Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Your Brain Lies to You
by New York Times
Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?em&ex=1214798400&en=55e3196d3a7018e0&ei=5087%0A
Your Brain Lies to You
By SAM WANG and SANDRA AAMODT
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.
The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.
This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.
With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.
Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.
In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.
Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.
In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.
Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.
Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.
In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes's ideal.
Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, are the authors of "Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?em&ex=1214798400&en=55e3196d3a7018e0&ei=5087%0A
Your Brain Lies to You
By SAM WANG and SANDRA AAMODT
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.
The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.
This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.
With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.
Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.
In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.
Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.
In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.
Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.
Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.
In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes's ideal.
Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, are the authors of "Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life."
Comments 51 - 100 of 100 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #200969 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm
OK, this thread is starting to annoy me. There is nothing wrong with wanting to maintain the positive aspects of one's heritage, even if it originates in religion.
Hell, even Christopher Hitchens, who has mentioned that the events that the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah commemorates was one of the great tragedies of history ("If the Jews had not made the crucial mistake of rejecting Hellenism and philosophy and submitting themselves, or being reconquered, by the Maccabean ultra-Orthodox, everything would have been better and we'd never have had to endure Christianity and Islam"), has gone so far as to have Seder dinners for his daughter so that she'll become more acquainted with her heritage (his mother is part Jewish). "And I even insist, though my wife [who is Jewish] isn't that thrilled, on having for our daughter a little version of the Seder" (both quotes from this interview.) Admittedly, Christopher is very much his own man, to say the least, but even Richard (am I allowed to call him that?) has mentioned how much he values the Christian heritage of Western culture (as discussed here, for example).
None of this means that any of these religions has any truth value whatsoever, just that they, in the form of their influence on many different cultures, have produced more than sheer rubbish over the ages. You just have to look hard to try and uncover the good bits that show such an influence, such as accomplishments in the arts, altruistic values, a sense of community, and so on (all of which doubtless also had a non-religious impetus) amid the dreck.
Admittedly, in all of this I just might be completely off my rocker (and probably am -- note title of article, "Your Brain Lies To You").
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
53. Comment #200976 by Saerain on June 28, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I'm always a little bothered by comments that separate the brain from the self (such as 'your brain lies to you') as if a mind is more than the brain.
Would it not be more accurate to say that a part of the brain lies to the rest, or something in that vein? Hmph.
Other Comments by Saerain
54. Comment #200982 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 5:18 pm
OK, this thread is starting to annoy me. There is nothing wrong with wanting to maintain the positive aspects of one's heritage, even if it originates in religion.Relax, I'm only playing Devil's advocate :-) After all, I did get married - that's a religious based ceremony. OK, so it was because my atheist Chinese wife told me to as being an unmarried couple with child is a bog no-no in China...
However, not everyone agrees with the concept adn age of a tradition or culture is not a reason to follow it. We are here to argue and make points and have these points dissected and discussed...well, in between all the jocularity and swearing and ridiculing...
Other Comments by Goldy
55. Comment #200983 by Epinephrine on June 28, 2008 at 5:20 pm
OK, this thread is starting to annoy me. There is nothing wrong with wanting to maintain the positive aspects of one's heritage, even if it originates in religion.
There's a big difference between maintaining positive aspects of heritage (assuming such exist) and the broad statement that because something is thousands of years old it has value.
I'm always a little bothered by comments that separate the brain from the self (such as 'your brain lies to you') as if a mind is more than the brain.
Well, I 'll agree that it has a dualistic tone, but the truth is so much more complex that it's hard to fit into a title. Something along the lines of "your conscious awareness of everything is a constuct and often deviates substantially from reality"?
Heck, your retinas process images before they even hit your "brain", and can "lie" at that stage. Conscious intent to perform actions often occurs after actions are initiated. The whole notion of the "mind" is a bit of a fallacy.
Other Comments by Epinephrine
56. Comment #200984 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Is there a difference between a bog no-no and a swamp no-no in China?Other Comments by TeraBrat
57. Comment #200991 by Epinephrine on June 28, 2008 at 5:30 pm
My receptor, bipolar, amacrine, horizontal and ganglion cells would never lie to me. Just because yours are under the influence of catecholamines....Now were did I leave that seratonin?
I wouldn't be so sure about those horizontal cells... why do they need to be passing information around in the eye anyway? Passing RUMOURS is more like it!
Oh, and 5-HT is so passe. Who needs indolamines anyway?
Other Comments by Epinephrine
58. Comment #200993 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Is there a difference between a bog no-no and a swamp no-no in China?
