Slashdot Mirror

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Indian tech support voices suddenly cried out ....

And there was much rejoicing.

FTFY

Nador even sounds Indian, doesn't it?

"I feel therefore I am": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Damasio presents the "somatic marker hypothesis", a proposed mechanism by which emotions guide (or bias) behavior and decision-making, and positing that rationality requires emotional input. He argues that Rene Descartes' "error" was the dualist separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion."

Also from Albert Einstein: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ao...
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly."

Stuff I wrote years ago on putting humane values back into economics given post-scarcity trends:

"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
http://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a...

"The Richest Man in the World: A parable on structural unemployment and a
basic income"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/read...
"The PU economics department, of course, should be abolished as part of this transition

Like, monitor a speck of dust near a mountain. I'm convinced we don't have "gravity" here, it's just "density". But then I'm also convinced the world is flat.

Read "Zetetic Astronomy" for convincing arguments, experiments, and proof: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...

It's a light on the firmament, it's not a real place we can travel to. They knew this in the late 50s when they banned travel to Antarctica (it's "the edge"), and also did "Operation Fishbowl" where the US and Russia launched many nuclear bombs into the sky -- to test the firmament.

Some will mock and downvote this. Others know that during the end times there will be a great deception -- and the shape of the world we're standing on is a part of it.

For those interested in the truth, Dr. Samuel Rowbotham wrote about this more than a century ago, so his writing is available online for free (nothing after 1923 will ever enter the public domain, thanks to Disney): http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...

That's my answer to "global warming".

See "Zetetic Astronomy", which contains a number of proofs that it's not a globe.

"They"[1] have their work cut out for them, but of course, they placed one in the first classroom we were ever in, thus indoctrinating us before our critical thinking skills kicked in.

[1] -- They talk a lot, don't they. -- Pulp Fiction

The Earth is provably flat; level water proves it. Moonlight makes things colder (it's warmer in moonlight's shadow), unlike sunlight, so it's not reflected sunlight. A lunar eclipse has been witnessed with the sun also in the sky; this is impossible if the Earth is a ball.

NASA has been proven to lie. Why trust liars? They employ graphic artists to "wow" us.

Look through the strongest telescope you can; the planets are a bright light. It's only through NASA's "you have no access" devices that we can see higher resolution paintings. (Did you know the Vatican's telescope is named Lucifer?)

The ISS "space walk" footage is performed in a pool in Texas; look carefully at the footage and you can see bubbles arising. There aren't bubbles in space. This woman "on the ISS" permed her hair so we can't see it move around from the turbulence in the "vomit comet" airplane, in which the footage is being filmed; you can hear the airplane engines during said footage.

See http://ifers.boards.net/ as well as Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy": http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...

To put your mind to rest: I am not trolling. I have the "blessing" of having many hours of time to study esoteric subjects, lately.

To answer your question: "Rahu" is a third disc in the sky; it's dark. It's what causes the eclipses; especially, the lunar eclipses, because there's no "ball Earth" that can put itself in between the sun and the moon, to cause the lunar eclipse. In addition, there have been several lunar eclipses recorded throughout recent history (e.g., past few hundred years) in which the eclipsed moon as well as the sun were visible in the sky, and this would not be possible because these three objects (sun, Earth, moon) would need to form a (new word to me) syzygy, or three points on a straight line. We would not be able to see both the sun and moon if they were in a syzygy with the Earth.

Here's an article on Rahu: http://ifers.boards.net/thread...

The IFERS (International Flat Earth Research Society) is a great resource for learning the truth: http://ifers.boards.net./ (However, avoid the "Flat Earth Society" which is full of disinfo, like the lead guy carrying around a rock saying "I was going over the edge, and this rock saved me!" Obama was correct -- we don't have time for a meeting of the "Flat Earth Society" because it's full of lies! It's amazing to me that he called out the increasing number of people who are learning about this truth and spreading it; it's almost like he wanted to help spread it!)

I have also read Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy" which contains many experiments proving that water is level, not curved, and that the Earth is thus flat; you can read it in its entirety here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea....

Antarctica is also a really neat subject -- there are 52 countries which have signed the Antarctic Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., and they are using their citizens' resources to patrol the coast (which is huge, it's the outer circumference of the flat earth, the map of which the UN uses for their logo and flag!), to keep us from learning the truth. Similarly, nobody can go "up" except state agencies, which are also all in on it together.

Note the bubbles from the Chinese "space walk" -- proof that the "astronauts" are really swimming in a pool on Earth.

Thank you for asking. Mostly I get voted down. I used to be in the dark, and I hope I can help illuminate. Please, ask more questions -- I'm still learning myself, I was only exposed to this two months ago.

