Attn: Skeptics*…

Okay, here goes.  Just for fun/torture, let’s contemplate our notion of “Consciousness.”

First, a definition:

Consciousness: in a biological entity, the quality or state of being aware (i.e., having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact), including self-awareness.

Next, some valid (?) considerations/arguments on the subject:

1. Generally speaking, we know the “mechanics” of what our consciousness is seemingly built on/made of (i.e., what materials/matter and electrical impulses/forces are needed to spark(?) consciousness in an organic entity.

However, we have not yet managed to create life from lifelessness (i.e., biological “life force” from inert matter), nor have we created apparent consciousness in a non-biological entity form, though we are diligently working on it, with AI projects.

2. There is no categorical scientific proof or even any reasonable indication of continued consciousness after the death of a previously conscious entity.  Such is only spoken/thought of hypothetically/philosophically (as in hearsay, belief systems, wishful thinking, circumstantial evidence, etc.).

3. All judgments/evaluations of consciousness are based upon the only reference point to which we (conscious entities) have access; our currently experienced, albeit limited realm.  We use said consciousness to evaluate consciousness (i.e., use the thing to evaluate the thing).  So, any conclusions we make, regarding consciousness, are seemingly only valid within that limited context.

However, we can and do try to extrapolate other conclusions about consciousness, or anything else for that matter, based on our limited access.  As humans, it is our modus operandi.  Whether such extrapolations are ultimately true or false is not yet known, or may never be known, or may not be knowable, while limited to our current realm.  Indeed, the fact that there is existence itself seems incredible (emotional statement).  Why should/must existence exist (i.e., why is there something rather than nothing)?

4. A simple logical argument connecting consciousness to humans:

P1: Consciousness exists

P2: Humans have consciousness 

C: Therefore, existence with consciousness is not just possible but actually does happen (or, as one famous scientist put it, “If something happens, it must be possible”)

However, an…the… important question that begs to be asked is, “Does consciousness happen only because we exist?”  Is consciousness a symbiotic relationship where we are its necessary host?  If not, can consciousness exist on its own, outside our familiar realm, without a host?  Is that really IMpossible??

5: We are fundamentally just a collection of unified particles and forces, working in tandem, and that give us/enable our consciousness.  Everything else about us might be something we’d call “embellishments.” 😉

__________

__________

Okay, enough mumbo-jumbo.  It’s time to bring YOU, a conscious entity, into the act.  Granted, the conversation is much more complicated than what I’ve portrayed.  That is also a given. 😉  There really seems to be no end (or beginning) to what consciousness is.  But, keeping in mind the above five considerations I’ve listed, here comes the punchline (finally!):

Q: Why do you, a skeptic, reject that there could be continued consciousness after consciousness seemingly ends for us in this current realm of existence?

Now, I’m not talking about religion here, or advocating for holy book type beliefs in this OP, so please, let’s not go there!  That is a different conversation than what I’m looking to have.  And I’m not trying to talk you into anything with my suggestions.  I’m just asking you to consider/rethink your position regarding the OP question, without fear of favor (as they say in the law).  Please re-read it again now and take time to seriously think about it.  Then give us your thoughts.

Simply put, I’m asking why reject continued consciousness out of hand just because you, you lowly creature you, see no evidence?  Is that a “good enough/valid” reason for rejection?  Just because you (a skeptic) see no evidence of something doesn’t negate it.  True?  So why do you limit/prejudge consciousness as to something only in the here and now?  Is that not an illogical stance to take?

(by Primal “your lovable semi-skeptic” Soup)

_______________________________

*skep·tic

noun

1. 1.

a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

"this argument failed to convince the skeptics"

Looking for reasons for hope

To people with minds that allow them to see, it's clear by now that our democracy, civil liberties, secularism and secular law, tolerant pluralism and respect for inconvenient truth are now all under a sustained deadly attack. The top two motivating destructive forces are rigid CN and BKC dogmas. Both are bitterly inimical to democracy and the rest of it. 

CN = theocratic Christian nationalism

BKC = brass knuckles (unregulated) capitalism

In the face of this decades-long onslaught, it can be hard to see reasons for hope. An opinion piece by Amanda Ripley that the WaPo published discusses this problem. Ripley asks the question, if raising reasons for hope is not a journalist's job, whose job is it? A broader question is whether hope is important or not. It turns out that having hope is important.

Last summer, I wrote a piece in this newspaper admitting that I have been selectively avoiding contact with the news, even though I’m a journalist myself. Traditional news coverage, I had slowly come to realize, was missing half the story, distorting my view of reality. It frequently overlooked and underplayed storylines and dimensions that humans need to thrive in the modern world — with the three most notable elements being hope, agency and dignity.