Stupid fat fingers of mine...need to make a quick recovery...think, Mike, think...
Yes, there is, but only phenotypically. Genetically they are very similar and can interbreed (debate as to whether to call the offspring boggy-swamp no-nos or swampy-bog no-nos rages to this day). As you may or may not know, the no-no is a strange creature, almost mythical, that inhabits wetlands and other watery areas. It is closely related to the NZ taniwha, which is seen as a spirit by the Maori (showing the elusive nature of this beast). It is known in the UK as the Will o' the Wisp, showing the extremely large area it inhabits...
Thinks - phew, I think I got away with that one...
:-D
Other Comments by Goldy
59. Comment #200995 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Depressed folks maybe? Also, seratonin is behind hallucinations from drugs like PCP. What more can you want?
Beer.
Other Comments by Goldy
60. Comment #200998 by Epinephrine on June 28, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Meh, I can halluciante with other NTs.
Are you sure you don't mean LSD? LSD affects serotonin receptors, but PCP is NMDA and ACh, I think.
(edit - wow, poking around wikipedia I learned a bit! And PCP does seem to act on NMDA/ACh. I thought that the psychotropic effects of amanita muscaria were derived from the muscarinic ACh receptors, but it turns out to be two other compounds; muscimol, affecting the GABA receptor, and ibotenic acid, which didn't have a description of its pharmocology, but has an interesting little ring, an isoxazole apparently!)
Seriously though, the retinal processing stuff is neat, I remember how fascinating I found it when I read about movement being anticipated at the retinal level.
Other Comments by Epinephrine
61. Comment #201000 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Thinks - phew, I think I got away with that one...
:-D
Ummm...Maybe....
:-p
Other Comments by TeraBrat
62. Comment #201021 by Border Collie on June 28, 2008 at 7:17 pm
If a Jewish person marries a Muslim person of the opposite sex and they have children the children will be human. Other Comments by Border Collie
63. Comment #201039 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Epinephrine wrote:
There's a big difference between maintaining positive aspects of heritage (assuming such exist) and the broad statement that because something is thousands of years old it has value.
Well, of course! To take an example, FGM is thousands of years old, and I hope that's not considered a tradition that must be "respected" simply because it's "old". On the other hand, I don't think one should paint with too broad a brush. It could be argued that the religious emphasis on minute study of the Talmud led to great value being placed on learning, not just religious but secular, among Jews...a value which has led to Jews becoming far less religious as they became more educated. I think these things should be judged by their effects, not necessarily simply by their "religious" origin.
Admittedly, I have no idea what possible alternate use memorizing the Qur'an as a child in a language one can't even understand could have, but in theory some social demand could come up for a huge capacity for rote memorization--though with cheap books, mass literacy, and information technology, that seems profoundly unlikely. (If you want to see something truly scary, look at Youtube videos of tiny children reciting lengthy extracts from the Qur'an--from memory.)
Goldy wrote:
OK, so it was because my atheist Chinese wife told me to as being an unmarried couple with child is a bog no-no in China.
TeraBrat wrote:
Is there a difference between a bog no-no and a swamp no-no in China?
All I can think of is that bog is the Russian for "god"!
Border Collie wrote:
If a Jewish person marries a Muslim person of the opposite sex and they have children the children will be human.
I certainly hope so! :-P
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
64. Comment #201069 by robotaholic on June 28, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I am my brain and I do not lie to myself because it is technically impossible. Other Comments by robotaholic
65. Comment #201077 by Valis667 on June 29, 2008 at 12:36 am
"Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth"NO! NO! NO!
Other Comments by Valis667
66. Comment #201078 by 8teist on June 29, 2008 at 12:39 am
..`fraid so ,Valis,.....and if you sail too far east or west you drop off the face of the earth ...........true.
Other Comments by 8teist
67. Comment #201080 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 12:46 am
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found.
Most likely they don't believe that but just got confused by the question.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
68. Comment #201082 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 12:57 am
BonzaiIf Atkins came better prepared I am sure he could have mopped the floor with Craig too. If someone makes an argument for God that only a trained philosopher can refute it is probably a stupid, irrelevant argument based on word play to begin with,
Three cheers to the anti-philosopher, :)
If you accept that religious faith is not warrnted and that it differs from, say, a "belief" in logical axioms, you are taking an epistemological position. When you explain why you take that position, you egage in the same sort of philosophical reasoning that academic philosophers use.
If you take a position on materialism, whatever it is, you're taking a metaphysical position. If you put forth arguments, you again use philosophical reasoning.
