h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

He was a flasher!!!???

Thus establishing yet another tradition among the christian clergy.

Wow, there's a thread stopper.

Reminds me of a party piece where you do an imitation of a priest helping a choir boy on with his coat.....first you put one sleeve down the front of your pants.

Yes, I know. It always gets mixed reactions but I hang out with the people who laugh.

I would be unsurprised to learn that tradition was well established long before Martin Luther's day.

The party piece has probably been around almost as long

>I hang out with the people who laugh. <

Well you chose well in having me as a 'friend' zoom. I most certainly laughed.

But I think Talesin is right because this choir boy thing is quite clearly a Catholic tradition which of course still goes on.

The proddies do some similar unpleasant stuff I've heard, but they put about the idea that the parson's go for little girls. The proddies are just sooooooo heterosexual

HOW DO YOU LIKE PEOPLE WHO SHOUT anhaga?

What about people who push to the front of the cue or who claim that they know better than you because they *just do*.

Unpleasant but bareable in my book. Old people can be like that sometimes.

Thing is whether its old people, peopl with crutches or old people with crutches its all so much more bareable if they are actually you know old or in medical need of a crutch.


If a woman came into a room ina communal area and asked to be given some time alont to breastfeed I'd be happy to stand out in the rain. If a woman was sunbathing topless in a communal area and asked for privacy she wouldnt get the same response.

Im sorry but a broken leg, an extra chromosone or a brain injury/learning disability a real reasons to accomodate the needs of others. Adherence to an arbitrary set of principles from a dodgy old book stuffed full of illogical nonesense which people state ought to be something I live by too to me is a request for a rigourous argument and a bucket full of scorn to go at the Mcoff Drive thru service window.

Sheesh, blicky! Read some of the other posts here, such as #2, #3 or more recently #26

I think the consensus is: Anyone attempting to force their particular vile delusion down someone else's throat, or compel others to live by the arbitrary rules thereof shall be give short shrift

The deluded who keep their delusions private may limp along unhindered by those of us who manage to avoid or transcend such delusions

Thanks for defending me Taliesin, but I'll take care of it myself:



I AGREE WITH YOU, BLICKY!

I do, of course, agree with you Blicky. I also think that, sadly, a great many of the religious, including a great many of the more obnoxious aggressive proselytizers, truly cannot help themselves and truly cannot be helped by others. I can't imagine deriving pleasure from repeatedly trying to knock their crutches out from under them: Not only will they not fall down, their crutch will be immovable. The only appropriate action when faced with such people is to turn the other cheek and shake their dust off your feet (the eye of man has not heard, nor the ear of man heard the warning that that will be.)

I consider this a relevant article: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/debate.html

I caught a bit on the news recently about the murder of Imad Mughaniyah saying that he was considered by 'experts' to be psychotic.

OK, there are a number of problems with that - diagnosis without meeting the subject in person, bias cos it's your people he is killing, it's a fairly common accusation against terrorist/guerilla leaders from the other side.

I know that mental health issues can be delicate subject and I have no wish to trivialise them here, so please let me know if I am being offensive in any way.

But, if we take it as a discussion point that he was, then the belief structure within which such a person operates (and I say that advisedly as similar comments have been made about idealist communist terrorist leaders) isn't a crutch for their illness but a framework within which it is no longer a hindrence or even really an illness, but becomes an advantage. In the case of deity based systems it even becomes a gift from god, something to be inspired by and to instill respect and awe in the other followers.

This might get a bit convoluted.
We know that human societies are highly unlikely to be non violent and get along peacably with each other. They never have done and everytime things start to get better in one area another kicks off or someone comes along and spoils it, for whatever reason. Given this, it seems likely that various groups of humans are going to keep killing and maiming other groups (either because they disagree or because the other lot did it to them or their friends).

Is it then useful to have social structures within which those with such tendancies can be useful? If you have someone who is psychotic and has no problem with killing tohers, is it better to have a position where these actions can be channelled or used to the benefit of your community (albeit the detriment of another) rather than trying to cope/control them within your own society?

I wonder similarly how many ascetics are clinical depressives or the most charismatic of leaders/evangelicals (in the general not just the christian fundamentalist meaning) have some form of mania? Or prophets maybe having some form of epilepsy or tumour?

It does seem within the religious structure there is a place for many and it does have a method of coping with such illnesses that doesn't consist of locking people up or drugging them.

Caveat:
1) This is a point for discussion, I ain't saying I agree with this.
2) I know there's plenty of other cases of people not doing well out of belief based social structures.
3) I ain't saying it is a conscious decision that it copes.
4) I guess I'm just trying to explore the issues of mental health and social structure.

>>We know that human societies are highly unlikely to be non violent and get along peacably with each other. They never have done and everytime things start to get better in one area another kicks off or someone comes along and spoils it, for whatever reason. Given this, it seems likely that various groups of humans are going to keep killing and maiming other groups (either because they disagree or because the other lot did it to them or their friends).<

So far. Admittedly our species has a long way to go, and from the limited perspective of an individual lifespan the journey to social enlightenment appears to be light-years distant, but keep in mind our species continues to evolve, at an unusually rapid rate, too.


