The interesting and informative links and resources thread.

[Thought]

Religious belief is a fundamental part of human nature

You can also find the study's webpage here: http://www.cam.ox.ac.uk/research/cognition-religion-and-theology/

The general thrust isn't, of course, if religion is right or wrong, but rather that religious belief comes naturally enough to humans that it is highly unlikely to disappear from society short of major evolutionary changes.

[Lord J Esq]

I see the best solution, prior to genetic engineering, as substitution. I do take it as a given that people are predisposed to divine thinking. The impetus behind that must be accommodated, but the expression need not necessarily be divine.

[Mr Bekkler]

I think "higher power" is the best (most acceptable, most vague, most freely interpretable) term. Aliens, god(s), spirits, nature itself, gravity, the "force", the man, etc. could each be considered higher power in their own right. And most people believe at least one of those things is real and important.

[tushantin]

I think "higher power" is the best (most acceptable, most vague, most freely interpretable) term. Aliens, god(s), spirits, nature itself, gravity, the "force", the man, etc. could each be considered higher power in their own right. And most people believe at least one of those things is real and important.

Because the "higher power" concept is not a theory, but an axiom. XDDD Humans are not infallible, are still in line with evolution and are also insignificant in universal scale. The very first records of anthropomorphic personifications of Higher Power for now are considered to be from Ancient Egypt and Bharata, where aspects of nature were given humanoid characteristics based on how they worked, or simply for general/philosophical understanding.

Whether you believe that this power is sentient or not, the Something-Is-Out-There assumption is logical.

P.S.: Thanks for the intriguing article, Thought!

[Thought]

Humans are not infallible, are still in line with evolution and are also insignificant in universal scale.

Do you mean that you believe that humans are insignificant on a universal scale, or that some unidentified people out there believe this?
I ask, because if you believe this, then I can ask you why you would say that humans are insignificant on a universal scale?

[tushantin]

Good question, Thought, I'll get back to you on that (still need a bit of sleep).

For now, I'd like to show you guys THIS! http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/05/a-trip-around-our-solar-system/100075/

A whole photo album of our explorations in space.  Isn't it beautiful?

[Licawolf]

Wow!  They're amazing, thank you for sharing that, tush . I'm in awe of how perfect Venus looks...

[tushantin]

Humans are not infallible, are still in line with evolution and are also insignificant in universal scale.

Do you mean that you believe that humans are insignificant on a universal scale, or that some unidentified people out there believe this?
I ask, because if you believe this, then I can ask you why you would say that humans are insignificant on a universal scale?

Sorry for the late reply. It was today that I got the time to get about this.

Now, before I answer these questions it would be awesome to ask the right questions from ourselves (or others, for that matter). The questions are:
What is the significance of a human life from the eyes and mindset of those inferior, such as a bee, if it were sentient?
What is the significance of human life from the your very own eyes? What makes you or humanity special?
With the current Libyan / Al Qaeda wars on our necks, whose side are you on? Why? What makes one side's motive any better than the other? What is the significance of those wars? Would it make any difference?
Looking from a universal aspect, what is the significance of a human life in a galactic equation? What difference would our strife make to this?

I'm not saying that these are the right questions, but whatever questions do arise in the mind it never hurts to ask. But it is important to look from different views before you consider a good answer. Truth is never absolute, and there is always a small detail which changes it. Now then, I'll answer your question in brief (I don't wanna bore anyone).

Humans have come far in regards to evolution, mastering the art of tools and weaponry, speech and free thinking, etc. and dominating the planet with their sheer cleverness, so naturally one is inclined to consider them important and special. But just because we're great doesn't mean we're perfect, and thus we still have a long way to go. The survival of the human race is important in the long run as rarely does a species achieve this level of intelligence and broad sentience, which in turn would help in at least one species taking in the task of exploiting the mysteries of the universe. There is no purpose, but it is interesting to see a species evolve in this major scale, and at the same time we find other species insignificant if they make no difference to the absolute scale. Take Lord J's reply to my encounter with a bee, for instance. A bee cannot understand sympathy at a human level, and certainly cannot share similar sentiments. To the bee, we're an obstruction to their line of evolution. We're the pests who prey on their hives and destroy their species. From the eyes of a man, however, it's the bees that might be annoying, especially when he's working on (let's say, for instance) a marvelous architecture that might either house or inspire the rebels, or might be a memorial to someone great. To the architecture, this is a significant achievement. But a bee cannot help, only hinder, thus whether it lives or dies would make no difference to the overall scale.