If you think that morality is somehow non-objective or that it is ojective, you take a meta-ethical position, which, yet again, can only be backed by abstract reasoning.
And so on.
Where exactly do you draw the line between philosophy and everything else? How do you do it?
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
69. Comment #201092 by black wolf on June 29, 2008 at 2:27 am
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found.
Most likely they don't believe that but just got confused by the question.
The Gallup poll from 1999 asked:
"As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?"
People in both the UK and Germany were asked the same question, and the results were almost exactly the same (UK 19%, Germany 16%).
Other Comments by black wolf
70. Comment #201101 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 3:11 am
All I can think of is that bog is the Russian for "god"!In my case, nothing more prosaic than the o being next to the i on my keyboard. I'd change it, but then a whole heap of things would not make sense :-)
Layla, memorising by rote is useful sometimes. I still do my multiplication tables that way :-) As for memorising the Koran in Arabic, I guess that's right up there with memorising the Rig Veda in Sanskrit. Keeps a language alive...sort of...in aspic, I guess. Useful to historians. It may also help in memory - I believe the memory is like the rest of the body - needs exercise.
19% of UK residents believe the sun revolves around the Earth?? Blimey - when and where did they get the answers? Reading town centre on a Friday night??
Other Comments by Goldy
71. Comment #201125 by ExGodBotherer on June 29, 2008 at 5:19 am
Reminds me of what Christians do to John Lennon's Imagine: "and no religion too" twisted to "and one religion too" Other Comments by ExGodBotherer
72. Comment #201129 by RobDinsmore on June 29, 2008 at 5:35 am
I think it would be a good idea to start teaching children these important "facts" early in their lives. Perhaps that knowledge could act as a rudimentary BS filter. Other Comments by RobDinsmore
73. Comment #201130 by the great teapot on June 29, 2008 at 5:38 am
This 20% are allowed to vote?Other Comments by the great teapot
74. Comment #201141 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 6:42 am
Goldy wrote:
In my case, nothing more prosaic than the o being next to the i on my keyboard. I'd change it, but then a whole heap of things would not make sense :-)
Oh, I know...just trying to figure out some pseudo-reason for it. :-P Besides, "bog no-no" (God no-no) sounds like some childish Russian/English chant...
Layla, memorising by rote is useful sometimes. I still do my multiplication tables that way :-) As for memorising the Koran in Arabic, I guess that's right up there with memorising the Rig Veda in Sanskrit. Keeps a language alive...sort of...in aspic, I guess. Useful to historians. It may also help in memory - I believe the memory is like the rest of the body - needs exercise.
Perhaps...but why, in this day and age, is it important to commit a 604-page book to memory when you can't understand a word of it? That's something I never really understood, although granted I'm from a Western culture and not an Islamic one that places great store by it. If your education consists of having this book beaten into you (often literally), along with the mullahs preaching non-stop hate in your own language, as in a lot of Pakistani madrasas...what, exactly, is the point? Many Muslims believe that a hafiz (person who has memorized the Qur'an) will get a super-special reward in jannah (paradise)...however, one of the preconditions is that you do it "solely for the sake of Allah," not to show off or for material gain. But, I always thought, human motivations are complex, so how could you even be sure that your own motives are pure?
Back to the subject...I suspect we're all just living in, or maybe we ARE, our own virtual reality programs...or Holodeck programs. Dawkins talks about this concept at length in chapter 11 of Unweaving the Rainbow, "Reweaving the World". A glitch in the software or hardware can have very far-reaching effects--think of all those who have "seen" or "heard" God, angels, Mary, saints, aliens, ghosts, etc., and went on to spawn religions or cults!
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
75. Comment #201161 by TeraBrat on June 29, 2008 at 9:23 am
Layla,I tend to agree with you about memorizing, I hate having to memorize things even though I have a good memory. But, my good memory is selective. If I can make a logical connection between two things (or more) I remember it.
Memorizing in a language you don't understand makes less sense to me unless you are going to use it to helo you learn the language. I remember asking one of my great aunts who was ultra orthodox and didn't understand Hebrew how she could pray without understanding what she was saying. I don't remember her answer so I'm assuming it was gibberish. I do remember her saying that it was wrong to learn Hebrew as long as we were in exile. The ultra orthodox believe that the state of Israel is an abominaion and that we need to wait for the Messiah before returning to our land. The whole thing seemed quite idiotic to me and put another crack in my faith.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
76. Comment #201163 by TeraBrat on June 29, 2008 at 9:35 am
If a Jewish person marries a Muslim person of the opposite sex and they have children the children will be human.