>>Is it then useful to have social structures within which those with such tendancies can be useful? If you have someone who is psychotic and has no problem with killing tohers, is it better to have a position where these actions can be channelled or used to the benefit of your community (albeit the detriment of another) rather than trying to cope/control them within your own society?<

In an ideal society, how would such people be useful, exactly? If a society has such features as capital punishment, torture, prisons etc, wouldn't such a society be seriously flawed? No, wait...

Anyway, given sufficient advances in medical technology and remedial treatment, it may soon be possible to cure such individuals, or at least mitigate their effects upon the rest of society.

>>I wonder similarly how many ascetics are clinical depressives or the most charismatic of leaders/evangelicals (in the general not just the christian fundamentalist meaning) have some form of mania? Or prophets maybe having some form of epilepsy or tumour?<

I would say most, if not all, excessively religious types suffer from some form of neurological anomaly, including, but not restricted to, certain types of epilepsy. Recent clinical research supports this theory.

"keep in mind our species continues to evolve, at an unusually rapid rate, too."

although not as fast as chimpanzees apparently! I dunno, look back at recorded history. Are we really any more socially evolved than 2000 yrs ago. Or even 5000 years ago. Or perhaps even more than that. Technologically, yes. But socially?

"Anyway, given sufficient advances in medical technology and remedial treatment, it may soon be possible to cure such individuals"

There is some evidence that some conditions, such as those who are diagnosed as psychotic have, are in fact physical. There was a study which linked frontal lobe development to psychotic behaviour, in that frontal lobes are key in regulating behaviour and restraint. There is evidence, although I ain't qualified to say how strong, showing that those who are so diagnosed have smaller frontal lobes. Equally, with epilepsy, the problems seem to lie with physical development of the brain. As such, to 'cure' those conditions you would have to alter the physical structure of the brain. Is this really likely to happen? Not only would the physical structure have to change, but the neuronal pathways and connections would have to change. I'm not sure this is likely to happen soon. And when it does happen, would it not destroy the personality that was in there? OK, you'd lose the bad. But you'd fundamentally change who the person was.

"Recent clinical research supports this theory."
Indeed, and it's a very interesting area of study. Although I have to admit to a certain wariness about that sector of psychology that seems to think and MRI can unlock the secrets of the brain. It is very interesting, but one must remember that it shows coincidence and not causality. The brain being so complex there could be other stuff going on.

The one I keep coming back to when considering such stuff is the coincidence, or circumstantial evidence, results indicating that there may be feedback loops in the brain, which works off the basis that electrical signals in a conducting medium create a magnetic field, and a magnetic field can induce an electrical current in a conducting medium. There is but one experiment which showed that it is plausible that, since the brain works on electricity, activity on one area can modify the overall magnetic field of the brain thus inducing electrical signals in a different area of the brain. It might be complete bunk, but it is an interesting idea to consider.

>There is some evidence that some conditions, such as those who are diagnosed as psychotic have, are in fact physical.<

Isn't everything 'physical'?

It's a question of whether the brain is different for genetic reasons and so develops differently automatically, or whether changes come about in the brain as it develops, for environmental reasons. As usual with most things it's probably a combination.

I have bipolar which has a strong genetic basis. My mother's mother had it, but my mother didn't, apart from a vague tendancy to depression, but no psychotic episodes which are a true indication of bipolar disorder.

Of course nothing meaningful can really be said about one person's experience, (Vicky's posts not withstanding). But something that has always intrigued me is that I have always been most sexually attracted to people with a similar emotional up and down tendency as myself, even if they aren't full bipolars. I could never imagine wanting to reproduce with someone who was fairly calm and unemotional. So if mood disorder does have a genetic basis I can see how such genes could be selected for.



Just musing away to myself on this thread; hope that's okay?

>>And when it does happen, would it not destroy the personality that was in there? OK, you'd lose the bad. But you'd fundamentally change who the person was.<<

Personality? What is the personality, exactly? Is it some kind of persistent, non-physical entity, perhaps not directly affected by causality? And if not, what is it?

What is a 'person'? Does this 'person' exist apart from the physical, or an an emergent phenomena?

Are we more socially evolved? Is our technological evolution separate from our social evolution? How?

Consider how literacy has changed the way our minds process information. This is not to say our evolutionary progress is good or bad -- I think evolution is ethically agnostic -- but evolution in our species also cannot be measured in mere thousands of years, especially if we try to remove technology from the equation.

Now consider how the silicon chip is changing our society.

>>The brain being so complex there could be other stuff going on.<

Going on where? fMRI pretty much shows us what is happening in the brain, complex as it is, in real time. We can almost see thought happening, and there does not seem to be much room for 'other stuff'

Of course there are feedback loops, or their functional equivalent, happening in the brain at all times. Much of what we do, and what we think, depends on similar processes -- the 'body image' for example..