Again, the majority of strength in humanity comes from sheer numbers. Humanity often makes enemies within its own species based on their views, discrimination, etc. Think of the wars between Christianity and Satanism, Islamic and Crusades, Country against Country, Red Shirts vs Black Shirts, Left Wing against Right Wing, or even Allied Forces against Al Qaeda. Within the battlefield, these battles are significant and would define the world on the outcome. Beyond the battlefield, they are viewed as pointless, childish strife. Whichever side you're on you are willing to support it to the very end, either on the losing or winning side, it does not matter. It is easy to say that the opposite side is evil or wrong by default, just because every person feels he is always at the right side of things, and this brings the very foundation of tribalism. In the end, the system will be defined by the winning side, perhaps due to sheer numbers or strategies, which the majority of humanity support. But is it the perfect system?

Thinking from within one's own mind, a person beliefs defines the his/her character, where the person chooses his decisions rationally and decides the fate of the world and himself/herself. Many take pride in being free thinkers, enjoying the evolved sentience, and celebrating Free Will. There is one slight problem, however: Free Will does not exist, and is merely illusion. Despite what Lord J and ZeaLitY would love to think, Free Will counts as magical thinking because what comes to mind at the mention is the "sudden decision" that comes out of nowhere, as if having some kind of omnipresent power to control things (i'm having a difficult time explaining this). It doesn't work like that in reality. A mind is a complex system that uses genetic system to be affected by experience, be influenced and adapt to a system of though. That is how consciousness works, and because we have a gigantic number of genetic behavior types and experiences, the combination is endless, which gives the illusion of free will as it also gives us a unique identity: a soul. Experience nurtures and influences a human mind to follow a path, and human decisions can easily be manipulated, no matter how earthbound and narrow minded, with sheer words or experiences. NLP is one such technique. And it rings true to an old Chinese saying: A child's life is like a piece of paper on which every person leaves a mark. This again brings another question: have we really evolved to perfection?

Now this is the final analyses, and answer to your question. I believe that humans are insignificant on a universal scale, regardless if we're superior to aliens out there or not. If we take our account to our own significance in an entire galaxy full of unknown hospitable planets housing aliens, then chances are we could doubt the significance of our own existence. Yes, we can travel. Yes, it might take time. But how much? And more importantly, would it make a difference?

Go back to the Bee analogy for a bit: they consider humans as a threat, and if the last of their kinds are destroyed it is the end of the world for them, but for it doesn't make a difference. Back to the universal view, as noted before, humanity isn't perfect and still evolving, and thus can still be considered animals who haven't matured to the level required universally. It doesn't matter what is out there. It doesn't matter when the Rapture takes place. At any given moment a rogue Black Hole might sneak into our Solar System and devour us, or a Magnatar might cause explosions fucking us up, or perhaps a Comet comes straight for us, or maybe our own planet just starts farting Carbon Dioxide everywhere, killing us all. At any rate, we will consider this as the end of the world. The religious will pray and ask for forgiveness, the scientists will panic do their best to help everyone survive, the businessmen will run amok leaving their money behind, etc. and it would make a big difference to us because as we watch our own brethren dying before us.

But look at it from the universal scale. Would it make the slightest difference to our galaxy? Our planet is the size of a dust particle in the entire cosmos, and removing that from the equation would hardly affect the universe. It's just one planet destroyed, and there are millions opportunities to have another hospitable planet with equally intelligent species, perhaps better. Not that they'll be useful in any way to the universe as whole. We are insignificant germs trying to expand our territories by finding hospitable environments and infecting them, just doing our best to survive and evolve, like any parasitic diseases you find in street foods or Taco Bell. The Universe has lots of time, but we don't.

And finally we begin to wonder. Our wars and strife are meaningless after all. We may as well work together and evolve quickly, as our goal.

[Lord J Esq]

Despite what Lord J...would love to think, Free Will counts as magical thinking because what comes to mind at the mention is the "sudden decision" that comes out of nowhere, as if having some kind of omnipresent power to control things...

What's this nonsense all about? Please enlighten us and explain what I think, since this is the first I've heard about it.

[Thought]

The fact that I asked the question in the first place probably shows my own bias, but Tush, it seems that you are making some fallacious assumptions.

You ask, for example, if the fact that we could, in a hypothetical situation, travel between planets could make a difference. The simplest answer is that yes, it would make a difference, because there would be humans where previously there were no humans. However, from your tone, I think you are not getting at a factual difference but a "moral" difference. You seem to be assuming a particular moral scale of significance, but at least in that post you didn't define what that scale actually is.