The Earth is flat, and Mars is a light on the firmament. We cannot "go there". His priorities seem to align with common sense.

See Parallax's "Earth not a Globe": http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...; also Youtube channels for Eric Dubay, Mark Sargent, Matt Boylan, Jeranism, and others.

The truth is getting out. Great to see Trump aligning with it, even if he isn't directly stating it.

See http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea... Thus, the images that we see in the night sky are most likely on the firmament. We can never get there, just as "A11 work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" (A11 being short for Apollo 11, that is).

It's all explained right here, http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...

Any other questions?

They made up all that math. The Earth is flat, see "Zetetic Astronomy": http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...

After 43 freaking YEARS, NASA just put out another "Earth from space" photo. Which was taken July 6, and released July 22nd, and was debunked A DAY LATER! If you look at the image there's the word "SEX" in the clouds, upside down, in the lower-left. They also put "SEX" in movie posters. See https://youtu.be/NldmxeiImNI

Some music to accompany the new knowledge: https://youtu.be/xSEOfxFr4I0

A great start for the technically-minded is Samuel Rowbotham's book, "Zetetic Astronomy", which can be read in its entirety here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ea...

Mark Sargent -- https://www.youtube.com/user/m... -- has a radio show discussing the topic and new experiments performed; for instance, Jeranism just did a 4-mile laser-over-the-water experiment, and the laser was visible from one inch above the shoreline; the heights of the items on both shores was less than five feet, and the curvature at 4 miles should be more than 10 feet, meaning there is no way they should have been able to see it. This has huge implications.

A link with no commentary? Well here's some more. NASA said recently we can't get through the Van Allen belts: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c46_1381883600

In addition, I direct your attention to the video of the spacecraft which purportedly landed on the moon, when it leaves. The camera is on the moon. The camera pans upwards as the "lander" rises.

Nowhere in NASA's documentation of the moon missions did they describe this remote-controlled (or autonomously moving) camera mechanism, not did they describe how the footage was returned to earth.

I encourage you to read http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm, and attempt to debunk the experiments carried out therein. It took me a while to wrap my mind around the cage we're in. Now, I want to explore its boundaries, as any critically-thinking human should want to do.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm

NASA never went to the moon, the Van Allen belts weren't known then and would have killed the astronauts.

You may want to read Norse mythology some time.
Parts of it may seem strangely familiar.

Especially this bit, from Voluspa:

There was Motsognir | the mightiest made
Of all the dwarfs, | and Durin next;
Many a likeness | of men they made,
The dwarfs in the earth, | as Durin said.

Nyi and Nithi, | Northri and Suthri,
Austri and Vestri, | Althjof, Dvalin,
Nar and Nain, | Niping, Dain,
Bifur, Bofur, | Bombur, Nori,
An and Onar, | Ai, Mjothvitnir.

Vigg and Gandalf | Vindalf, Thrain,
Thekk and Thorin, | Thror, Vit and Lit,
Nyr and Nyrath,-- | now have I told--
Regin and Rathsvith-- | the list aright.

Fili, Kili, | Fundin, Nali,
Heptifili, | Hannar, Sviur,
Frar, Hornbori, | Fraeg and Loni,
Aurvang, Jari, | Eikinskjaldi*.

The race of the dwarfs | in Dvalin's throng
Down to Lofar | the list must I tell;
The rocks they left, | and through wet lands
They sought a home | in the fields of sand.

There were Draupnir | and Dolgthrasir,
Hor, Haugspori, | Hlevang, Gloin,
Dori, Ori, | Duf, Andvari,
Skirfir, Virfir, | Skafith, Ai.

*Oakenshield

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ne...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ao...
"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.
One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.
It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very ina

I wish I had understood this better as a teenager. Bertrand Russel said that every philosopher makes at least one assumption, usually not acknowledged, and builds from there. As Albert Einstein said:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ao...
"It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.
  For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. ..."

As I see currently it, sets of assumptions ("meme complexes"?) are almost like living beings...

Yeah. It happened last time Thor misplaced the hammer too.

**Thor has lost the hammer to a giant, Thrym**

"What is the way?" said Thor. "But no matter what it is, tell me of it and I shall do as thou dost say."

"Then," said laughing Loki, "I am to take you to Jötunheim as a bride for Thrym. Thou art to go in bridal dress and veil, in Freya's veil and bridal dress."

"What! I dress in woman's garb?" shouted Thor.

"Yea, Thor, and wear a veil over your head and a garland of flowers upon it."

"I--I wear a garland of flowers?"

