devolved into a parade of “sure, but …,” talk for talk, little that was constructive enough for anyone to do anything with.

Then the conversation drifted into the notion that Religion & Science are both simply faith systems of a different flavor.

That discussion remained surprisingly superficial while the core of the matter was avoided all together.

You may ask: What ‘core of the matter’?   Appreciating our human consciousness and its limits.

As I’ve been chewing on that meeting I got to thinking about an off hand comment one of your club officers made about me possibly actually leading one of the meeting discussions.

I’ve been thinking about it and would like to ask for your consider -  please invite me to speak at one of next year’s FLC Philosophy Club meetings.

I believe there’s plenty here to fill an hour and a half with challenging and constructive (timely and relevant) discussion.

Below I offer an outline of the substance of such a talk.

Thank you for your consideration,

Peter Miesler

970-769-9400

===========================================================================

Outline for a presentation to the FLC Philosophy Club meeting.

“Religion & Science, are both simply Faith Systems of a Different Flavor?”

I would suggest that the most constructive way to come at this challenge is from an Evolutionary perspective, one that begins with a better appreciation our own minds, the wellspring of all our thoughts.

“Who Are You?”

If you asked me that, I’d respond: “Most fundamentally I am an evolved biological sensing creature.  My mind is the product of my body, and my body is a product of this Earth’s Evolution.  A self-aware filament in Earth’s ongoing Evolution.”  

Why is that important?

Because only from an Evolutionary Perspective can we fully appreciate human consciousness in a way that truly helps us recognize the contrast between the pursuit of Science and faith in Religion.

The key insight is a deep time appreciation for the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.

Physical Reality is the physical world of atoms, molecules, universal laws of physics, biology and Earth’s laws of nature.  It is Earth’s dance between geology and biology and time and Earth's evolving creatures. 

Human “Mindscape" is all that goes on inside of our minds.  The landscape of our thoughts and desires and impulses along with those various voices and personalities who inhabit our thoughts and Being.  The ineffable notions that our hands can turn into physical reality that changes our planet.  

The me, myself and I, and all that unfolds within the thoughts just beyond the biological sparks and chemical cascades unfolding within our physical bodies and brains as they navigate their environments.

Once we have a visceral appreciation for the fact that my physical body creates my mind, it becomes clear that both science and religion are products of our minds dealing with the physical reality each of us is imbedded within.  Two projects with two very different natures.

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we ought to still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape and the bubble our personal ego creates. 

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable. 

What’s the point? 

Religions, science, same as political beliefs, heaven, hell, mathematics, art, music, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

That's not to say they are the same thing, they are not!  Though I think they're both valid human endeavors, still fundamentally, qualitatively different.

Religion deals with the inside of our minds, passion and souls, Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to eliminate ego and bias from its deliberations.

From this starting point a much more constructive conversation about the many substantive contrasts between religion and science becomes possible.

__________________________________________

From there I’d move onto tackling the Faith question with an invitation for critique that would go something like the following copy of a flier I’ve offered up at a couple Philosophy Club meetings already.

With a half year or more to think on it, it will be more refined and I’d happily share my notes ahead of time.

I’m looking for serious critique and feedback.  This past December I finally had a teaser, but it begged a question that still hasn’t received a response, despite my further inquiries.  

So, I’m hoping someone might be willing to step up and give it a shot.

I was told:

“Your essays consistently make conceptual confusions; the ego-God piece is a good example of this confusion.  

In that piece, you waffle back and forth between having the word ‘God’ refer to a heavenly creator and having it refer to the CONCEPT of such a creator.  

Example: frogs are amphibians, but the concept of ‘frog’ is not an amphibian.  It’s a concept that we use to think about the world.” *

I responded: 

Now you confuse me.

Where specifically do you see this waffling?

I started out with “God” in scare quotes, the first sentence reads:

Who is “God” but a creation of our unique complex human minds dealing with our day to days? 

Later I write:

Humans are the product of our Earth, God is the product of our human mind.  

It’s why our conceptions of God always wind up being driven by our own Egos, not by any outside force.  

Nothing wrong with that, if only we could bring ourselves to explicitly recognize it for what it is, our mind striving to reconcile itself with the unknowable.

The critique continued:

“It’s obvious that humans created the CONCEPT of God, 

and equally obvious that humans couldn’t create the BEING God.   But your essay confuses the two.”

