Saturday, February 17, 2007

Morality based on the here and now

This is my second blog post on a recent Time article written by Steven Pinker on the mystery of consciousness. As mentioned in my last post, neuroscience is pointing to the conclusion that consciousness is simply a product of the natural brain. In other words, there is a good chance that humans might not have immortal souls. Contemporary philosopher, Daniel Dennett, in his book Freedom Evolves, writes:

The more we learn about how we evolved, and how our brains work, the more certain we are becoming that there is no such extra ingredient [of the soul]. We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all.” Pg 3

For some, this idea can be incredibly disconcerting. Not only does it rule out an afterlife, but it also brings up the question of morality: how can someone be moral without having to account for their actions in an afterlife? Steven Pinker, in the Time article, argues that the materialistic view of consciousness offers a sounder basis for morality than the supernatural view of an afterlife, as it forces us to recognise the interests of other beings. He writes:

“As every student in Philosophy 101 learns, nothing can force me to believe that anyone except me is conscious. This power to deny that other people have feelings is not just an academic exercise but an all-too-common vice, as we see in the long history of human cruelty. Yet once we realize that our own consciousness is a product of our brains and that other people have brains like ours, a denial of other people’s sentience becomes ludicrous. ‘Hath not a Jew eyes?’ asked Shylock. Today the question is more pointed: Hath not a Jew – or an Arab, or an African, or a baby, or a dog – a cerebral cortex and a thalamus? The undeniable fact that we are all made of the same neural flesh makes it impossible to deny our common capacity to suffer.

“And when you think about it, the doctrine of a life-to-come is not such an uplifting idea after all because it necessarily devalues life on earth. Just remember the most famous people in recent memory who acted in expectation of a reward in the hereafter: the conspirators who hijacked the airliners on 9/11.

“Think too, about why we sometimes remind ourselves that ‘life is too short’. It is an impetus to extend a gesture of affection to a loved one, to bury the hatchet in a pointless dispute, to use time productively rather than squander it. I would argue that nothing gives life more purpose than the realisation that every moment of consciousness is a precious and fragile gift.”

23 comments:

ercatli said...

You have asked interesting questions and I'd like to make a couple of comments.

1. If mind produces consciousness, do dogs have self consciousness, do sparrows, do fleas? (I ask this not to make a point but our of curiosity.)

2. I have read two books by Dennett and I still do not believe naturalism can satisfactorily explain either the human ability to reason abstractly or human free will, and without these, this discussion and the argumewnt for naturalism itself are meaningless. (For a good discussion of the argument about reason, see this article by philosopher Alvin Plantinga - http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/alspaper.htm)

3. A similar argument affects our view of morality. Natural selection can explain how we are genetically programmed to behave, but that is not ethics. I cannot see a naturalist explanation for believing some things are truly wrong.

4. By the way, I don't think the immortal soul is a christian doctrine, but a Greek one which crept into some forms of christianity. The christain belief is in the resurrection of the body, which can give hope for an afterlife.

Thanks, and best wishes.

CyberKitten said...

ercatli said: If mind produces consciousness, do dogs have self consciousness, do sparrows, do fleas? (I ask this not to make a point but our of curiosity.)

Personally I think it has to do with complexity. Humans are conscious/self-aware because of our complex brain structure. Creatures with less complexity are less conscious - but I think its more like a dimmer switch rather than an on-off button.

ercatli said: Natural selection can explain how we are genetically programmed to behave, but that is not ethics.

Natural selection can indeed explain many things - but I doubt that it can explain why I'm typing this in English.. but then why should it? Language, art and much else - including ethics - are social cultural constructs not biological ones. We may be biologically predisoposed to speak an language but its our culture that determines what language we speak not our genes.

ercatli said:By the way, I don't think the immortal soul is a christian doctrine, but a Greek one which crept into some forms of christianity.

Indeed - but then the early Christians didn't really mind who they stole their myths from....

Steve Hayes said...

I think I read a similar article in The Sunday Independent a few months ago, but I think Pinker sets up a straw man, or rather several of them.

