Antonio Damasio’s Quest to Understand Consciousness reminded me of a contradiction that I first noticed when I discovered that my dog has nightmares. This seemingly mundane discovery was, for me, a revelation. Sleep usually goes hand in hand with a temporary lapse in the oddly inexplicable phenomenon of our perceived awareness of self and place and time, except for the occasional simulated consciousness that we experience during a dream. What is a dream if not an imagined, remembered, or simulated experience of the reality we normally perceive in our waking lives? And if we can recreate that reality inside our head during a sleep state, then we must also perceive a similar thing while awake.

In other words, if dogs can dream, then they must be capable of experiencing something like consciousness.

This may not strike you as a revelation. Perhaps it’s always been a given for you, but, for me, it has profound implications on my views on religion and spirituality, and perhaps it will make you think about yours as well. For me, it is a linchpin, when removed, allows the collapse of a whole series of beliefs. In my upbringing in the Catholic church, I was essentially taught that consciousness is the domain of man. For many Christians around the world, the Earth may no longer be the center of the universe, but humanity is most certainly the center of the spiritual universe, the pinnacle of life, the primary focus of God’s attention, the sole proprietors of the soul. (I’ve always struggled with this egocentric pride built into the world’s major religions, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The concept of the soul is closely linked to that of consciousness. What is it that religion promises will live on for eternity? What is it that fear the loss of at our death? Religion speaks of the soul. What man fears is the end of his self, that is, the permanent loss of consciousness. To the layperson, religion offers eternal survival of consciousness, an excuse not to fear death. I’ve never been able to accept this idea, and hence I have always struggled with accepting the major religions as truth. I tend to believe that if a soul exists, and it continues on when our lives end, then it would be extremely challenging for man to conceive what that actually means from the perspective of our everyday consciousness.

Consciousness itself is singularly difficult to define. The primary – no, the only – way in which we experience this life is through it, yet we cannot explain nor understand it fully. It’s so inherent to our existence, that it is essentially a given, an assumption that we cannot even fathom a reality without. From it, everything else is derived. Without it, reality as we know it is dissolved. How can one contemplate eternity when they cannot contemplate existence without consciousness? If the foundation off our experience is the ego, and without it is nothingness, how can this lead to anything but an atheistic or agnostic point of view?

If this hasn’t opened your eyes to new possibilities, then perhaps this will. Referring back to Antonio’s talk, science is starting to explain, and eventually will demonstrate very thoroughly, how consciousness is formed in the physical brain. And the same physical constructs, connections, and brain wave patterns are present in a variety of mammals, including dogs. The blunt conclusion is, of course, brain death equals ego death equals finality. But that ignores the subtler possibilities, the atheists antithesis to the layman’s interpretation of religious afterlife – i.e., oversimplification.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Explaining these possibilities is not my intent for this post. Showing that man is not supreme, not unique in this world as an animal is my goal. I hope this post helps to debunk the idea that consciousness and the soul are attributes of man and man alone.

Carrying this line of thinking a little further, we should address the idea of conscience – or the ability to know right from wrong. Catholicism tells us this sense comes from our connection to the Holy Spirit. I say that conscience is a natural aspect of the brain, an evolutionary advantage for animals that live in groups that will benefit from mutual cooperation. Consciousness is a prerequisite for conscience, but the converse is not true. Conscience does not necessarily follow from consciousness, but it is enabled, in the sense that it becomes possible. I think any pack animal, such as a dog, develops, through evolution, a sort of morality. Wild dogs among themselves have it – a social order ruled by dominance, which is very different from human morality, but nonetheless it is an inherited sense of the right way to behave, a conscience. Tamed dogs have a more human sense of morality with regard to humans. They instinctively know how to act – to be less aggressive, to trust us, to understand us, to aid us in hunting, to protect us, and so on, so that we care for them. This is conscience, and I believe it is not inherent just to mankind.

All of this isn’t an argument to stop eating meat or to give up religion. It’s simply an argument for open-minded debate and thought. What you’ve been taught and what you’ve believed your whole life might not be true. Think about it.

1. Comcast has been emailing its customers about Constant Guard, a new service they are offering to protect customers from malware
2. Comcast is an important proponent of SOPA & PIPA
3. Malware bots are real issue affecting Comcast servers to a greater degree than those of other ISPs (I cannot reveal my source for this info)
4. Changes that would be required by PIPA, which Comcast has already implemented, open up new security risks

When I read the article linked to in #4, I felt the shock of a lightning bolt.