"And rings upon thy fingers. And a bunch of housekeeper's keys in thy girdle."

"Cease thy mockery, Loki," said Thor roughly, "or I shall shake thee."

"It is no mockery. Thou wilt have to do this to win Miölnir back for the defence of Asgard. Thrym will take no other recompense than Freya. I would mock him by bringing thee to him in Freya's veil and dress. When thou art in his hall and he asks thee to join hands with him, say thou wilt not until he puts Miölnir into thy hands. Then when thy mighty hammer is in thy holding thou canst deal with him and with all in his hall. And I shall be with thee as thy bridesmaid! O sweet, sweet maiden Thor!"

"Loki," said Thor, "thou didst devise all this to mock me. I in a bridal dress! I with a bride's veil upon me! The Dwellers in Asgard will never cease to laugh at me."

"Yea," said Loki, "but there will never be laughter again in Asgard unless thou art able to bring back the hammer that thine unwatchfulness lost."

"True," said Thor unhappily, "and is this, thinkst

thou, Loki, the only way to win back Miölnir from Thrym?"

"It is the only way, O Thor," said the cunning Loki.

Loki is to blame for all this.

As Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

You should try reading the article where that quote comes from. Einstein completely rejected the idea of a Christian god or of any personal god. He was speaking of a more general, higher-level religion more in line with Buddhism, or as Einstein called it, "cosmic religious feeling":

"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself."

I reject Einstein's notion of "religion", as he wants to define it, because it comes with too much baggage. Instead I prefer secular humanism, though it's pretty close.

There are four articles here with Einstein's writings on science and religion. The quote comes from the third:

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "

In relation to the topic at hand, evolution, from the same article:

"We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself."

Of course a modern knowledge of biochemistry and DNA completely supports this view.

Romans 12:19.

Who's to know what ancient people believed? There's no possible way to know what human cognition was before writing/iconography.

Homo sapiens and Neanderthals split some 195,000 years ago. The earliest artwork that's been found is 40,000 years old. That's a huge stretch of time in between. Plus, we don't even know
when language evolved in this span.

This guy wrote an interesting, wild book about ancient cognition by comparing the writings on Sanscrit runes to the things that epileptics heard when parts of their brains were electrically stimulated.

This book bridges the gap between Greek myth and modern Abrahamic narratives. Also, there's a lot in the apocrapha of the Old Testament that speak of celestial psychotic phenomenon.

Just a theory. Thanks for having the discussion.

What or who should you revere? That is a good question you may spend a lifetime answering... From Albert Einstein:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly."

On broader change to make economics work for more people, see stuff like:
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/

On the pitfalls of academia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds

There are many spheres of life. Or as another analogy, life is like a city with lots of different districts and back alleys and night clubs and homes. Even if conventional academia is not your forte, you might find others where you can build a meaningful life that is a healthy success (parenting, being a good friend or neighbor, etc.). Many inventors did not "fit in", so you might fund some other creative niche outside of the formal academic related career path.

For many people, the promise of academics has become a scam. However, diplomas are still used as gatekeepers to many jobs. For a deeper view of the scam in progress, see thsibook (free online) by John Taylor Gatto:
"Underground History of American Education"
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/

And this:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html

Anyway, I sympathize with your feeling and frustrations. Even with a dipl

CUSTOMER: Here's one -- nine pence.

DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!

MORTICIAN: What?

CUSTOMER: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.

DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!

MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm#Scene 2

I have the same gut reaction... This research as described in the article summary seems to twist together aspects of horror, torture, and slavery.

But then again, I feel somewhat the same way about the development of AI... And we all may be simulated humans already:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

But somehow that it is not quite the same visceral feeling as thinking about small human brains being created to do arbitrary experiments on...

By the way, on the person who brought up the Parkinson's question:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/lack_of_DHA_linked_to_Parkinsons.aspx
"According to the researchers, among the mice that had been given omega-3 supplementation - in particular DHA - omega-3 fatty acids replaced the omega-6 fatty acids in their brains. Due to the fact that concentrations of other omega-3s (LNA and EPA) had maintained levels in both groups of mice, the researchers suggested that the protective effect against Parkinson's indeed came from DHA.2"

Although that was experiments on mice... Not to say mice don't suffer or probably dream too...

Going far down the slippery ethical slope...

That said, somehow I doubt all scientists will abstain from this research. A couple ideas on scientists:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. (Albert Einstein)"

So, what is the moral foundation for our work in any profession?

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Abuse of power is not a recent concept, but a fundamental concept driving the very formation of law to the point that it is one of the three justifications given in the very first known written system of law.

