Big Mac + Drugs = This Video

Acid trip?

Time Travel

Even if time travel was practical or theoretically possible, how could it be feasible? Time exists only through experience of the world, and each human being has a different (even if slightly different) interpretation of the world. If one person went "backwards" in time and changed something, I fail to comprehend how the change could have an effect on another person who continually remains in the present. In short, I see time travel as an "all or nothing" ordeal (can't be done with one, but maybe all). Even with "all" people and/or "things" time travelling, it seems nearly impossible (at our current level of understanding and technology, anyway).

*Discussion continued in "Comments"*

Recent United States Politics

Neuroscience and Experience through the Mind

Doctor Tardiff, Theology teacher at Bishop Hendricken High School, posted:

"What the Bleep" convinced me that you cannot do much good with popular presentation of complex stuff. I tried not to ridicule or dismiss the presenters, but in the end I couldn't sift very well the solid known parts from what seemed to be personal philosophical musings. Still, I really liked the love peptides. Speaking of which, suppose Neo sees a woman in a red dress in the Matrix. Tank is looking at his computer screen and he tells Morpheus, "Neo is looking at Mouse's woman in the red dress." Do Tank and Neo see the same thing? Do they have the same experience? Well, Tank is seeing the causes of Neo's experience (as fictionalized by the film), and so he can tell Morpheus what is going on in Neo's head, but he is not having the same experience; green computer code is just not the same.

Somewhat more true to life, suppose someone, Fred, is given a smutty magazine (sorry) by some well-intentioned and morally challenged scientists, and suppose that these scientists are recording everything that is happening in Fred's brain. Still, their experiences will be quite different from Fred's (certainly no sexual stimulation). Also, their consciousness will be full of things that poor Fred's is not, such as awareness of electrical discharges. Of course Fred is actually having electrical discharges in his brain, but he is not aware of them (just ask him). Suppose one of the scientist's conscience gets to him and he decides to clean up the situation by burning Fred with a match to snap him out of it. All the while the scientists are still carefully logging all Fred's subsequent brain activity. Still, they do not experience the same thing Fred does. They don't experience pain as Fred does even if they detect every aspect of its physiological causes. They may not have to ask Fred to describe the pain, because they understand it thoroughly, but they are not feeling it, and he is. For these reasons I think that experiencing objective causes is not remotely the same as the subjective experience itself.

Last, I have been sitting on this green stool that Andrew Bartolini made for me last year. I really like it, but it's hard. Because I have been sitting on it all this while, I have been having a host of corresponding brain activity (my butt works and in a certain sense it is attached to my brain), The interesting thing, 'though, is that I didn't experience any of this brain activity; I paid no attention to it, so while it was there (and the scientists would have recorded it if they were tracking every event in my brain), I had no experience of it. I am actually experiencing it now (off and on), and I'm even going to make a choice based on this experience: end this post and move to a new chair. There are countless events going on in your brain that you don't experience (if you did, you couldn't function). Again, the basis for experience is different from experience itself.


My response:
Doc, you said "There are countless events going on in your brain that you don't experience (if you did, you couldn't function). Again, the basis for experience is different from experience itself."

I would somewhat agree with this statement, in that the basis for experience is different from experience itself (the underlying "code" and "science" of the brain as opposed to a physical or tangible awareness or experience. Yet I would like to pose the question "are the two really that different after all?" Sure, we personally cannot measure our brain electrowaves or whatever else goes on in the mind, but does that mean that they are that different? Just because we cannot tangibly sense something doesn't mean its not a part of our experience. The basis for experience in this case directly leads to experience, feelings, emotions without our own knowing.

Without a basis for experience there exists no experience. I guess it depends on your definition of experience, though. For me, the basis for experience exists on the same level as experience because without the basis there is no experience. Subconsciously, these waves and electrical charges are directly responsible for our "mind" function. So, in my opinion, we are technically "aware" and "experiencing" the basis for experience without knowing it since we can only really articulate this basis through language and our own mind function.

