The Pornification of America

This is a pretty good description of the generation we call the Millenniums. It's clearer now, but you should read it for yourself. What do you think? Read

Our place

Dusting is a good example of the futility of trying to put things right. As soon as you dust, the fact of your next dusting has already been established. - George Carlin

Voodoo Chile - Korean style

I just stumbled on a most amazing musician I've heard in a long, long time. She goes by the name Luna and she plays a traditional Korean instrument called a gayageum. Now I've heard Korean music played on one of these, but Luna has taken it and made it do some amazing things.

I was speechless and nearly brought to tears. It's no secret that I've been a Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn fan most of my life, but she took two of my most favorite pieces and gave them a sound like I've never heard. I don't know much more than what I've told you. I showed Sue, and we watched it together all the way through.

For some reason, I never get tired of watching her play. There is something mesmerizing about the way she plays that totally captivates me. I'm hoping on one of our trips to Korea in the future, I have the opportunity of seeing her, although I have no clue how I'm going to do this yet. 

Here is Luna rocking out to Jimi Hendrix in her special way. 

Sit back and enjoy!

How to Think Like a Scientist

Skepticism 101:
How to Think Like a Scientist
a new Great Courses series by Michael Shermer

Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” These words are no less insightful today than they were when he wrote them in 1985. Despite our best efforts, we are all vulnerable to believing things without using logic or having proper evidence—and it doesn’t matter how educated or well read we are. Our brains seem to be hardwired to have our beliefs come first and explanations for our beliefs second. And although we are skilled at recognizing the cognitive biases in other people’s thinking, we often have blinders on when it comes to our own.

This is the first paragraph of the article in eSkeptic Magazine, dated May 8th, 2013. If you are interested in what else is in the article, go HERE.

Got abs?

This post comes from a good friend of mine, Marlene Harris. I post things of hers and welcome her informative inputs on things fitness and health.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Summer is coming (I promise!) and if you're sporting a ONE-pack instead of a SIX-pack, this guest article is right up your alley. This is from my friend and colleague Kevin Stock (that's a pic of him below)... And yeah, as you can see, the dude knows exactly what he's doing in the gym AND in the kitchen. This kind of physique doesn't happen by accident. His info can help you YOU do the same. Enjoy the article!

Nick Nilsson

--------------------

Two Tricks to Getting Abs that POP By Dr. Kevin Stock, author, Magazine Abs

 

When it comes to TRULY getting abs (I'm talking REAL ABS - that pop out) there are TWO MISTAKES that EVERYONE makes. Master these two things and you will have a rippled midsection in no time.

1. CARBOHYDRATES: How efficiently and effectively your body utilizes carbohydrates is perhaps the most important nutritional aspect to getting seriously cut (i.e. really low levels of body fat). So unless you are already sub 7% body fat (if you’re a guy, 15% if you’re a gal). In this case - skip to point #2. Strategically managing and manipulating your carbohydrate intake is essential to your diced abs quest. Without smothering too much of my science nerd on you, there are a couple of "Sciencey" words we need to know.

- Insulin Sensitivity - we want our cells to be as sensitive to insulin as possible. This is the opposite of insulin resistance (characterized by pre-diabetes and diabetes). Insulin resistance and diabetes is prevalent due to the fact people have no idea  how to manage their carbohydrates. Oh, and it's no coincidence that diabetes and obesity are directly correlated. All we need to know here is, the higher the insulin sensitivity, the better the cells uptake glucose, the better your body utilizes carbohydrates ' the better you look.

- Nutrient Partitioning - this is directly related to insulin sensitivity, and is a term describing how you are directing your nutrients. Are they going to fat stores? Or are you sending them to muscle tissue to replenish glycogen and stimulate protein synthesis? With a properly structured nutrition and training strategy, you can maximize nutrient partitioning shuttling essential nutrients to muscular tissue and away from adipose (fat) tissue. The way I train people to optimize carbohydrate usage allows one to eat carbohydrates at optimal times to maximize insulin sensitivity and nutrient partition.

2. ABDOMINAL TRAINING: I have no clue when it became commonplace and socially acceptable to train abs like a wussy. If people trained their chest or biceps or legs like they train abs they would be laughed at. Imagine just doing biceps curls with your arms -no weights - just curling your forearm. Ludicrous, I know -and you wouldn't expect much bicep growth, would you?