I've long held to the idea that cyberkitten mentions, that "complexity produces consciousness". That idea was first suggested to me by a science-fiction story, "A subway named Moebius" by A. Deutsch. I find no incompatibility between that idea and Christian belief, so I don't quite follow Pinker's reasoning at that point, and his comments on morality suggest to me that he understands little of Christian belief.

The Christian basis for morality is not, as Pinker appears to suppose, some supernatural sanction after death, but rather on a view of something that happened long before any of us were born: that we, and the world we live in was created by a God with a purpose, and that part of that purpose is that I should not deny my neighbour's God-given permission to live. This is not a mere authoritarian view that we should be moral "because God says so", even though some Christians may have understood it or expressed it that way. It is rather a kind of way or "Tao" that is built into creation.

For me, at least, the alternative to the Christian worldview is nihilism: the idea that nothing exists, nothing is knowable, nothing has value.

Pinker's proposal for a basis of morality does not arise out of a certain understanding of the relation between the brain and consciousness -- it is superimposed upon it, no more and no less than the Christian understanding. Far from arising out of the notion of the physical brain it is essentially delusional. Of course morality is possible, but it is basically meaningless. And to pretend that it has meaning requires a leap of faith far bigger than any Christian takes.

The jump from the idea that the cortex produces consciousness and thought to the idea that the cortex therefore has value is a very large leap of faith indeed.

Kevin Parry said...

Hi ercatli and Steve

Thank you both for taking the time to reply. You both raise valid points.

I’m still reading up on the moral and philosophical implications of naturalism, but I will try my best to reply to your comments (and you are welcome to reply to my answers).

First, to reply to ercatli:

1. I will go along with Cyberkitten’s answer: complexity is the issue here. I think it was John Searle who argued that complexity can produce unique properties. Take a single molecule of water: it doesn’t do much. But if we add billions of water molecules together they exhibit unique properties that a single molecule of water cannot express on its own (e.g., wetness, coolness, etc). As we add more water, complexity increases, and additional properties enter the system: such as capillary action, complex weather systems, and hurricanes. The same can be argued with the brain: a single neuron on its own doesn't express much in terms of consciousness. But the complexity produced by billions of neurons working together forms a by-product that we perceive as being the mind. I think every living creature has some element of this, although it depends on the amount of complexity: size of the brain (in relation to body mass), number of neurons, the interactions between the neurons, etc.

2.I’m still reading Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves, where he argues that a naturalistic world view allows for free will. I’m still working through it, so I can’t yet comment on his views. Thank you for the Alvin Platinga link: I will follow this up.

3.You are right, natural selection is responsible for what we are now, but does it have to be prescriptive? This might be an inadequate answer on my part, but humans are different to animals in that we have very large brains, and this has allowed us to think ‘outside’ the boundaries of natural selection. For example, just think of contraception: making a choice of not passing on our genes is an example of where we have ‘rebelled’, so to speak, against the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is descriptive (i.e., it describes how heritable characteristics change in populations over many generations). It doesn’t have to be prescriptive in terms of human interactions, decisions, morals, etc.

Steve wrote:
The jump from the idea that the cortex produces consciousness and thought to the idea that the cortex therefore has value is a very large leap of faith indeed.

This is a very good point, and it raises the question: why is consciousness valuable in the first place? I will give this some more thought.

CyberKitten said...

KP asked: why is consciousness valuable in the first place?

Well, it certainly has evolutionary advantages. We can plan, hypothesise about things, communicate ideas to others, pass on knowledge (that would've died with us) and *so* much else. One of our strangest evolutionary advantages is our culture. Very little knowledge is actually lost - which goes a way to explaining why we're such a sucessful species.

As to why consciousness has ethical value.... I think that clearly it doesn't. Just because other people are thinking beings hasn't really stopped us killing and enslaving each other since day one has it?

CyberKitten said...

One of our strangest evolutionary advantages is our culture.

That should be *strongest*...[rotflmao] or was it a very interesting Freudian slip... [grin]

Skywolf said...

The jump from the idea that the cortex produces consciousness and thought to the idea that the cortex therefore has value is a very large leap of faith indeed.