If somehow we could hop in a time machine and go back to the first stories uttered by men, I think we would find that the idea of abuse of power is that old.

So true. Or as Albert Einstein said:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind."

John Taylor Gatto talks about the core purpose of education in his writings, which include self-development, becoming a good citizen, and preparation for work. Unfortunately, so much focus now in schools is on preparation for work, and it is overall preparation for work like rote factory work that is less and less in existence. But, adding some humanities courses when someone is 18-21 can't repair all the damage of a missing part of K-12.
http://www.awakenedamerican.com/content/john-taylor-gatto-explains-secrets-elite-boarding-school-education

And:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
"I'll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinate

Heh, nice. Somewhat after Plato (at 300 B.C.) Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) wrote Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.. Being 35 years old (born on 5 May 1977), I remember that many of the children of my age group, not reading books on their own volition, and being rude and not preparing their homework, and hanging out with their friends, and being rude to their teachers, and parents, and being mischevious. Today is not different. And there were well-mannered boys and girls and naughty boys and girls and there still are today. I myself am pretty happy with a lot of the younger generations today, and many 14 years olds or so I met on IRC and elsewhere, were both more mature (and still very fun people) than I was at 14 years old as well as 10 years ago when I was 25.

Despite my age, I am quite a trendy fellow, and maintain collections of Chuck Norris/etc. facts, watch YouTube videos of either comedies, covers and original songs by independent artists, or whatever, have a lot of Gangnam Style mixes, spin-offs and covers that I enjoyed, wrote several stories and screenplays that mostly take place in the present (and often feature teens or other young people), and have an active presence in many sites across the Net. That put aside, I often draw on inspiration from a lot of ancient memes such as Aesop's fables, the Hebrew Bible, Saladin’s noble teaching and practice, the Greek mythology, various folk-tales, and many other things (so for example, whenever someone criticises someone for something silly about them, I bring up Aesop’s tale about the donkey for support). You got to combine both old and new, and realise that it's important to borrow memes from other idea systems - old and new - because "All truth is God's truth".

I promised myself that I won't grow cynical, and to never stop being an idealist and to always have a living growth, and it worked. I'm a very different idealist than I was a year ago (much less 10 years ago) but I still am idealistic and non-cynical, and am productive, energetic, and look forward to living every day. You can be too, even if you've grown cynical recently.

The biggest thing about this article is it shows how quickly something taught in science textbooks for decades like the notion of "absolute zero" is slowly realized to be, if not 100% false, then at least a gross oversimplification. We may someday say the same about things like LENR (Cold Fusion) or even deep issues like consciousness and spirituality (Charles Tart's work, for example). Examples:
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
http://pesn.com/2013/01/03/9602259_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_January3/
http://web.archive.org/web/20090308132014/http://suppressedscience.net/physics.html
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

Elaborating on my previous posts, as I wrote about in a term paper project for a 1980s college undergraduate course run by Prof. Steve Slaby, called "The Technological Imperative of the Arms Race", technology is an amplifier -- the question is, what sorts of things do we want to amplify?

The book "Descartes' Error" makes the point that we can't "reason" without emotions. This seems obvious to me now, but back in college it did not seem so in a philosophical sense. Modern psychology can show us how our emotions drive our reasoning process (even as reasoning can provide feedback that may affect our emotions and again our reasoning etc.). And our emotions are generally first determined by our values (including psycho-physiologically values, like perhaps a instinctive reaction to a snake or a bad smell). And those values in turn are generally determined by our personal biology, our family upbringing, our friends and neighbors, our personal history, and our culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

Albert Einstein talks about aspects of that in an essay at this link where he says that science can perhaps tell us something about what seems to be, but science can never tell us what should be. And our thoughts on what should be are the basis of our actions (including how we direct our thoughts). The essay:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

I haven't finished reading it yet, but there is a recent New Yorker article (still available as full text) about a scientist and his feelings about the ethics about his past research on weapons of mass confusion derived from nerve gas:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/17/121217fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

One discussion of it here:
http://incunabula.org/2012/12/the-doctor-behind-the-armys-psychedelic-manhattan-project-has-some-regrets-weed-isnt-one-of-them/

I was thinking as I read the New Yorker article (around the part I stopped at), that these scientists, or at least the scientific enterprise in general, had other choices than to make the next weapon or the next defense for a theoretical attack. They could have focused on using science to make the world work better for everyone (or at least most people) and thus reduce conflicts, like Bucky Fuller did with his focus on "Livingry". They also could have researched the social and organizational issues behind war and other conflicts, like Morton Deutsch did or Alfie Kohn did. Thus this essay by me mentioning such people:

The powerful do not need you "enabling" them. They'll help themselves to commit whatever acts their power allows. Don't like it? Become powerful enough yourself to change things.