To use your bee analogy, it seems that you are saying a bee's life is insignificant because it doesn't make a difference if it dies. Yet this is contrary to simple fact: if the bee dies, the universe is less one bee. The state of the universe after the event is different than the state of the universe before it. Thus, different. You are getting at a moral difference, but you are presupposing significance in that. The bee's death is insignificant because it does not match your moral definition of significance. But what is that moral definition of significance?

You seem to imply that your moral definition of significance is based on size. To offer some ridiculousness, would you say that a short woman is less significant than a tall woman, all other factors being equal, because her size is less? Or should we say that Beijing is less significant than the rest of China? Is President Obama less significant than a fraternity party consisted of several dozen people? Or rather, is it what someone does, and not their size, that makes them significant? If so, then isn't earth, with all its activity, more significant than hundreds of lifeless planets? Indeed, if there is no other life in the milky way, then doesn't the activity on earth make it the most significant planet.

Now, you might add the qualifier that be that as it may, earth isn't significant to the planet SR 388, halfway across the universe because they don't current interact. Let us return to our big-woman/little-woman dichotomy. If the two never meet, can we say that the smaller woman is less significant? Or perhaps they are equally non-significant? If that is the case, then, can we kill one, the other, or both? Or is it that despite their relationship to each other, we still make the claim that there is some significance to their lives, at least to us? Thus, if Earth or SR388 has to be destroyed, which should it be? Indeed, if either earth or the entire solar system that SR388 inhabits has to be destroyed, which should it be? If nothing is happening there, regardless of the interactions, isn't earth's activities more "significant."

It seems that fine humans insignificant because we are comparatively small creatures and a comparatively small planet on the comparative fringes of a comparatively common galaxy. But hopefully as I have shown, size doesn't grant significance. But what is it to you that does grant significance?

As you might have noticed, I define significance not by size but rather by action. A bee is significant because it does so very much. If we say that a human is more significant, then it is because a human does so much more (or, at least, is capable of doing so much more).

Or, to put it another way, significance isn't something that is granted to us, it is something we make ourselves.

[tushantin]

@Thought: Moral significance doesn't matter her, nor does "right or wrong" view count, but by harsh reality of value. I'm not talking about significance granted by size either. What I'm talking about is significance earned by individual organism that causes a lasting impact, more in evolutionary lines, or most likely what you already mentioned here:

I define significance not by size but rather by action. A bee is significant because it does so very much. If we say that a human is more significant, then it is because a human does so much more (or, at least, is capable of doing so much more).

Or, to put it another way, significance isn't something that is granted to us, it is something we make ourselves.

Just a brief clarification here: if a Bee manages to help an architect in some way its life suddenly gains importance and value, but when it simply hinders one would rather let it die. Similarly in business, the life of a clever architect is much more valuable than one among hundreds of labor workers whose lives are expendable to those folks. I'm not talking about Universal Significance. No, rather significance valued from several mindsets.

Similarly, if a short woman was more influential than a taller one, it is the shorter one who is valued most. We've seen this in historical records too, think about it from our default mindsets this time: who stepped on the moon first? You remember. Who stepped second? Most don't even bother to know.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.


@Lord J: I didn't mean to offend you. It was long back when we were debating about religion and whether it should be defended (I remember, but vaguely) that ZeaLitY and/or you praised the existence of Free Will and how it defined the foundations of Atheism. I could be mistaken here, but if it wasn't you who said it, I humbly apologize. I'll edit that out from my previous post.

[Thought]

@Thought: Moral significance doesn't matter her, nor does "right or wrong" view count, but by harsh reality of value. I'm not talking about significance granted by size either. What I'm talking about is significance earned by individual organism that causes a lasting impact, more in evolutionary lines, or most likely what you already mentioned...

"Value" just begs the question: it isn't actually a harsh reality but a rather soft and fluffy subjectivity since value is determined by consumer perception.

The lasting impact in evolutionary lines is more useful, but then we can replace our small and large women with fertile and sterile ones. The same basic objection applies.

Not for your bee-architect corollary, again you seem to be using a definition of importance that you aren't defining. Why is a building an important goal? It seems that you would say this is because of perceived value: humans like buildings, so we find them important and in turn hindering bees unimportant. In turn, bees like living and find buildings important. While this can be valid information, this still doesn't get to actual significance or value. There seems to be a slight of hand in which "significant to me" is being put in place of "significant." The problem with that, of course, is that these are not the same concept: the "to me" (or, indeed, "to entity x") qualifier places the emphasis on the individual, not the thing. Thus, if I find a bee insignificant, is that because it is insignificant or is that because I mis-perceive the matter? Until you define an objective scale of significance, value, or importance, the best that one can say about the significance of humanity is "it is insignificant to me."