I agree. This is what I'm having trouble equating here. I don't for one second doubt the processes neuroscience has uncovered, but I can't for the life of me see how you get from those discoveries to the '... and therefore, there is no soul' conclusion. It seems like a massive, almost totally unrelated leap to me. My own belief in a soul in no way serves to undermine my amazingly complex brain and its incredible array of functions. It's almost like someone making the discovery that the heart beats automatically without needing the brain to control it, and therefore coming to the conclusion that there is no brain.

ercatli said...

cyberkitten:

Language, art and much else - including ethics - are social cultural constructs not biological ones.

My point was that in naturalism, natural selection is pretty much the only explanation for how things are the way they are. So if (as I suggested), natural selection finds it hard to explain how brains evolve that are able to think abstractly or exercise free choice, then naturalists shouldn't logically believe in these things. Yet most of us still do.

Likewise, most naturalists say they believe ethics are a social construct - until someone does something really evil, then they tend to behave as if it is really evil and not just a social construct.

kevin parry:

As far as I remember and understood him, I think Dennett defines freedom as not being under external constraint. I think this is (1) a weak form of freedom - we generally mean that it involves a genuine ability to choose, and (2) if our brains are chemically determined, then the chain of causation started outside our brains, long before we were born, so even the freedom he defines is illusory. But I'll be interested to see (if you tell us) what you conclude.

Thanks.

Steve Hayes said...

Someone called natural selection "survival of the fittest", but that can be misleading. It is simply survival of the survivors.

And there is no earthly reason for supposing consciouness to be a good thing. That is just whistling in the dark.

There may be a heavenly reason, though.

CyberKitten said...

ercatli said: My point was that in naturalism, natural selection is pretty much the only explanation for how things are the way they are.

That's not *my* understanding of natural selection nor of naturalism.

ercatli said: Likewise, most naturalists say they believe ethics are a social construct - until someone does something really evil, then they tend to behave as if it is really evil and not just a social construct.

Except that 'evil' is a social construct too...

Steve Hayes said: Someone called natural selection "survival of the fittest", but that can be misleading. It is simply survival of the survivors.

Or more accurately survival of the genes that have reproductive success and therefore multiply in the gene pool at the expense of other (less fit) genes.


Steve Hayes said: And there is no earthly reason for supposing consciouness to be a good thing.

It may indeed be an accident. It was certainly unintended as evolution *has* no intent. However, it does appear to confer some advantages. After all we are one of the most successful species on the planet ATM.

Steve Hayes said...

Cyberkitten said:

After all we are one of the most successful species on the planet ATM.

But isn't "success" a social construct?

When I read this stuff I am reminded of the saying that "the importance of Christianity is that we can stand the insight that it is of no importance".

But it seems that those who have shown to their own satisfaction that "there's no one home" -- no soul, no "ghost in the machine" -- can't stand the insight arising from this that the human race is of no importance, morality is of no importance, "good" and "evil" are social constructs and entirely measningless. So they must backtrack, and invent some kind of pie in the sky morality.

ercatli said...

steve:

It may be true that people "can't stand" those insights, but my point is rather that we generally can't live by them. Not just that we don't like living by them, but we just can't - they work theoretically, but not in practice. We keep "lapsing back" into acting as if there really is an objective morality, we really do have free choice, etc.

For example, Bertrand Russell served on the post World War II war crimes trials, and he later commented in writing that he found an unresolvable difficulty reconciling his philosophical belief as an atheist that morality was an outcome of evolution and therefore that Hitler would have been "right" if he had succeeded, with his strong view that his crimes really were evil.

His insight, plus that of Plantinga which I referenced, make naturalism a difficult belief, in my opinion.

CyberKitten said...

Steve Hayes asked: But isn't "success" a social construct?

In some senses yes. However, biological success is quite quanifiable. In many ways when compared to other animals we are a very successful species.

Steve Hayes said: the insight arising from this that the human race is of no importance, morality is of no importance, "good" and "evil" are social constructs and entirely measningless.

That depends on what you mean by important. From our owm point of view our species is certainly important - but in the grand scheme of things? Homo Sapiens haven't been around for very long and might not be around for much longer. In a million years time our species existence might just be an odd blip on the 'radar'. Morality is important to us, but it is us who gives it importance. 'Good' & 'Evil' are indeed social constructs - unless you believe they exist separately from us (which many do apparently) - and I believe that it is us who give these concepts meaning and therefore they are anything but meaningless.