I found this shocking.  After getting my bearing I asked:

I know of Beings and I know of Things and both can be observed in one way or another.  If they can’t, I'm told they are figments of my imagination.

How can something that’s never been observed on any level (beyond the human heart & mind) be categorized as a BEING of physical reality?  Even the super mystery of “Dark Matter” has evidence pointing at its existence.

How do philosophers justify referring to something as a BEING if it can’t be demonstrated in any way beyond imaginative intellectual arguments and human desire?

How does an Assumption get transubstantiated into a BEING?

* As for that analogy, it brings this discussion back to my essays which strive to highlight the need to explicitly appreciate the “Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.”  (Though that’s a different discussion I’m hoping to have with the curious.)

I’m hoping for someone who's willing to explain what they think I’m missing here?

============================================

===========================================================

===================================================

My response reads:

“Thanks for this offer.  The Philosophy Club is student-run, and, as such, the students select all of the topics and speakers.  I’ll be sure to raise your offer with them when we gather in the fall to set the schedule for the academic year.

Best, …”

__________________________________________________________________

I posted the above at CenterForInquiry an online forum I'm a regular participant at.  I'm sharing the following comment since it gave me a chance to further explore these ideas.

write4u:

citizenschallengev4:

“From this starting point, a much more constructive conversation about the differences between religion and science becomes possible.”

I doubt that.
Religions are exclusive belief systems, each claiming divine truth.

Therefore there can never be consensus
and if religions exist side by side it is due to “tolerance” not consensus.
Differences are bound to create problems of “tolerant acceptance”.

__________________________________________________________________

Okay, sure, religions are “exclusive belief systems.” but that’s beside the point here.
Sure religions simply tolerate other religions and conversions are rare, but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.

Where did I bring up consensus?
Consensus on what specifically?

citizenschallengev4:

Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to eliminate ego and bias from of its deliberations…

Humans participate in both endeavors, scientific, religious, that’s simply how it is.

The challenge is to understand on a human level what makes science so uniquely different from religion and other human endeavors arts, music, etc.
Tackling that requires understanding that science is a set of rules dedicated to understanding the physical world around us, the world we can measure, record and study as objectively (that is, honestly) as possible.

From there, it’s time to consider the so-called Brain/Mind Problem and the self evident fact that our human mind is qualitatively unique. Our minds are the product of physical biological processes, yet they are one step beyond. Which is why the problem of where our internal voices come from, and who they “really are”, is important.

“Who am I?” It has teased the human intellect since we became self aware. It was our human mind that invented Gods, to answer those nagging questions and placate fears.

It’s teased me all my days. After decades of chewing on it, a few years back I had a little epiphany, (that is a thought that makes a physical and lasting impact on my being and awareness.) An awareness that my thoughts are the product of my body and brain, interacting with this physical world that surrounds me, yet that was all separate from my mind. As for my mind my consciousness, that was a mere fleeting spark.

From there it was easy to formulate: “Appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide” and I believe the insight is a first base prerequisite for better understanding human consciousness and why we behave as we do.

All this matters because fact is, all we think and know gets processed through our individual body/brain and mind. Ergo even God is a product of our mind, driven by our body and soul.

As is science. That’s important to come to grips with. Now we’re in a better position to think about the difference between science and religion, which is all I’m commenting on. Religion is dedicated to people and our dreams and stories, that’s why I say religion is all about our human mindscape.

Whereas, what makes science different is that science is a universal set of rule for objectively studying physical reality as objectively and honestly as possible. These rules and the language of science is so clear that anyone who takes the time and effort to learn the rules and methods and language of science can contribute from anywhere in the world.

__________________________________________________________________

Center for Inquiry

 lausten: For me, that hope is sitting (in) pews all over the world, not buying most of what is being said from the front of the room, but wanting the community, inspiration, and challenges that come from religion.

I could see that, still the dam breaking change that needs to be realized is that our Gods came from within the human creature!  God does not come down from Out There, where ever that might be.  God is a byproduct of our own human evolution.

Once we, collectively process that, all sorts of constructive changes would be possible.

“Unless we are changing minds we are losing.”

Over at CenterForInquire discussion forum I've found myself using the line, “Unless we are changing minds we are losing,” often enough that it's received a little push back.  Since it's a nice summary of where I'm at currently I want to repost my thoughts over here. 