I'm actually so interested in the difference and similarities between underlying brain function (the science of the brain) and seemingly "physical" brain function (the psychology of the brain) that I plan to major in Neuroscience in college. Also another question: I don't understand why simply because you don't pay attention to something eliminates your experience of it. How could you recall the pain caused by the stool if, according to you, you didn't experience it in the first place? I guess you could say this discussion brings up the age- old philosophical quandary of if a tree falls in a distant forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

I thought German was supposed to be choppy...

Durch den Monsun - Tokio Hotel

Durch den Monsun is German for Through the Monsoon. Tokio Hotel's English version of the song only bears the title Monsoon, though. What has been lost in MTV is the true beauty of the articulation of the German language, especially when done by a few 15 year old musicians. The majority of Tokio Hotel is now 19-20 and dually composing German and English albums. Yes, the lead singer is a male, so please don't bring that up (has been controversial, particularly in recent U.S. video releases).

Science AS Religion (and vice versa)?

What I was trying to say was not that "ALL explanations of the world around us, on some level, are inherently the same because they are simply stories that we tell ourselves to make sense of our surroundings?", though I understand where that might have been implied. Rather, I meant that this "search for truth" was a common base for both science and religion at their origins. The seeming point of religion, to me, is to search out the truth (which, in the case of religion, is God who equals universe). The seeming point of science, to me, is to search out the truth (which, in the case of religion, is "fact/findings" through experimentation, which equal universe). I would agree with you in that we are trying to make sense of our surroundings through these constructs, but in this attempt we have a divergence of motive and ends (in science and religion). This divergence has become seemingly impossible to permeate in the modern culture of today, which seems to tend towards extremes rather than the acceptance of multiple views or theories (the idea of an absolute truth being manifested in one and ONLY one of these systems).

I (personally) see each as a jettison to the "truth" of the universe. I believe they can coexist without constantly contradicting each other. The issue exists, though, in that some people do not recognize this similarity of motive in each system (and, in addition, an eventual similar ends if such a universal truth exists). Rather than seeing this quest for truth, they see only the means of science and the means of religion expressed whilst attempting to reach this "end" of truth.

On Science versus Religion

For clarification, this similar plane of development which I
refer to is a "search for the 'truth.'"

I disagree that we should separate the two. I base this primarily on the grounds that science and religion were a co-creation - each early constructs of man which have developed separately, yet were constructed on extremely similar planes. The issue with science for me lies in that individuals cannot, will not or do not recognize the fact that it is a man made construction. Instead, the scientist or atheist (or it even could be argued that the average American) usually dismisses religion on the grounds that "only the empirical is the true (and subsequently, the real)." The issue with the said statement, though, is that the very statement has no empirical basis and thus should be considered invalid based simply on contradiction. I believe that religion and science can live in union but this very possible union depends upon the capabilities of man to recognize each as a (similar) social construct. Unfortunately, in today's society, the spiritual and metaphysical, despite originating from a similar plane as the physical, exist as completely separate from the physical. Their coexistence depends upon man's interpretation of each, and what the "truth" actually means.

Albert Einstein was truly a genius

"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it"

-Albert Einstein

I love this quote. Anyone have any thoughts?

A nice, relaxing song. Faithless - Bombs.

Writing on Everything yet Nothing

I wrote this back in January (the 28th, 2008) - figured I would get it up here since I have a Theology paper to write for school right now.

Well, on this particular night, being blessed with an uncharacteristically low amount of homework, I decided to simply write and write free. A lot of things have been going through my head lately and I just feel like I have to get them off my chest, or at least put them into writing. Each of the following subjects share no connectivity whatsoever, so any attempt of associating each is pointless.

If you feel like reading, go right ahead. If not, thats fine too, simply ignore this blurb and go on with your life.