Steve Hayes said: So they must backtrack, and invent some kind of pie in the sky morality.

I thought it was theists rather than naturalists who invented a 'pie in the sky morality'...

ercatli said: We keep "lapsing back" into acting as if there really is an objective morality, we really do have free choice, etc.

Isn't that the difference between intellect & culture? Even those who intellectually do not believe in free will or objective morality may at least act as if they do (or appear to act that way) and may indeed fall back into easy old habits in this regard. I don't think that this in itself invalidates the ideas they profess though.

As to Bertrand Russell... Maybe he needed to revisit the idea that "morality was an outcome of evolution". As far as I am concerned History & Culture have a *far* greater impact on morality than Evolution even if there is (as there appears to be) a genetic component to it.

Vancouver Voyeur said...

Hi. Found you via Cyber Kitten's blog. Very thought provoking posts on this blog. I liked CK's analogy to consciousness on a dimmer switch. I'll be back to check you out again, just at a point in life where there's not much time to do quality comments. Interesting blog though.

Steve Hayes said...

Cyberkitten said:

Steve Hayes said: So they must backtrack, and invent some kind of pie in the sky morality.

I thought it was theists rather than naturalists who invented a 'pie in the sky morality'...


There doesn't seem to be much difference between them.

Biological "success" may be quantifiable, but is it qualifiable? All sorts of things are quantifiable, but that doesn't make them any more meaningful.

Martin said...

Why is it we repeatedly see comments to the effect that atheists/rationaists/humanists believe that everything is meaningless and is all socially constructed (and with this the implication that such people belive in an "anything goes" value systm)?

While such ideas may be the position of a few post-modernist philosophers, it seeems to rarely be the position of most rationalists (I'll use that term as an umbrella) I encounter. Rationalists tend to believe in good and bad, right and wrong, and hold that the obvious extremes of these are pretty much innate. Where the rationalist differs from most religious teachings in in the middle, less clear division between, say, right and wrong. Religion divides it by a razor edged dogma (and critics would suggest the religious interpret ror follow that dogma in a purely selective fashion). The rationalists make the personal decision on right and wrong by assessing the evidence, much of which is contradictory and at the end accepts that there is room for uncertainty.

Also, I don't understand why people assume that a lack of belief in a creator, a soul or an afterlife leaves one with no moral compass. Just like many religions have different takes on the basic "treat others as you would be treated" lesson, it is possible that those not bound by dogma would develop a moral system just as good as any one religion's.

Extending these two thoughts one can argue with the idea raised above that just because you do not belive in no soul or hereafter you believe that humanity is meaningless. Indeed, the opposite is true, without a god to be final arbiter of what is meaningful, without a soul, without a life everafter (or following on) humanity becomes more meaningful becasue humanity is all there is.

As a rationalist, I, for one, am fed up with the assumptions (usually to the negative) the religious make about me, my morals, what I hold to be important and how I work out what right and wrong means or is.

ercatli said...

martin:

I'm sorry that you are "fed up" and that I may have offended you. But I didn't say what you think I did.

I didn't suggest that atheists have no morality, etc, because I don't think that - I know some very admirable atheists. What I said was that naturalism has a hard job explaining where such ethics come from (and reason, and freedom, etc).

In my experience, atheists say ethics are cultural, subjective, etc when discussing, but sometimes act as if they are truly objectively "true".

My point depends on atheists behaving well, but there being a disconnect between their logical beliefs and their behaviour.

Perhaps you could develop this discussion by describing whether you believe ethics are truly "true" or not?

Martin said...

My comment wasn't directed specifically at you, ercatli, but was more of a general statement meant to explain one source of some of my frustration in the wider discussion

For a typical example we could use Steve's comment [those who don't believe in a soul...]"can't stand the insight arising from this that the human race is of no importance, morality is of no importance, "good" and "evil" are social constructs and entirely measningless. So they must backtrack, and invent some kind of pie in the sky morality."

The "pie in the sky morality" comment is typical of the derisive "atheists have no real morality" comment and this is wrapped by the wider "atheists think right and wrong are meaningless ideas" concept.