"Unless We Are Changing Minds We Are Losing"

What does that even mean?

Basically, it’s an observation of the obvious.

Unless we are enticing people to reevaluate their own assumptions, we are going to continue propagating the same escalating mistakes, leading to yet more of the destruction humans are so famous for.

For the most part people haven’t a clue what’s going on in the greater world around them, it simply doesn’t matter to them. That state of mind needs to change before any constructive changes are possible.

A desire for fact based understanding that’s rational enough to accept new data, recognize and own mistakes, and to learn from those mistakes.

---

My personal litany would look something like this, of course others have their own perspective, and theoretically in the end we balance each other out, at least in a healthy pluralistic society it would look like that.

A deeper appreciation for the seasons and flow of Earth’s deep time and our evolutionary roots.

The need for a deep down profound appreciation for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, and its cascading implications.

A deeper appreciation of the fact that we are evolved biological animals, kin to all other creatures that ever lived upon this planet.

The fact that it’s Earth that created us,
and we who create our gods.

Challenge Jesus the “Savior” with the appreciation for Jesus the prophet (and life coach).

Enrich our imaginations with the appreciation that the Bible is a creation of our own human drama, processed through our own hearts, minds, & souls.

…

Enunciate a woman’s Right to Self Defense, and sovereignty over her own body.

Acknowledge that sad truth that, when push comes to shove, a woman’s life is more important than the unborn Potential Person forming within her.

A living fetus, that is a human potentiality, takes on the mantel of personhood during its first breaths of life.

Abortion and earlier infanticide are sad but unavoidable facts of human history.

…

Seriously confronting our climate & resources problems requires an internal appreciation that we must learn to accept doing with less.

We can’t fool mother nature.  

But that’s me, what about others? Here’s where my suggestion for a
Democratic Party Online Discussion Forum. comes into play.  

Unfortunately seems like less and less people are into discussing ideas, so there’s that.

I did notice today that some poll finally showed trump’s 35% diehards has cracked, and slipped to 25% - that’s big & promising, if true, that’s why it’s double important for Democrats to try doubly hard to engage with right wing citizens who’ve been fed way too much KoolAid.

Their state of mind literally is the product of strategic brainwashing and we ought to try confronting that with a certain degree of compassion. Even as some of their ideas are absolutely reprehensible and objectionable and destructive.

=================================

Democratic Party Online Discussion Forum

==================================

Comment to the above

L.:

I think the lists of beliefs are out there.

It’s not about the lists, it’s about people actually discussing them.

L.:

I don’t like political platforms for the reason that it can appear I support the whole platform because I voted for one person. That’s why I emphasize getting to know people who think differently, and growing some mutual respect, then listening can begin, and change can happen.

We can’t ignore that the political system rules our lives on many levels, because it isn’t perfect or neat enough for polite company is a poor excuse to abandon and ignore it.

I’m all for all the nice discussion groups you can form, nothing wrong with that, except that it simply isn’t enough.

Heck the formula is as simple and straight forward as making compost*, nothing has changed in ages: A healthy democracy demands an informed and engaged electorate.

The Democratic Party needs to grow cohesion within the Democratic Party, every bit as much as it needs to figure out how to reach out and better explain themselves.  That's why I think a Democratic Party Discussion Forum would be a great place to inform, network, build ideas, reengage the grassroots roots and so on.  

Democratic Party Discussion Forum - think about it.

=======================================================================

(~40%green, ~40%brown, ~20%food stuff - keep moist, aerate)

Says the proud owner of a beautiful compost harvest.

,image1440×1384 548 KB

image1116×1508 464 KB

Dear Democratic Party (callers) . . .

 I'm frustrated by the vapidness of the many political phone calls, texts and emails I receive everyday.  One after another, basic boilerplate donation pitch, too often with a shrill attention grabbing headline. Precious little interest in anyone's interests, beyond what can you donate, envelop licking, being sent door to door with Pollyannaish literature.  Can't do that stuff anymore, but I do have something to offer.  

Democrats need to get better informed and engaged - that means using every resource available, and that should include starting a Online Democratic Party Discussion Forum where people can share their ideas and network, educate, nurture enthusiasm, engage your grassroots.  If we aren't changing minds we are losing.  

I'm writing this post so that I have a URL to share with future texts and such.