From the very first code of law:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

The whole point of law from the very beginning was to curb power and wickedness. When you don't do that, when you allow evil to fester and the powerful to exercise their will freely, rather than constrain it in a fair and lawful manner, then sure you are in your euphemism, taking a "risk". That's the same sort of risk someone who tries to commit suicide takes.

I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish

You are wrong, every human is inherently entirely selfish. For example, if you have children, you probably think that you are not selfish, but WHY did you want to have children ?

I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.

If you help other to make yourself happy, you are selfish.
In fact, as long as you expect something from your actions, you are selfish.
The correct way is to practice disinterested action, and of course, you don't have to force yourself to help everybody, just people that need your help (and money is not the solution !).

The best text I read about selfless action is the description about Karma Yoga: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/hby/hby07.htm

These are not the "jews own words" unless you can find them in a real book written by a real Jew.There is no part of the Talmud named "Szaaloth-Utszabot" or "Jore Dia" and so you cannot claim that that quote is from the Talmud. The entire Talmud is freely available online http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm - you are welcome to find any of your quotes there and enlighten us all.

And getting it to respawn is a real bitch!

PEBKAC, noob.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/

A language that can't be used for bible translations is a win in my book (pun intended).

I guess that would be "winning", especially since so many prominent formally atheist societies have been such successes.

Alas, it is your destiny to be frustrated.

Science is not a panacea; see: http://www.disciplined-minds.com/

"When we have a nontrivial portion of the population who does not believe that humanity resulted from evolution by natural selection, and that the universe is less than ten thousand years old, did we really expect people to accept science that something bad is going to happen if they do not change their behavior?"

Despite having been in a PhD program in Ecology and Evolution, I can entertain the possibility that this world may have been a simulation only running for about 6000 virtual years for some purpose by a creator (or creators) of it and that there may have been extensive design involved with creating that (including either falsifying the fossil record or having run the universe from scratch only once and then running the last 6000 years multiple times from a checkpoint save file like with VirtualBox). See also: http://www.simulation-argument.com/

On a practical basis, the theory of evolution probably gets us further in understanding and succeeding in the world (like understanding how insects become resistant to pesticides, or how antibiotic-resistent bacteria emerge). Although maybe not always? :-)
http://evolution-of-religion.com/
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/13/211201/magical-thinking-is-good-for-you

Anyway, science is so often not so cut and dried. A big issue is that, as Einstein said, science can tell you what is, but it can't tell you what you should value or prioritize or assume or study.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Similarly, there are huge areas of real human experience like consciousness that science has little practical to say about and which can lead to "materialistic scientism" which denies that which it cannot prove (rather that just not having a firm opinion), like Charles Tart talks about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G67CqHPXJDE

Still, I would readily agree that when a lot of money is riding on denying externalities, it may be beneficial for certain financial interests to discourage or confuse any kind of rational thinking based on seemingly sound premises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

I just read someone's sig elsewhere ("Shannow") that said "Figuring things out for yourself is the only real freedom that you have.". Sounds like a lot of truth to me, even if other scientists say (and I also agree) arguing may have evolved as a collective process to get closer to useful truths:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/researcher-responds-to-arguments-over-his-theory-of-arguing/

I think many people in the USA look around and realize materialism has not actually brought that much more happiness in many ways (compared to community, not that they have to be exclusive), so maybe that rational observation leads to other blowback towards the scientific and technical professions? Even if a lot of that is really about politics of science and technology?

In the case of global warming, there are other problems involved. Global warming is a "tragedy of the commons" type problem, and our US society has trouble dealing with problems like that (including systematic risk). Also, the approaches towards dealing with global warming are often very negative. Why not deal with global warming by investing in research in hot or cold fusion energy, solar panels, or space habitats, in an optimistic way, rather that link that to some kind of green doomsterism as many do? Maybe people cor

by Deborah Stone explores "fairness": http://www.amazon.com/Policy-Paradox-Political-Decision-Revised/dp/0393976254

The paper itself is an great review, but as they say at the end: "In a more general setting, even with the combined tools of Mathematics, Economics and Computer Science at our disposal it would seem that further progress will be no cakewalk." So, you make good points in those regards.

For example, one thing the paper does not seem to consider in my cursory skimming of it (which Deborah Stone talks about in "Policy Paradox") is if the number of entities changes during the course of the cake cutting and distribution. And also it is possible that the availability of other cakes may change during that time, too (like with the invention of cold fusion or LENR cheap energy devices). So, if the cake is the Earth, but there are future generations, and also new inventions to be discovered, and we might someday move into space, then how do we "divide" it now? And how does an entity, whether human or animal or plant or other, be deemed to have a right to a share?