The fundamental difference (and yes, I accept it is a generalization) between the rationalist position and that of the religious is that the rationalist accepts that there are fundamental principles that drive ethics but there are no absolutes whereas the predominant religious position is that there is an absolute ethic: the word of god [or whoever].

Rationalists believe in guiding principles that form the basis of morality. The religious appear to believe in absolutes (why else would they be called commendments?).

Rationalists accept that living life according to fundamental principles, while good to a point, may not deal with all situations. For example, the very good guide "one should always tell the truth": the rationalist accepts that in some cases telling a lie is quite acceptable morally.

The rationalist recognizes that in some cases, say to protect someone ("do you know where my ex-wife is [so I can go beat her up some more]?"), it is OK to lie and that even in such accpetable (to their own evaluative proccess) cases there is a residual unease at telling a lie.

The religious typically use the idea that the rationalist viewpoint allows for such uncertainty as evidence that the non-religious are morally bankrupt and would interpret their moral guidelines for their own selfish advancement.

Often, and it is happening here to an extent, we see the position of extreme post-modernist [or whatever the current in-vogue term used to describe philosophical nihilists] philosophers who suggest that all morality is a farce used as a broad brush critique of all rationalists to support the notion that we pick and choose our morality for our own selfish needs. Many rationalists find these extreme positions tedious and unhelpful--see the latest Humanist Perspectives for further expanison (sorry, I'm not smart enough to add the hot link in here).
I don't quite understand what you mean by ethics being true or not. Do you mean, 'do I believe that there is a fundamental use for and value to ethics' I would say most certainly, yes.
To clarify what I said before (and move the discussion along), I think that most rationalists accept that the edges of any one moral issue are clear (so it is genrally bad to lie, steal, cheat, be angry, mess with other peoples stuff, go through the express checkout with 20+ items). Rationalists, however feel that there is a middle area in each issue where the divide is unclear and that the evaluation of that line for any one instance is driven by many factors, some of which are cultural. The rationalist stance demands we, as individuals, make that decision based on the sum of our experience while being guided the fundamental principle.
Uncertainty is scary, but the ability to sift through the evidence, weigh it up against our history, think past the usual and be creative is what makes us truly brilliant (and evolutionarily successful).
Oh, and I happen to think that the outcomes of all this process: i.e. living, growing, and...well everything really, is truly meaningful.

ercatli said...

martin

Thanks for your comprehensive and thoughtful response - sorry it's taken me a while to get back to it.

It may surpise you to know that I agree with a lot of what you say. As a christian, I don't believe morality is so much a matter of rules as of an attitude of love (wanting the best for the other person) being applied in each situation. (The 10 Commandments belong to an agreement with the Jewish people, and have been superseded for christians.) So our views are similar there.

My question about ethics being true comes to this. When we apply reason, say to mathematics or science, there are true answers, that is ones that can be proven by theorem or experiment. We may not know the answers at a particular time, but we know there ARE answers. So we can correct people who are getting it wrong.

Now I suggest we all behave as if there are some right ethical answers also - taking away life is almost always wrong, pedophilia and genocide are REALLY wrong. And if we see someone doing these and many other things we are affronted, express our disapproval, etc. But if ethics arose as part of our individual or social evolution, something can't actually be wrong in that way, and if someone says they are ignoring the normal standards we have nothing to say to convince them, as we could with maths or science.

On the other hand, if ethics originate with God, we can say those things, in principle at least, even if we don't always know the right answers (again, just like maths or science).

So as I have said previously, I think naturalism is unable to explain what most of us actually feel about ethics. And we seem unable to let go of that feeling that some things really ARE right and wrong, so I am suggesting that should make us re-examine naturalism as a philosophy.

I hope that adds to the discussion. Best wishes.

Martin said...

No, I'm not suprised that our positions are pretty much the same, indeed that is exactly my point: the non-religious feel pretty much the same deep down about right and wrong; we are not the evil, self-absorbed nihilists we are too often made out to be. The difference is why we feel that way. Let me expand by discussing your points...

I don't understand why something arising out of our social evolution can't be really right or wrong, whereas something coming from God can?