Grab a copy of 'The Feeling of What Happens' by Damasio. Excellent book! You'll enjoy it.

'aS an emergent phenomenON' even

some good points by both of you, hope you don't mind me addressing them both here:

"Isn't everything 'physical'?"
That, I think, is the nearest I come to having a belief. As in something I accept in the absence of large pronability. I think it is physical, but it is not possible to prove, yet, that it is or isn't. Everything we know about it is indeed physical and that seems to provide a way forward. But however small, we cannot exclude the possibility that it isn't. Teapots orbiting the sun may exist and all that.

now Taliesen:

"What is the personality, exactly? "
Ah, something I have thought much about. To my current definition (and I accept it will change) personality is the set of rules that a particular sentient being applies to a given situation. Thus at work I am one person, at home I am another. To my friends I am yet another and in a new social situation I am yet another.

Those rules, the way I react and act in a given situation is my perceived (by others) personality - and maybe not the 'true' me as I'm sure we've all had situations where we reacted or acted in a certain way and thought aferwards tht that'wasn't me'.

It is the sum total of my brain functions that experience and prior knowledge and 'emergency protocols' have shown to be effective - or at least not fatal - in such situations.

For example one person may find that confrontation is an effective response in an unknown social situation.Another may find that empathy and reasoning is the effective response.

Change the mind and you may change th person. Someone (a psychotic for example) may find that aggression is an effective way of getting their own way. Change that and reduce the aggression and you change the person you are interacting with.

"fMRI pretty much shows us what is happening in the brain, complex as it is, in real time. We can almost see thought happening, and there does not seem to be much room for 'other stuff'"

Not quite. What MRI and fMRI show us is blood supply to various regions of the brain. There is no causality shown, that is inferred in the context of the experiment. It is likely that causality is there, but there is nothing to say that the person involved is actually performing according to the experiment.

For example, you might be recording the effect of various images on the mental state of a human to discover what images are relaxing. Yet the experimenter has to trust that the person undergoing the experiment is actually concentrating on the images and not going off on one on their own. They could be bored and just switching off. They could have some major thing going on in their lives and thinking about that and not relaxing.

Until you can show the neuronal pathways and synapse firings that lead to it, you havenb't got causality. I do like to think that such might one day come to be known. But it isn't yet or indeed likely in the immediate future.

You can't control for such things. All fMRI and MRI does is show activity in the brain. It doesn't show why that acticvity is occuring. It could be anything. All such results assume that the participant is conforming to the requuirements of the experiment, and I sure I ain't theonly one to say that in such a situation it is hard not to think abvout the shoping, what you are going to get for your mum for her birthday etc. You might provide audial stimulation and see activity in broca's area. And thereby conclude that the language processing is involved in hearing. But then again, broca's area is also active when considering what to say. How do you klnow that the participant wasn't thinking of speaking at that time? Ask them? They may feel constrained by being in an experimental situation to respond as they expect you to do so and deny it. A clear confounding variable.

We tend to think of causality as linear, and define it in terms of isolated cause/effect. We are, in fact, constrained to thinking of it in that way.

Because the brain is so complex, and operates in a non-linear, parallel manner, we cannot say for certain that stimulus A invariably results in effect B, invariably in a specific group of neurons within the brain of a specific individual, for example.

I agree with you about the variable and imprecise nature of individual experiment.
Of course, at any given time, in any given brain, activity which is apparently not relevant to the test stimulus occurs. Yes, an individual might well be thinking about what to buy mum for her birthday. No one is suggesting we can, as yet, actually read the exact thoughts as they occur in an individual brain. But on average, we can get a pretty good idea!

When doing brain scans, the neural activity at any given individual's brain may indeed be difficult to describe under the cause/effect model, but if those same scans are averaged, over time, with respect to a given stimulus, we get consistent, accurate information about the areas involved. Similarly, when the results are compared with those obtained from other individuals, we can predict how similar brains act in response to similar stimuli. We can also compare 'normal' functioning brains with impaired ones, or ones whose owners exhibit anomalous behaviour.

What neuro science tells us, is that the activity of the brain is analogous, in some ways, to a symphony orchestra. At times, the brass section is active, at others the strings sound while the brass is silent. At others, almost the entire range of instruments are in play.

The 'music' which emerges is what we seem to be. The 'notes' of thought and memory define the person we, and others, may think we are...

And the amazing thing is, all of it is purely physical: a self-conducting emergent phenomenon. There is no conductor; no little man in the head; no 'ghost in the machine'

Please understand that I am not claiming that I accept this, but...

Some people will take the symphony analogy and argue that, in fact there IS a "conductor" - a ghost in the machine. And moreover that it is that conductor who can be said to be the ultimate personality, the centre of the onion when you have peeled away at all the layers.

It's at this point that we step into the grey area bewteen physics and metaphysics.