As Albert Einstein said, reflecting your points:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. "

Oh, it's just a harmless little squirrel, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. But do they listen to me?

Those dinosaurs better not risk a frontal assault. That squirrel's dynamite!

(ref)

See the following books:

• Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia
• The Rite of Sodomy Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church
• The Devil's Final Battle

Although there hasn't been a serious suggestion that I am aware of that Benedict XVI is a freemason, objectively speaking, he is too close to the situation, having participated in Vatican II and having been the sexual misconduct watchdog under JPII, and continuing to this day to participate in coverup and permissiveness. There is no need for me to report him to the authorities because he has already been served with a lawsuit.

And as for Freemasons in the United States at least, as a group they have zero interest in supporting child pornography or bringing down the Roman Catholic church.

From Albert Pike's book Morals and Dogma:

Thus the Order of Knights of the Temple was at its very origin devoted to the cause of opposition to the tiara of Rome and the crowns of Kings

"Einstein defended the value of religion in a very well articulated paper, although he was quick to point out potential dangers there."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. "

Ultimately, reality will "cull" the bad ideas. Knowledge (and back of the envelope calculations like I suggested) just helps you do that faster. Eventually, for example, reality will probably cull the imaginative fancy of "trickle down economics" one way or another.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
    http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

Knowledge is also a more slippery thing than most imagine, since how much of our "knowledge" is wrong? Space is empty, right? Everyone knows that. Until suddenly it is full of "Ultracool brown dwarfs"...

But sure, the most effective people tend to have a lot of imagination and a lot of knowledge and a lot of some other things, too (self-management, a sense of values and purpose, etc.).

Stuff by Einstein about science and religion/values, btw:
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. ... And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence."

Wow, thanks for the links. I'm going through those cut-scenes now from the game. There are echoes of Voyage From Yesteryear, but also some real differences. Two issues come up from having seen maybe four of the scenes so far.

The cabal on Island Zero could be considered "mentally ill" as far as still desiring financial/political obesity in a world of plenty for all, wishing to impose artificial scarcity on the rest of society to obtain control of people in it. Obviously something must be done if they are launching attacks on the rest of the planet. Still, you would hope an advanced civilization would have a better way to deal with mental illness than just blowing up the people on Island Zero, even if the result of the cabal's mental illness is aggression. See the Quaker story at the end here, for example, about how violence does not generally change how people see the world:
http://www.jhmuseum.org/storyCPScamp.htm

With that said comes a second point. In one of the cut-scenes it is said of the fundamentalist extremists that they had decided that if the world was not going to have any churches, it would not have any people.

As Albert Einstein said, religion is needed even for scientists, since our assumptions and preferences need to come from somewhere, even secular philosophies that are essentially religions, so I think it likely such future advanced civilizations would probably indeed have "churches" of many forms. See Einstein's comments on science and religion here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Still, it is not unreasonable to suggest that future societies will still have conflicts about issues of aesthetics, ethics, preferences, assumptions, lifestyles, and so on. The big change might be how they decide to deal with them, given various options like moving to space habitats, or creating ocean habitats (like those islands) or cyberspace worlds for alternative cultures, and so on. Why were the fundamentalists not happy just running their islands the way they wanted to? Maybe that is explained somewhere?

Consider the case of the recent Muslim fundamentalist aggression against the USA like on 09/11 in 2001 (as opposed to the other 9/11 in Chile in 1973 where the USA helped overthrow a democratic government). While the explanations told in the USA is that the answer to "Why do they hate us?" regarding a bunch of Muslim Fundamentalist young men is "Because we are free", in reality the answer that can't be talked about in the mainstream media is more like "Because we fund their oppressors, and they want to be free to to live as they see fit". Obviously, there are also other factors, but that is an essential part of the social dynamic of the current terrorism by some Muslim extremists in reaction to decades of previous US interventions. See also a point on time perspective by Zimbardo for other aspects since obviously there are other layers of complexity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg

So, it's not clear that you get militaristic behavior out of many people, even fundamentalists of some sort, without severe prior provocation in some ways. That can be true even if that provocation might be in ways most people are not paying attention to (like supporting repressive dictators). So, there is a historical context to the game that I can wonder about. See also points made here by "Izzy" Kalman:
http://bullies2buddies.com/component/content/article/60-student-manual/161-how-to-stop-being-teased-and-bullied-without-really-trying-intro

Including his point that physical violence rarely happens in schools without an escalating series of verbal aggression over a lo

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. "

See also, on the revolution of religious thinking:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_42_38/ai_92805318/

And:
    http://evolution-of-religion.com/
"If religious beliefs and behaviors promoted survival and reproduction in our ancestral past, then they may have been favored by natural selection over human evolutionary history. This would mean that religious beliefs and behaviors are adaptive, and that religion evolved as a natural product of Darwinian selection. The "Evolution of Religion" project is dedicated to exploring this hypothesis using scientific methods from psychology and evolutionary biology."

