I am a firm believer in the notion of culture existing as the practical realization of religion. Religion, in this context, may extend to other practical realizations of societal order such as the tribe-like settlements of the early day, empires, and modern political systems. Culture plays a vital role in religious indoctrination of its clan, and without it some pragmatic religions would become obsolete. Inbreeding and collectivism therefore emerged out of tribe-like settlements of early humans that went on to safeguard and transcend cultural doctrines and operatives through the generations. Some cultures moved past those conventions while others didn’t – this post will be dedicated to understanding the evolution of present-day cultures adapting to the ever-changing needs of man and the need for such culture. Continue reading “Culture: Earliest Organization Of The Human Forms”
There are several lines of thought in philosophy – the most popular being the separation of the soul and body. The Venn diagram of the what these domains are supposedly believed to contain are exclusive. Something like that would have made sense in 16th century France, where theological ideas primly shaped the everyday functioning of society, where a spiritual domain was required. Ancient philosophy was essential to establish the foundations of ethics and morale – approaching a time where advanced political systems were emerging in Europe such as the democracy. Once a philosophy of people was established, what was left was conquering and rationalizing perception and reason and knowledge – in that order. Today, modern science tells us more on sensory perception than any philosophy, and the rules of reason have come to be known under a wider subject of logic. Knowledge has moved past being a substance of the mind acquired through sensory experience and thought to scientific consensus – where senses are used arbitrarily to reach personal satisfaction of any conclusion. At any time, we can employ logic and mathematics to go back or forth from present knowledge to understand it’s coming into existence or predict what could be or coming.
In the present day of the 20th century, science has far progressed past this phase of individual reasoning. We have build a framework into which we fit things and if they don’t, we conclude them false. A framework consisting of mathematics and science, ruled by logic or pure reason. However, as the society of today moves past the moderating theology that helped maintain humane order of the ancient land, into secular and liberal institutions – we must develop a new and contemporary philosophy to help sort through the ethical and moral conundrums of the present-day. Especially now with artificial intelligence around the corner, we must work on this fast.
[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]
An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.
Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.
This likely will be my last time discussing religion. Unlike the last two times where I directly spoke out against certain religions and how they manage to work in contemporary times, today’s installment will be more on understanding why they work – a question that will require a philosophical analysis of this concept. Our discussion will be focused on exploring why religion might have been necessary and maybe still is. Later, we will get to understanding some shared ideologies among religions.
Where do we start? A new World Order? Sure, let’s start here – despite your forced consent that would’ve otherwise made no difference if you’d answered. The fundamentalists of religion saw the state of political chaos – the anarchy – invading our civilization as the people grew. With more people came more demands to meet their individual and collective needs. People would then give in to their animalistic instincts – their innate desires and ambition – and that would soon overcome any order of the people. Imagine a world without law and order, a world where ethics and moral were foreign ideas – this is exactly the kind of place religious fundamentalists realized and saw. In fear, they envisioned a word of order. A world where man’s innate desires were suppressed for the greater benefit of his fellows – and indirectly himself. The fundamentalist knew order cannot result from the reign of another man – because man’s ambition of a control of his territory would destroy his obedience – and conflict would soon prevail. The solution was to device something of an outside entity – a supreme and perfect being in all regards of man. An entity that lives and grows in apparent truth with the belief of man and other men.
Resources come at a premium – and anyone from a third-world can perfectly relate to this. Nothing is free. In a world survived by man’s innate desires, it would have been hard to ensure fair distribution of vital resources such as food. Also, as anyone who watches the National Geographic can describe – these desires are often lawless in modern hindsight. Animals aggressively secure their territory, their food and their potential mate at any costs. They fight among themselves and among others and form clans – where they venture together into unknown territories to conquer or mark as their own. The fundamentalist knew man was no different from his ancestor and such instincts would soon creep in as they outgrew in numbers eventually leading them to their own destruction. A need for a system of order was in dire necessity. A system to channel man’s own emotions – that he has been naturally predisposed with – against his unknowing will for the benefit of other men and himself. A concept of religion was therefore required.