That column sparked an unexpected response. I heard from thousands of readers caught in the same struggle — wanting to be informed about the world but not bludgeoned into fatalism. Many of you reported that you had taken matters into your own hands. One man, after listening to devastating stories on the radio, does his own Google searches to find examples of people trying to solve the very same problems. Then he shares the links he has found with his friends and family on Facebook, basically doing a job reporters don’t want to do.

Others urged me to check out alternative sources they had found, including the Progress Network newsletter, which curates stories of human cooperation and ingenuity, and the 1440 daily briefing, which attempts to strip bias from the news. Still others said they have sought refuge in sports, hyperlocal news, Wordle and, for one reader, medieval history.

For more than 30 years, scientists have been researching hope and deconstructing its building blocks. And it’s surprisingly tangible. “It’s important to say what hope is not,” Rebecca Solnit wrote in her book “Hope in the Dark.” “It is not the belief that everything was, is, or will be fine.”

So what is it? Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion. It’s a cognitive skill, one that helps people reject the status quo and visualize a better way. If it were an equation, it would look something like: hope = goals + road map + willpower. “Hope is the belief that your future can be brighter and better than your past and that you actually have a role to play in making it better,” according to Casey Gwinn and Chan Hellman in their book, “Hope Rising.”

Decades of research have now proved that hope, defined this way, can be reliably measured and taught. Using 12 questions, called the Hope Scale — a version of which you can take yourself here — more than 2,000 studies have demonstrated that people with stronger hope skills perform better in school, sports and work. They manage illness, pain and injury better and score higher on assessments of happiness, purpose and self-esteem. Among victims of domestic violence, child abuse and other forms of trauma, hope appears to be one of the most effective antidotes yet studied.

News bits: The indictment; Large scale book canceling; Etc.

Long list of bits today. I wonder if something is going on that I don't know about.

Bit 1: Trump was indicted for something or another. It's reasonable to think that (i) the radical right propaganda & dark free speech Leviathan, e.g., Faux News, will propel him to sacred, innocent, persecuted Christian martyr status, and (ii) he will be the GOP's nominee for president in 2024. 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Bit 2: Missouri's radical legislature cut the budget for libraries to $0 in retaliation for suing the state over the radicals' recent book ban law. That will fix those nasty libraries for trying to protect those nasty books. This is yet more evidence of the Republican Party's hyper-radical authoritarianism (fascism IMHO). Too bad we can't defund the pro-tyranny, pro-corruption GOP.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Bit 3: The radicalized, weaponized House plays more than hardball with its investigations, it plays a scorched Earth game. The WaPo writes:

Democratic lawmakers didn’t hold back their anger Thursday at a House hearing about social media and censorship when a pair of Republican witnesses delivered testimony and left without being questioned.

The shouting began after Sen. Eric Schmitt (R), the former attorney general of Missouri, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) testified before the House Judiciary select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government about what they claimed was the Biden administration’s effort to censor conservative voices online. After the two spoke, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the subcommittee chairman, dismissed them.

Believe it or not, that is what single party dictatorship looks like. It is just one small step from that to simply fabricating the evidence that Republican dictators and theocrats need to finally kill off democracy, secularism, pluralism and civil liberties.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Bit 4: The Discovery Doctrine bites the dust: Pope falsely claims it never was a big deal anyway. The AP writes:

The Vatican on Thursday responded to Indigenous demands and formally repudiated the “Doctrine of Discovery,” the theories backed by 15th-century “papal bulls” that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property laws today.

A Vatican statement said the papal bulls, or decrees, “did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples” and have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith. .... The statement said the papal documents had been “manipulated” for political purposes by competing colonial powers “to justify immoral acts against Indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesial authorities.”

The papal bull did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples?  “Manipulated” for political purposes?  The bull justified immoral acts against Indigenous peoples without opposition from ecclesial authorities? There's a pack of insulting lies and brazen understatements of gigantic proportions. It would make even Trump blush. (nah, not really -- things like this don't faze him)

That bull(shit) sanctified and legitimized the mass slaughter, rape, oppression and ruin of Indigenous people and their cultures. It also sanctified and legitimized the theft of their traditional lands and their brutal, forcible expulsion from them. Church arrogance, mendacity, hypocrisy and sin on this is off the charts.

Last night was very odd

 Let me explain.

My sweetheart and I had just concluded our dinner and we thought we would turn to the TV just for a few minutes to see if there was any news. Bad choice. We turned on Fox first. And OMG - there was a hand-wringing, a bleating, a moaning and a groaning like never before. We turned it off. Later we sat down to watch a hockey game and during the intermission went online to see what is new, or to get some ideas for future threads. And OMG - there was more bleating, more moaning and groaning, and on different political debate forums (yup, I visit a few of them from time to time) there was a wave of anger worse than ever before, some serious mud-slinging, and near suicidal hysteria. All I could thing of was....

Did something happen to Trump last night??  😕