Albert Einstein on science and religion:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. "

With that said, we should be careful to distinguish the mindset the uses skills (engineers, doctors) from the mindset that explores new ideas (scientists at their best, of which there seem to be not too many, since the PhD process is designed to destroy independent inquiry as discussed in this book: http://disciplinedminds.com/ ).

Of course, a really good doctor or engineer may be interested in fundamental ideas too, like Charles Darwin who started out getting a medical education, so there is no clear boundary...

Also, it is very common that engineers tend to create thing using what they know and some trial and error. Scientists then try to systematize what the engineers know and have shown actually works (even if engineers can not explain why it works). Then engineers uses the systematization created by the scientists to push the boundaries even further... And then they find new things, and the scientists get interested again.

That may be about to happen in a big way of the Rossi/Focardi eCat cold fusion device turns out to be all that it is claimed? Maybe scientists will even eventually decide there is no such thing as "hot fusion" which is just a speculation and the sun really is mostly a ball of iron, and maybe most oil comes from hydrogen produced by the Earth's nickel hydrogen core? :-) Related:

When I see this story at the movies or on TV, then there will be cause for discussion.

Actually, Einstein also wrote

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein was not religious, but he occasionally used religious expression to convey complex ideas simply. In this case he seems to be expressing the idea that a true scientist should be moral and have an aspiration to discover the truth. He was railing against a pure rationalist point of view that denied the very existence of morality. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it, you can read the original text.

Ripples may not be remembered individually, but each changes the nature of the universe, and also together they can make bigger waves with futher effects. Also, as in the Time Paradox book I cited in another reply, people may have different time focuses -- past present, and the future -- which effect how they value different experiences or expectations. Also, to the extent the universe, or even multiverse, is a mystery, how do we know what is remembered or forgotten for sure across the great mystery...

Plus things can matter a lot to yourself at the time, depending on the roots you have grown -- family, community, friends, hobbies, causes, humor, health, a connection to nature or the infitite, and so on. A depression and carelessness or hurtfulness can also come from physical problems like vitamin D deficiency, lack of Omega-3/DHA, lack of whole foods, lack of sleep, lack of exercise, and so on.

You can also have a practical morality, or one that emerges from local experience or upbringing, whether you have a belief in a specific god or gods. So, there are a lot of assumptions there... See Kai Nielsen:
    http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Without-God-Kai-Nielsen/dp/0879755520

Or even Albert Einstein:
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. "

Except the USA has lots of nukes, plagues, military robots, computer viruses, and who knows what else that stand ready to defend US elite privileged scarcity-based litigious world view until the end -- or even after the end. So, no matter where you go in the world, US socioeconomic dogmatic religious policies (backed by the force of law) can have a big "impact". And since the USA's elite-tilted market economy is essentially though of as "God" by many (ignoring "the love of money is the root of all evil"?), whatever the USA does to promote or defend its version of "the market" and related laws is, by definition, "supremely good", even were it to mean the end of humanity. The USA has inched a little closer to that by reelecting a lot of economic conservatives just now.

By a Harvard University professor of Divinity:
"The Market as God: Living in the new dispensation"
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm
"A few years ago a friend advised me that if I wanted to know what was going on in the real world, I should read the business pages. Although my lifelong interest has been in the study of religion, I am always willing to expand my horizons; so I took the advice, vaguely fearful that I would have to cope with a new and baffling vocabulary. Instead I was surprised to discover that most of the concepts I ran across were quite familiar. Expecting a terra incognita, I found myself instead in the land of déjà vu. The lexicon of The Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption. But here they were again, and in only thin disguise: chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and, ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic belt tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies. ..."

The slogan "Better dead than Red" is another example of this thinking in the 1950s and 1960s. So "Better dead than live in a world of prosperity for all" could perhaps be a new mantra of the USA in the 21st century when 3D printing and shared information make widespread abundance possible, but everyone does not want to accept the shift to a new paradigm? See also James P. Hogan's prescient sci-fi novel "Voyage from Yesteryear" about this theme.