FEBRUARY 10, 2022

Democratic Party Online Discussion Forum

Googling, “Why are Democrats losing voters?” reveals that voters who care are feeling so disenfranchised by the Democratic Party that they are turning off in droves. 

This, during a year that should have every Democracy loving American energized and looking for how they can best participate in the coming election, it’s frightening.

After all, more than anything this election will be about the future of open and fair elections in the USA. Beyond that, it’s going to be a national referendum between the importance of honesty and truth in America’s public dialogue vs. a descent into anger driven anarchy. No exaggeration, simply pay attention to how the Republican Party has been engaging in every imaginable dirty trick to stymie future election participation and voting legitimacy.

Successful politicians require strong, informed, proactive support at their backs if they are to lead, yet the DNC seems to be doing little to nurture that sort of buy-in from their grassroots. Why?

CFI - "Learning about Earth can't trump religion." Say what?

 Sharing some food for thought:

MPC:  I cannot imagine how transcendence of nature, sublimation, ‘glorification’ can possibly work.

(At the CFI Forum tread: Can Christianity be progressive? 

transcendence = “Transcendence is the quality of being able to go beyond normal limits or boundaries.”

I believe MPC is missing the point.  Seems to me, it’s not about attaining some spiritual "transcendent" connection with nature, a la new age, or such.

It’s about realizing that Earth’s Evolution is an actual factual reality, it’s about realizing that all these folds within folds of harmonic complexity actually means something. 

Deeply appreciating that within myself there are direct roots to achievements hundreds of millions even billions of years ago. Learning about and understanding the outlines of those various folds within folds, that’s emotionally satisfying, so it’s worth it just for that, but there is more.

It’s about truly, deeply, viscerally, grasping that your brain and sense of self, evolved out of the mammalian animal brain and their sense of self, which in turn evolved out of an earlier brain and sense of self, with it’s roots in even more primitive ways of sensing/processing/acting found in the simplest of life forms.

The transcendence is not the object, it’s the learning and accumulating an understanding of the flowing complexity. 

Then as that journey matures the transcendence happens, as a result of all the accumulating mass of facts and learning coming together into a cohesive harmonic whole that makes sense.

I think that’s when the visceral sense of connection emerges. Is that transcendence? I don’t know, but I do know it feels good.

The fun thing is, this emergent holistic understanding affords an inner sense of solidity and belonging that goes way beyond what manmade promises can ever offer, even beyond the confines of my life. Isn’t that what people keep searching for?

(7.01) An Alternative Philosophical Perspective - “ Earth Centrism ”

(7.02) Appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide

(7.03) Being an element in Earth’s Pageant of Evolution

(7.04) It’s not a “ Body-Mind problem ” it’s an “ Ego-God problem .”

Being able to not just say, but feel that: “I am an element in the pageant of Evolution” - that goes a long way.

Diary, responding to Dr. J.W. Geier (21-10-09) It's not the sun, or bad models.

 

John W. Geier MD, commented at 

Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly PhD. Conman is, as Conman does.

... 

The main science issue is that the Earth cannot act as its own experimental control.

Computer models of the Earth’s climate reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the modellers and amplify errors over time.

It is unfortunate that the other terrestrial planets in this solar system are quite different from Earth.

The climate is a holistic function of the stellar flux, atmosphere and distribution of land and ocean on a planet.

september 28, 2021 at 10:53 PM

{ I’ve been busy with chores, so not much going on at my blogs.  Getting an intelligent comment, let alone any serious discussion, is fairly rare, so sometimes there's many days where I don't bother checking my comments folder.  

This morning I found a comment from a couple weeks ago (how the time flies) it was refreshingly coherent, at least against the backdrop of what I usually get, and it offers me something worth discussing. The sort of comment I feel obligated to post and respond it.  

Dr. John Geier's comment fits that bill.  Even if I believe he's being deceptive, and missing the forest for the trees.  Thing is, I imagine he might well be deceiving himself first and foremost.  Which is why I want to try and explain what he's missing, hopefully doing a little better than the time before.}

citizenschallenge responds to Dr. Geier …

With all due respect Dr. Geier, that is nonsense. We know plenty well what is going on within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Science has been intensely studying our atmosphere since the 1940s - nature is not some trickster and we don't need another Earth to experiment with in order to understand how our Earth's geosphere/biosphere behaves.

Why do you set impossible expectations?