Comcast actually has a serious problem with bots monopolizing bandwidth on its servers.  (I doubted this a few days ago, but now I’m convinced.)  They are partly responsible for this issue, as they opened themselves up to bot invasion by implementing changes that allow them greater control over the content and activities on their network.  They are also responsible for putting their customers at risk by increasing their vulnerability to these same bot attacks.  Comcast launched Constant Guard to deal with this new problem, created by their own greed and desire for control.  The implication is that it puts the burdens of cost and responsibility for fighting malware on the end user.

Who benefits from PIPA & SOPA?  Big businesses, media conglomerates, government bureaucracies get their status quo maintained or restored to a slight degree.  At whose expense do they reap these benefits?  The rest of us suffer.  Great.

Source: New York Times

It’s extremely interesting that Ron Paul captured 47% of the non-religious Republican voters.  That result is absolutely significant when contrasted to the Christian vote.

Is it that non-religious voters prefer Paul, or is it that voters who choose Paul tend to be non-religious?  Correlation or causation?  Maybe there are some clues in the demographic and other exit poll data.

It’s a topic for another day… or perhaps for an informal discussion.  Any takers?

The first thing you’ll notice is that Paul captures a commanding majority of younger voters.  Possible conclusions: 1) RP’s campaign methods (internet/social media focused) target (intentionally or unintentionally) younger people, 2) RP’s policies appeal to younger voters, 3) RP’s results can be extrapolated to indicate that the future looks bright for the libertarian philosophy.  I’m confident that #1 is true, reasonably convinced of #2, and hopeful about #3.

Next, I’d like to dispel a common misconception, that Tea-Baggers and RP supporters are the same group.

Here we can clearly see that the Tea Party has the Republican Party divided, but not over Ron Paul.  In fact, Tea-Baggers support Romney, and the anti-Tea-Baggers supported Huntsman.  Hold this thought until we look at the data that comes next:  The Tea-Party fad has been often characterized as not having a policy or objective other than being against the current establishment.  In other words, they can easier be defined by what they are angry about (everything) than what they stand for.

Taking a look at the next result, we can see that voters who selected Romney did so because they believe he has the best chance to take down Obama, which is consistent with the Tea Party having many complaints but few solutions.  On the contrary, Paul’s supporters know what he represents, his libertarian philosophy and his integrity.

Going a level deeper, we can see that Romney won on sizzle, whereas Paul only has substance.

The picture becomes quite clear.  Romney won the State of New Hampshire for the wrong reasons – not for his ideas, or because he stands for something, but because voters mistakenly believe he can take down Obama.  But the fact is that Obama still remains more intelligent, inspires more confidence, and has a much stronger hold on the middle (in many ways, he has behaved like a moderate conservative).  Romney doesn’t stand a chance.

So who does stand a chance?  For one, Ron Paul doesn’t, because he’ll never win the Republican nomination.  But there is indication his campaign tactics are working, so his ideas could continue to spread.  RP has been focused on registering voters for the primary, bringing independents and  new voters into the Republican primary for the first time.  The table below indicates it could be working, albeit not to a great enough degree.

As always, it’s shades of gray.  I’m left with a bit of disdain for the intelligence of mankind, but some hope for the future as well.

Thanks again to the New York Times for the data.  I particularly like the delegate tracker, as it displays a lot of info in a simple & clean format.  I encourage you to check it out.

I can feel it in the air.  I notice a heavy step reverberate beneath my feet.  Was it coming my direction?  I turn around, but it’s not there.  Still I know that, eventually, the Bacon Backlash will rain down on us all, engulfing you, me, and my dog (aka Bacon Face).  Or maybe it was always inside us, just waiting to be unleashed by the tiny prick caused by one insignificant burnt-to-a-crisp rasher.

Saw this on a business trip.  Sometimes I despise puns and sometimes… they are great, like the Massachusetts plate I once saw, “PNSRGR8.”

Brandon “Berserker” Paul
Source: Wikimedia Commons

My love for you is like a truck! Berserker!
Would you like some making fuck? Berserker!
My love for you is like a rock!  Berserker!
…
Would you like to smoke some pot?  Berserker!
My love for you is ticking clock!  Berserker!
Would you like to suck my cock?  Berserker!
Would you like some making fuck?!  Berserker!

- Berserker, by Love Among Freaks (from Clerks)

Jason Mewes
“The Original Berserker”
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Yes, Brandon Paul, this is how you make us all feel tonight.  You had been so crappy lately, and then, this!  You are a basketball Jeebus.  Over the past few games, I had crucified you in my mind.  Now you have risen from the dead and must be seated at the right hand of the lord to have hit that 3 after the time out, with a defender in your face and your eyes closed, nonetheless.

And the icing on the cake – the Orange Crush and other Illini fans abstained from rushing the court like a bunch of fools.  You make me proud too (at least most of you, that is). Way to act like you expected this!

(PS – I’m completely floored no one has ever posted these lyrics before on WordPress.com)