I believe that developing a sense of morality based on the evidence of thousands upon thousands of experiences through our lives is much more real than following a set of ten inflexible and restrictive commandments (assuming for a minute that the religious actually do, something I don't believe).

While in the abstracted world of TV and the media, it is different, and we have all encountered exceptions, I'd wager that most of our experiences have taught us it is a good thing to treat others well. This is the basis for a rationalist's morality. Furthermore the rationalist's tendency to evaluate events against their collected experience gives them insight into when not to follow a basic guide for living, e.g. when someone is not going to react well to kindness and is going to harm you--in this case your reaction may be very different from what your default morality tells you.

For example: the christian only has "honour thy mother and father" as a basis for morality when it comes to dealing with their parents. The rationalist starts with the basic concept to respect the parent and generally does so, but drops that
belief if the parent, for example, becomes abusive. The rationalist's basic moral driver of comparing everything to the evidence allows them to adjust their evaluative process continually while keeping the underpinning values in sight.

The Christian absolute commandment allows for no such flexibility--as seen by the oft experienced scene of a religious leader ignoring the plight of abused children or telling a battered woman to go back to her abusive husband.

Now, you might rightly point out that not all christians would support these actions but this only serves to support my point: when faced with conflicting experience most christians will ignore the strict teachings of their religion and act from an inner sense of what is right or wrong...they turn away from the inflexible word of god (or whatever interpretation of that word is currently followed) and act...exactly like the non-religious!

ercatli said...

martin

Sorry to take so long to reply again, but life has been very compressed lately. I don't think I have much new to say, but I'll try two things ....

"I don't understand why something arising out of our social evolution can't be really right or wrong, whereas something coming from God can?"

If a thing is "really true", it is a fact of the universe, whether we discover it or not. 1 + 1 = 2 is true by definition, and can't be otherwise. The earth is 93 million miles from the sun, and this can be demonstrated, but even if we couldn't demonstrate it, it is still true.

So can an ethical statement be true in this sense? If a omniscient God says it is then it can be. But if it arises out of our social evolution, what can make it "true"? We cannot demonstrate it to be true, except in the sense that it is what we have adopted, but it may not have been adopted elsewhere.

I don't have a difficulty about what you believe personally, or what anyone else believes personally is true. My problem with your viewpoint comes when we pass judgment on others, which we all do. We condemn Nazi Germany, or the Iraq war, or terrorism, or pedaphilia, or someone lying to us. But on what basis can we pass that judgment?

If there is an ethical truth, that could be the basis, but if it is a personal or social ethic it is subjective, and no basis for condemning another. Their "truth" is just as valid as your "truth".

We can try to argue that ethics is defined by society just as laws are (e.g. the side of the road we drive on). But that still gives no basis for judging the behaviour of another culture, even if they rape and kill innocents, nor even of judging the behaviour of someone in our own culture who doesn't recognise the society norm. We cannot say they are "wrong", only that they have not conformed to what society decided (which can easily change). In the end, the only way we resolve these intra-society and international disagreements about behaviour is by force.

The point becomes especially sharp when we consider the parallel conclusion from naturalism that our brain activity is determined and we don't have freewill. If we believe this and condemn someone in our criminal justice system, we are not only using force to impose our personal or our society's subjective ethic on another, but they actually cannot be held responsible for their actions because they were determined. They are hit with a double injustice - except of course, under naturalism, injustice is arbitrary too.

I read once of a philosophy professor who, whenever a student argued that ethics was subjective, gave them a very low mark on that paper. The student inevitably said it was unfair and the professor then entered into a discussion of whether "unfairness" was compatible with the relativistic ethic they espoused.

I don't suppose we will reach agreement on this, but I felt it worthwhile to present these ideas. Thanks again, and best wishes.

Anonymous said...

I too have the symptoms said to be caused by the chemtrails. To set the record straight, I don't wish to be one of the "useless eaters" as described by proponents of the New World Order, but I really see no value in being human, especially since finding out that Jesus may not have been raised from the dead. I doubt if I was ever saved anyway, although I thought I was for a while. If ever I WAS a Christian, I am now an ex-Christian, especially now that they're developing a reputation for their bigotry against Muslims, Native Americans, Women, Gays, Transgenders, etc. -- a point to remember if you find Christian literature on my cache.
Once I signed my fate in blood over to the Tabular Turtle, a turtle with a tail at both ends and no head, I knew I was not a Christian. I first saw the Tabular Turtle in just about the darkest place around the Jerome Park Reservoir in the Bronx. Go there some time and you'll see him. I've pleaded with him to preserve me at least until I have the chance to go there and confirm that I've signed my fate over to him.