What a shame! The horns and tail are often quite useful :-p
Other Comments by TeraBrat
77. Comment #201168 by mordacious1 on June 29, 2008 at 10:02 am
Tera
I just watched Borat for this first time the other night. Loved the part where they check into a B&B run by Jews. Looking at the family pictures on the wall, "So, all these people are Jews? Where are the horns?". And then the two bugs crawl under his door and they have to leave because the Jews have "shape-shifted".
Other Comments by mordacious1
78. Comment #201169 by TeraBrat on June 29, 2008 at 10:30 am
Comment #201168 by mordacious1 on June 29, 2008 at 10:02 am
Tera
I just watched Borat for this first time the other night. Loved the part where they check into a B&B run by Jews. Looking at the family pictures on the wall, "So, all these people are Jews? Where are the horns?". And then the two bugs crawl under his door and they have to leave because the Jews have "shape-shifted".
I never even heard of it before. I'm not into TV at all and not much of a movie watcher either. I did a google and I'll keep an eye out for it. Sounds like a good laugh.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
79. Comment #201174 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
Memorizing in a language you don't understand makes less sense to me unless you are going to use it to helo you learn the language. I remember asking one of my great aunts who was ultra orthodox and didn't understand Hebrew how she could pray without understanding what she was saying. I don't remember her answer so I'm assuming it was gibberish.
Well, I myself memorized a bunch of stuff in Arabic, since, as you probably know, all Muslims are supposed to do the five daily prayers in Arabic. What I did was write the stuff down on a card and kept reciting it five times a day until it finally became burned onto my brain. At first I didn't understand a word, and didn't really have the opportunity to take an Arabic class (though I wanted to), but after spending a LOT of time listening to/reciting the Qur'an in Arabic (with the translation on the other page), I learned quite a bit by osmosis so it was no longer merely meaningless words. And what do you know--I found out just how close it is to Hebrew! The problem is, that's pretty much where my pitiful knowledge of Arabic ends--the Qur'an and other religious formulae, alas. I was always intending to take a class--someday, but now that's considerably less likely.
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
80. Comment #201175 by the great teapot on June 29, 2008 at 11:03 am
Got any More shit worth clinging to we should know about Layla and terabrat.Other Comments by the great teapot
81. Comment #201177 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 11:11 am
Fine, I'll shut up, then! This stuff is all grossly off-topic, anyway. Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
82. Comment #201178 by the great teapot on June 29, 2008 at 11:13 am
Good.Other Comments by the great teapot
83. Comment #201179 by TeraBrat on June 29, 2008 at 11:28 am
Not good. If you don't like it don't read it. There's no reason to be abusive.Other Comments by TeraBrat
84. Comment #201184 by the great teapot on June 29, 2008 at 11:31 am
I am biting my tounge terabrat.Other Comments by the great teapot
85. Comment #201185 by irate_atheist on June 29, 2008 at 11:40 am
88. Com ment #201179 by TeraBrat -Not good. If you don't like it don't read it. There's no reason to be abusive.Indeed. It's my role to be abusive.
And back to the article:
Excellent piece of research. Blows any argumentum ad populum out the water.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
86. Comment #201187 by TeraBrat on June 29, 2008 at 11:46 am
Layla,I don't think that talking about language and memories is off topic on a topic about the brain.
Hebrew and Arabic have similar roots like Spanish and Italian or English and German. And they are both written right to left as most of the older languages were. That's because when these languages were originally formed people ink had not been discovered and writing was chiselled into rock. If you are right handed as most people are it's easier to chisel from right to left. Modern languages developed after ink had been discovered and it's preferable to write from left to write with ink because it reduces smearing.
Stupid stuff really. No one else should bother to read it.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
87. Comment #201190 by the great teapot on June 29, 2008 at 11:54 am
Quite.Other Comments by the great teapot
88. Comment #201195 by moderndaythomas on June 29, 2008 at 12:15 pm
TeraBrat.
Stupid stuff really. No one else should bother to read it.
Too late. You're supposed to put that stuff at the top.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
89. Comment #201203 by the great teapot on June 29, 2008 at 12:22 pm
A thousand apologies Layla, Terabrat had pissed me off and you were caught in the crossfire.Many apologies to terabrat as well , but not as hartfelt :)
Other Comments by the great teapot
90. Comment #201223 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm
black wolfhe Gallup poll from 1999 asked:
"As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?"