-The Concerns of Others-
When you're walking around school, following the crowd, doing your thing, whatever you do...do you ever think about others? Kids get picked on all the time, maybe by you, or your friends. You never step up. Thats not cool to do. Hell, I probably don't even do that most of the time. I should, but I don't. But just stop and think for a second on how deeply hurt that given person may be. Try and talk to them, get to know them, help them out. It may not only be at school, but problems at home or with something else.

Even your best friend(s) may be experiencing problems that you don't know about. They may seem extremely radiant, happy, or outgoing to you, yet scarred internally, wishing someone, anyone, would ask or care about their issues. Alcoholism, abuse, it all happens, yet is never revealed. Obviously, don't attempt to dig too deep or stick yourself where unnecessary. Just care. You will be surprised at how many hidden vehement quandaries exist within the mind of the most seemingly content individuals.


-School-
What is the point of school? This question is asked by one and all students around the entire globe. And of course, the answer given by the student is that the system is unnecessary; whilst the opposing force [teachers, parents, whatever] proposes that school is a key cog in establishing a foundation for future job opportunities. I, however, propose a compromise between the two. School is most certainly necessary as to establishing primary education and the basics.

However, homework would be almost entirely eliminated in this system, or at least a strict designation of which classes were allowed to give homework on each given night. The overload of homework upon a student on some nights is ridiculous. A 15 or 16 year old teenager staying up until 3 AM in order to maintain a "B+" in Biology is simply outrageous and detrimental to overall development.

Another thing which would be altered within my ideal educational system would be the start of the day. It has been scientifically proven that teenagers need more sleep and tend to stay up later, and thus the school day should follow this pattern. Of course it doesn't, resulting in students falling asleep in school and the like.



-Music-
Music is such a remedy for the mind within a life which can bring much confusion or anger to oneself. If you do not listen to it or enjoy it, you should really sit down one day and just take a little time to appreciate how amazing it really is. Even with myself, though I love music in its entirety, don't find myself liking a particular song until the 4th or 5th time I listen. Even entire genres can act this way, as I discovered once I enjoyed a select few hip-hop melodies. Put yourself out there and just listen. Only good can become of it.

Secondly, there is no "good" or "bad" music, just preference within the mind of an individual. This is most likely influenced by the types of beats exposed to as a youngster, or those listened by one's close associations. Try and broaden your horizons at every chance possible. Listen to everything thats out there and you will be surprised at what you take a liking to.



Love
This is not a cheesy, ooey-gooey diatribe on love but rather a reflection of what it truly is and feels like (based on my experiences and depth of knowledge, anyway). This is referring to male to female relationship love, and not friend or family love (though this form of love also exists as completely amazing and legitimate).

True love, I would say, is not based on convenience or pure physical attraction, but an unreeling commitment to the partner. You must be willing to dedicate completely to your partner, willing to do anything in your power to protect them, aid them, or respect them in every single facet of life which confronts each of you. A complete and mutual allegiance to one another is necessary for a relationship which will be long lasting and positive for both parties involved (hopefully eventually resulting in marriage).

Love can be experienced in a number of ways. It can be physical, personality linked, amongst other things. A full combination of factors must be present in order for uninterrupted love to exist. Sure, the occasional conflict will arise. But, if there is actual love present, these will not matter in the least when all is said and done. Each person involved in the relationship will move on and be content within the very near future (not including severe conflicts, such as cheating).

Once you discover true love, the feeling will be that which has been completely absent previously and generally foreign. I believe I have found this feeling currently, and share it with Bianca Carolyn Angolano, the most amazing person I have ever met. You know love is there when you can just look into your partners eyes and smile for hours on end, or just talk forever about the most random yet amusing things...even if it means being on the phone at a legitimately late 3 AM. You love everything about the person, and they love everything about you. Flaws are overlooked...you realize things about yourself which had not previously occurred to you. The introvert becomes the extrovert.



In short:

Care. Educate. Listen. Love.

I hope you found this unnecessary over-analyzing of spontaneously occurring thoughts useful.


Looking back, it seems like this was rushed and poorly written, but its something, right? Some of my views have changed since then.

My name is Ian, and I view the world through these eyes.