Now you might wonder why it is I am pursuing this line of questioning: the reason is that the sort of perspective attributes an internal state to the external world. It seems that the reason for claiming that humans are insignificant is that you have chosen a definition of significance that they do not match. However, it is possible for you to have a definition of significance that would match humans, so the question comes down to why do you believe as you believe?


For other topics:

Since you brought up historical context, you are making the mistake that the most significant element in an event is the event we focus on. Which was more significant, for example, Augustus Caesar or the Roman Empire that followed him? Well, which one could history do the best without? Remove the people of the Roman Empire and Augustus Caesar was a guy with fun ideas. Remove Augustus Caesar, and we have the Roman Republic still. Not too shabby. Similarly, who is more important, the architect or the workers who build the building? Again, who is the most expendable? Remove the architect and the workers can still build. Remove the workers, and you are just left with a guy with a fun idea. The reason why singular historical figures tend to play the most important role in histories is because they are the ones we know stuff about, not because they were the most significant actor in an event.


And finally, since you mentioned Free Will, it does of course depend on how one defines it, but it does essentially exist. At least, it does if we define Free Will as the opposite of determinism on a human scale. Strict determinism would mean that we should be able to predict any given human's actions before they take those actions by extrapolating the inevitable outcome of the state of the universe at present. However, by obtaining that information we alter the prae hoc conditions and thus negate the validity of our equations. A person's actions cannot be known before they take those actions, which within this limited definition would count as Free Will. This tends to be the reasons why neurobiologists, even as they argue that all our behaviors are controlled by understandable functions of the brain, deal in percentages and likelihoods rather than absolutes.

[Sajainta]

A lengthy article about trafficking in the US.  It's long, very disturbing, and an absolute necessity to read.

[Lord J Esq]

It honestly baffles me that fighting trafficking is not one of our top national priorities. It's a huge and growing problem, with ethical and emotional appeal that transcends most partisan lines. I can't think of any flattering reasons as to why this isn't in the forefront of our political agenda as a society. I can only think of deplorable or disgusting reasons. This is one of those "doesn't quite fit" realities that serves to illustrate just how much of what we perceive our society to encompass is an illusion or an outright lie, masking a much more barbaric and primitive truth.

[FaustWolf]

Ignorance must lie at the root of this evil. CNN's done a pretty good job studying sex trafficking in the US with a few investigative reports over the last couple years, and they bring Demi Moore & Ashton Kutcher on to talk about the issue every once in a while. Problem is, how many of us actually watch TV anymore? The campaign to end this has to take the fight to the Internet, which is why passing along the few news articles about it is so important.

Honestly, I didn't pay much attention to the massage houses in the city nearest to me until Sajainta brought up the subject of human trafficking in the US right here at the Compendium. A quick Internet search confirms that these establishments offer sex (not just in general -- these exact ones that I drive past every time I go out and get groceries, and a block away from the city police station no less). And given how utterly creepy these places look to me, my suspicion is piqued. One of the best volunteers who served with me during the Obama Campaign has actually started an educational campaign on this issue, which I hope will encourage greater vigilance. Then again, I only learned about his campaign in the local news, and who in our generation actually watches the local news on TV anymore?

Role confusion also contributes. Whose responsibility is it to investigate and flush out these operations? The citizens of this city I live by probably assume everything's hunky-dory because the aforementioned massage parlors operate near a police station, and of course the police would take care of it if anything nasty's going on, right...? Ultimately the most important people to reach are the customers of sex services -- they need to be educated to watch for signs of abuse, and they need to have the compassion to keep this issue at the forefront of their minds rather than their hard-ons. That's probably the hardest part of all. Longtime johns are probably too hardened, but maybe a major educational campaign could catch first-timers and help turn this thing around.

Finally, and perhaps most powerfully, the dark side of both liberal and conservative values must have a role to play. Conservative values push sex into the deepest recesses of society, and then liberal values defend whatever results, because hey -- isn't it just sex/art/people-doing-what-they-want-with-their-bodies? Not everyone who labels themselves a liberal or conservative conforms to what I've just described of course, but if the debate about pornography is any indication, I think there's something to this bullshit theory of mine. It might help explain why human trafficking has settled very snugly in the midwest; our highly valued, bellweather moderatism can be a schizophrenic thing, because we're essentially trying to be conservatives and liberals at the same time. In any case, perhaps the tangled cultural mess that may surround human trafficking in the US would unravel with education and information. I agree that this is something both liberals and conservatives have a great stake in, and should be able to agree on easily.

This is what I believe, at least for now.