My father told me I was born with autism, a disease for which the prognosis is never very
good, but my mother told me that when I was a few months old, my father flung me across the room like a rag doll and I landed on my head and that she had to cover for him for fear he'd lose his job. I've also read that trauma like that in the first year of life usually screws a person up for life.

I have always been one to lose it easily, and I was on the psychiatrist's couch from age 5 to 12 for this. My mother told me time after time "get well" get well" "stop thinking sick thoughts." Later, I grew to hate all women and became highly neurotic over that. I was soon in the state hospital where I got my shocks and was told by one doctor "Look, little boy, hating all women because just because of one that's bad makes no more sense than not sitting in red chairs just because of one that's bad."

I couldn't grow as tall as my younger brother because of all this -- sound familiar? I think Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, said something like that, though I don't know what his disease is. But knowing now how autistics or those with brain damage can turn out in the end, maybe they should be rounded up and recycled by being fed to pigs, unless they can be found useful in scientific experiments -- something that I'm sure would be pleasing to advocates of the New World Order.

I have a cousin in a mental health facility in Elgin, Il, after she murdered her mother.
She was hauled away by soldiers. She complained of the military activity where she was.
She was diagnosed as psychotic. Her name is Alice. She plans to move in with me when she gets out (I have no idea how soon). But if she's coming, I'm going. She'll have the house to herself and she'll have dogs here which will desanitize my house just like they desanitized hers. Also, one of her dogs bit me when I was a kid, I've since been terrified of dogs. I'd definitely rather be homeless than live with a house full of dogs that bite.

I am now willing to be a human "guinea pig" in an experiment to see if humans can be transmuted into animals. I would like to maybe be a dog, that was one of Adolf Hitler's favorite animals. I would not be much use for work in a concentration camp; I'm not able to do a man's work.

I may have actually been a dog between my present human life and the one that began in Dorset, England and from which I perished at Buchenwald. I know this because the clock started going backwards for me at an early age. I have already gone back before the day
I was born, and now I'm fast approaching the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, where I perished from my previous human incarnation. The Nazis are now looking for me and say they know where I am. You'll be happy to know that I just GOT RAPED in the buttocks not far from my house by someone wearing a Nazi uniform before he told me "Welcome to the world of AIDS." Though he didn't really penetrate, he still sprayed enough semen. I might well be HIV positive now.

I now fail to see the value of being human. I always got told the same things time after
time and I just can't see any meaning to it. Some have told me I would never become a man. I always looked for others to feel superior to and really thought I could build myself up by putting others down, but it just doesn't work that way over the long haul, and I'm sorry for the pain I caused to others by going postal the way I did. Very remorseful. Don't blame my parents for all of this because I don't.

My health is now failing and I don't have much longer to live anyway. I just don't get over things. But I am hoping to live long enough to be useful in the abovementioned experiment. In case anybody is thinking of doing me in, if we meet, I want to save him the trouble by doing it myself. I could easily do it with all the pills I have. I would also rather be dead than to go to any kind of prison. I may have Hell to pay, but even in the Lake of fire (the 2nd death), I don't think anything burns away to nothing. What's left might well start over as the lowest form of life, probably a tubeworm.

Well, I'll see you all in Hell if not before (if there's really such a place). NOBODY is saved!!

Anonymous said...

the only reason I even thought about believeing in God is because DEATH cancels out the real value of Life. Who cares who you love, if you die. Who cares what money you make, if you die, Who cares what disease you cure, if you die. Who cares what you do or how you do it, if you die? I didnt. Nothing you could ever say would ever have value if the end result is death eternal. And I wouldnt give a crap about being good to you or anybody else & who cares what you think. Take it to your grave -- punk! (if it wasnt for the concept of eternal life & having to meet a righteous God, I would behave without care or measure & Nothing you could say or do would ever matter to me)