This is part II to my previous post on subjectivism in science. The last part for those of you wanting to catch up, explored the mechanisms by which subjectivism creeps into scientific literature and also ways to alleviate it. Part II will explore subjectivity in observation or more generally, observation bias – from a practical and metaphysical standpoint.
you interact to perceive
mutual exclusion is nothing but an illusion
Scientific instruments are limited to their resolution, accuracy and precision. An instrument can only resolve within finite numerical intervals, only being able to gauge some metric with some degree of statistical consistency. The fixed numerical gaps between which an instrument can register is called its resolution. All instruments have a resolution that is predetermined from design – and probably something you can expect to find on the back label. Accuracy and precision are parented in statistics. The ability of the instrument to consistently register close to some numerical value is called precision, while its ability to register closer to the actual numerical value is called accuracy. The keywords are highlighted.
If you have come here expecting some comforting spiritual bullshit that will nicely align with your pre-existing beliefs on this phenomenon, then back off because here we are all about the math, not your meth-induced (or not) delusional reality. A surprising amount of bullshit has accumulated on the Internet trying to explain this phenomenon through the word of some people’s make-believe fairytale. This is a phenomenon in mathematics that really has more to do with people and how they view numbers – numerology. As fancy a term it is, the study of numbers as a significance to real-world events has some very ambiguous theory. It thrives on a tendency of using numbers to attach meaning to anything of a significant nature in people’s lives.
I first started seeing 11:11 on the clock several years ago. It was then that the seed of my confirmation bias was planted. I am an innately very curious person – a very bad thing in a school system that says ignorance is a bliss. That night I had looked up 11:11 meaning on Google which you’ll later see was a very bad thing to do.
Before I begin, please don’t hate me – I am a scientist myself. I am not outright stating science is always subjective, instead I’m just trying to think and dissect further into certain areas of science that is only vaguely understood and then look at how people tend to force their subjectivism on others exploiting this lack of consensus.
poorly backed opinions get life when others don’t equally understand it, or lack the evidence to easily refute it
First we must try and answer when and why does science get subjective? Science is one of those things that simply cannot become subjective, it is in its very nature not to be. Practitioners of science do not buy into poorly researched ideas or opinions, and we are trained not to because that’s simply not science anymore, its like one of those awful things called tarot cards or palm readings. A scientific consensus is reached only after the majority of scientists can agree upon something and say well this agrees with everything we have hypothesized so there is a very good chance our premise is valid.
Four nasty tangents and here we are, you and me – we aren’t normal. So, I believe I was talking good sleep. I cannot speak for everybody when it comes to a bodily function such as sleep. It is one that is heavily dependent on the person’s lifestyle. I will however, talk about how I manage to get some happy, sound and satisfying sleep. Continue reading “Fourth Tangent”
Today I will talk about scientific studies and the way media interprets and conveys them to the public. The media here plays the crucial role of a mediator, and I’ve noticed sometimes this mediating layer through which scientific developments reach the public doesn’t do a good job at maintaining transparency and accuracy of information.
Okay, now that’s just plain funny. Vegetables cause cancer? Surprisingly – yes! Anything you eat that aids cell division i.e., lets your body grow and repair itself might possibly cause cancer. Cancer cells come about as a result of bad genetic mutations during this repair or growth process. So theoretically, one might as well say vegetables cause cancer – but that’s the media’s perspective! Let’s bring the scientific method into the equation and tackle this rather bold statement, shall we?
Let’s start off with the source i.e., where the media gets their information from. Typically, findings from studies are published as papers in journals. These papers then get interpreted by the media in a multitude of ways. Why? Because the person tasked with penning the report is usually not an expert in the field while the paper he is reading from is written by experts. Here arises our problem,
The person interpreting this information should be one who is familiar with the scientific method and/or have some background in the sciences.
His misinterpretation and the added corporate pressure to attract attention (audience) paves way for sensationalism and inaccurate information being published.
What are the implications one might ask, and I’d say many! For starters, like I’d previously mentioned media as a mediating layer for information to reach out to the public hence, their every statement is read time and again, modified and shared across multiple social media platforms where a bulk of the masses end up getting their information. Any minor lapse in the process of publishing information can have disastrous implications on how that particular story/incident/finding gets distributed and interpreted among the public.
Data dredging: This is something some media outlets use to get your attention on something that’s statistically so insignificant that it’s practically unworthy of consideration and yet they make it convincing to the audience by sensationalizing a very insignificant find concluded as a result of the study.
End of the day, what really matters is where you get your news from – reputed sources like Reuters and AFP who hire specialists to gather news for them responsibly or sources like Geek.com who are hard players in the juvenile game of attention on social media.