3D printing might totally reshape our socioeconomic landscape in the next couple of decades. So, essentially, producing a car with 3D printing is a *religious* threat to the US social paradigm built around scarcity. And religious threats can cause all sorts of crazy things to happen. I can hope that saner heads prevail and that the scarcity ideologues eventually give in gracefully when they think about the benefits to their children and children's children of a world that works for everyone.

From Einstein, on religion:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source."

An interesting essay by someon

All great points.

In the human case, as I see it, we need roots to keep us from toppling over in life's existential storms (all the painful and problematical and alienating things that can happen from an insult to a painful divorce to money woes to finding you have cancer). So, what are examples of roots for humans (and would they be the same for machines without, as you say, billions of years of evolutionary shaping)? For humans, examples of roots are things like:
* family
* friends
* sensuality
* honor
* preserving some important pattern (history)
* a sense of flow in doing something
* creativity and humor
* novelty
* a connection to nature
* good habits
* communing with the infinite beyond ourselves (whatever that means to someone)
* thankfulness
* a sense of community
* probably lots of others

There are also other ideas about motivation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_motivation_and_the_16_basic_desires_theory

I would think these things could apply for AIs, either if we program them in or if they evolve over time (hopefully not after wiping out all humans and then feeling regretful for it a bit later). The Bolo series is, for example, a great example of honor as a motivation. On the other hand, Bolos are, by my standards, also great examples of irony (super robots but protecting farmers who work the land by hand and without robot helpers? Robots that can fly but people are still arguing over land instead of building space habitats? Etc.)

Part of what you are getting at is the notion that reasoning does not happen without emotion to motivate it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

Or, from Albert Einstein:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only an

Anyone who works indoors and late at night is at risk: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

People with adequate vitamin D and good nutrition are much less likely to catch respiratory infections or to under or over respond to them.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/science/research/vitamin-d-and-influenza.shtml
http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear the news, because I so much enjoyed his shows.

From Albert Einstein on Science and Religion:
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly."

Jack Horkheimer, in his own unique and quirky way, was one of those "powerful personalities", one who helped showed me the beauty of the universe in a way that made sense intellectually as well as aesthetically and emotionally. I'll try to "Keep Looking Up", and I hope you are on to better things, Jack. :-)

We all have values of some sort (as well as things like assumptions, goals, and aesthetics) that guide our choices in life, and those can't come directly from science, even if science can interact with them. On how science and religion should interrelate, from a 1930 essay by Albert Einstein: http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"""
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
    But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
"""

Albert Eintsein on the need for *both* science and religion:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Also, while you would be right to say some things are better than in the past, many things are not. Rampant vitamin D deficiency from too much time indoors (and listening to dermatologists) is contributing to all sorts of health problems like cancer, heart disease, and even increasing autism.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
Depression from lack of community (something not valued by modern economists) is widespread.
http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Americas-Depression-Epidemic-Community/dp/1933392711
Herbert Shelton, who from the 1920s advocated sunlight, better diet, and occasional fasting as proven ways for good health, was hit with endless lawsuits and harrasment from medical professionals:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/shelton.bio.bidwell.htm
Our entire society has become locked in pleasure traps associated with supernomal stimuli, manipulated by advertisers to destroy children for profit:
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X
http://www.amazon.com/So-Sexy-Soon-Sexualized-Childhood/dp/0345505077

Sure, we have neat iPads now. What does it matter if the kids are all obese and depressed?

The mainstream USA is in a death spiral as a society because it refuses to acknowledge things like the irony of using the tools of abundance like robotics, AI, material science, and so on to build weapons of destruction like nuclear millsiles and killer robot drones, rather than use the same tech to create abundance for all and have a basic income. Likewise, our society is unable to admit the declining value fo most human labor and the need for a rethink of our economics like a basic income. Renewable energy like solar thermal, geothermal, and wind have been cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear for decades when you factor in the external costs of war, pollution, health costs, and risks, but our society refuses to price those costs in. I could go on about many other issues (like how organic agriculture is cheaper when looking at all the costs including soil depletion and oil, singple payer health care being way cheaper, and so on). Still, there are hopeful signs here and there, so our society may yet heal itself -- but such a society might not be recognizable to many in the USA today.

So, while you have some points, the poster you are replying too makes many good ones too. As Albert Einstein says in the link at the top, science can tell us what is, maybe some of what was, and matbe even some of what could be, but science can't tell us what *should* be. That is a realm beyond science, to set our goals and the patterns we choose to preserve or strive for. Unfortunately, too often science gets misused to claim it is telling what should be. (Economists often do that with claimed mathematical precision.)

To understand another aspect of how academic science is a cult in a sense, with conservative politics woven throughout is, see Jeff Schmidt on how all professio