People in both the UK and Germany were asked the
same question, and the results were almost exactly the same (UK 19%, Germany 16%).
Perhaps a small few do believe that, but it still sounds like they could have been confused.
Slightly less than 1/5 the population is what I'd intuitively expect to misunderstand.
Then there are those few who give random answers or who like to mess with survey results.
Edit: The question doesn't sound idiot proof. I've known people who get confused about even simpler things.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
91. Comment #201226 by Richard Morgan on June 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Excuse me for changing the subject - a moment of peace and pleasure, perhaps?http://www.myspace.com/noraziacore
Or this, perhaps?
http://www.myspace.com/morgansoriginals
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
92. Comment #201227 by Rational_G on June 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Hey, studying the Bible and the Koran is great. It's called "know the enemy". Other Comments by Rational_G
93. Comment #201238 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm
GoldyAfter all, I did get married - that's a religious based ceremony.
I've never understood why marriage is considered religious. If you're devoted to someone and wish to commemorate it after a set period of time with a ceremony, why should it be religious?
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
94. Comment #201404 by Telic on June 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Given their stress on how incorrect statements can so easily be mis-remembered as truthful, the title of the piece "Your Brain Lies to You" really irritates the hell out of me ....They should be ashamed of themselves (even if being perversely ironic).
Other Comments by Telic
95. Comment #201413 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I've never understood why marriage is considered religious. If you're devoted to someone and wish to commemorate it after a set period of time with a ceremony, why should it be religious?
A non-religious ceremony just involves two people living together. All this "By the power invested in me..." stuff smacks of an official ceremony which is religious in nature - whether the deity in question is your particular god or the state, it matters not.
The ceremony is religious in tone.
But that is my own personal opinion.
As it is, we were married by a Methodist in a civil ceremony on a beach in Fiji. Kinda cool - but still religious.
Other Comments by Goldy
96. Comment #201428 by mordacious1 on June 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I got married by a judge who couldn't give a crap. Other Comments by mordacious1
97. Comment #201603 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Goldy People living together is a relationship, not necessarily the ceremony itself. There is no reason in principle why a marriage ceremony must involve either the government, religion, or any organization for that matter.
Weddings and commitments need not be religious anymore than birthdays. The belief that they must, I think, is somewhat of a dogma advanced by the faithful.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
98. Comment #201616 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Weddings and commitments need not be religious anymore than birthdays. The belief that they must, I think, is somewhat of a dogma advanced by the faithful.I know - hell, both of us are atheist so the whole religion thing is completely absent (well, apart from Xmas - but then, how religious is that, really?).
It's just me - it is a ceremony with some drama and some higher power that is binding me to my wife and her to me for the rest of our lives. It isn't like animals pair bonding for life - a bit of courtship then babies. It was a ceremony, a man made ceremony that invoked a higher power to legitimise our union.
Just becasue there were no gods called on didn't, to me, make it any less religious. The fact that I was wearing an orange bula shirt (Fijian for Hawaiian shirt) and a lei didn't detract from the fact that the ceremony had a quality of otherness to it.
Why not just go to a registry office nad sign the documents and get the certificate to show that we had decided to stick together for life? Indeed, why not, in this day and age, just acknowledge online that we were a "pair"? Why a ceremony? Because it means something, it is a rite and it satisfies the religious meme we all seem to have in one way or another.
That is why, even if "irreligious", I saw it as religious.
And I am wearing a ring too - ooooh, the symbolism... ;-)
Mord1, I don't think the minister gave a monkeys either, but he liked me as I was holding his daughter (she was, I think, 3) while he officiated and I let her hold the rings for us. Totally unplanned, she was just there and wanted a cuddle. He was busy, I wasn't...well, I was, but you know what I mean :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
99. Comment #201640 by AtheistAspy on June 30, 2008 at 1:17 am
Why a ceremony?
Why not? There's no real reason, except to meet family and friends, proclaim your devotion, create pleasant memories for later reflection, and, of course, there's the sentimental value.
I don't think you *must* have a ceremony, but don't see what's inherently religious about it.
Cultural conditioning by the faithful, not the inherent nature of marital ceremonies, is what causes us to see marriage as inherently religious.
We could just as easily ask why we should bother celebrating birthdays.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
100. Comment #201704 by Johnny O on June 30, 2008 at 5:46 am
Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found.
Surely that's nothing to do with the brain lying to them, they're just fucking stupid.
Other Comments by Johnny O
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
51. Comment #200965 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Other Comments by Goldy