Honestly, lying on the ground and repping out bodyweight crunches for sets of 5,000 isn't going to get you the abs you want. HERE is the key formula (that is, after you get rid of the overlay of body fat via sound and strategic nutrition):

RESISTANCE + Time Under Tension = POPPING AWESOME ABDOMINALS

Add  RESISTANCE to where you can only do 8-10 reps per set, and increase T.U.T. = Time Under Tension. And with this process we are creating POPPING AWESOME ABDOMINALS. To bring it all together, when you eat strategically and combine it with a strategic training protocol you get results. It's as easy as that.

--------

Nick Nilsson’s concluding comments: Just to quickly recap, I'm in total agreement with Kevin on the two points in his article. Managing your carb intake is critically important...even more important than fat intake (assuming you're not eating bacon three meals a day, of course!). And I've been preaching about using resistance for abdominal training literally for the last 15 years (probably more). In order to develop a muscle (abs included), you MUST work that muscle with resistance. Simple as that.

The abdominals are actually primarily fast twitch muscles that respond best to resistance and low to moderate rep ranges, NOT the high-rep endurance training that most people tend to default to. The final point I want to make is this...when you develop your abs with resistance, you'll actually be able to SEE them even at higher body fat levels.

Marlene’s Concluding Note: While the above tips seem simple enough, from where it sit, it’s the primarily the nutrition part that keeps us from developing that coveted six-pack. If you just can’t live without chips, party foods, desserts, pastries, candy, or if you can’t live with much more modest portions of potatoes or rice, breads, ect., it’s not going to happen, period. We tend to get hung up on eating our way through life to enjoy it, not stopping to consider there may be other forms of enjoyment out there for us if we simply modified our thinking and our habits a bit.

Of Martians and Media

A book review by Sharon Hill

This is a reprint from the Wednesday, May 1, 2013 edition of eSkeptic Magazine. It was interesting and not particularly surprising in the way the media plays on our fears and phobias.

“Such is the nature of the media with its focus on the unusual and the sensational that it often paints a distorted picture of the world.”

So begins Bartholomew and Radford’s book The Martians Have Landed: A History of Media-driven Panics and Hoaxes.

After this book went to press, we saw additional media panics and hoaxes in the false news spread in the hours before and during Superstorm Sandy that hit New Jersey and New York City in October of 2012, such as the nurse who committed suicide after being the victim of radio hosts calls to the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton’s hospital ward, and the public outrage, fear and conspiracy mongering that took place immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting. All of these events have their antecedents in stories documented in The Martians Have Landed.

The volume consists of 36 mostly short chapters written primarily by the two main authors but with several guests. The guests’ contributions tend to be slightly longer and more detailed, which makes for unevenness in the flow, but this book is meant to be a panoply of examples. Some of the examples feel familiar (even though I was not there), and readers can see how humans repeatedly react to the same stimuli with different variables even decades later.

Today, the Internet disperses rumor and gossip globally in hours. And once the horse is out of the barn, the act of closing the door is difficult if not impossible. And if it is, only a small sliver of the original audience hears about it. And the myths are perpetuated.

Broken into sections corresponding to the source of the story—radio, television, newspapers, the Internet, friend of a friend, and everywhere at once—this collection contains fascinating stories that you might not believe could happened…but they did. Not all the pieces are satisfying—some are too short or just end abruptly—but collectively, it’s an enjoyable parade of illustrative examples.

The first chapter hooked me. Did you know there was a major radio hoax that terrified London in 1926 before the famous H.G. Wells “War of the World” Martian invasion event? I didn’t. The best part was that American reporters noted that the same kind of thing could not happen here in the U.S. We wouldn’t fall for such mania! Yet, we did and still do. Over and over. Why?

We rely on our networks (the media, our friends and family) to inform us about trouble. It’s not that everyone is just gullible. It’s more about weighing what we see and hear and feel and making the decision we need to make from what we have to work with. If that means thinking that wild animals are on the loose in the city (Central Park Zoo escape hoax) or worrying that there is a razor wielding slasher sneaking around (Ghost slasher of Taiwan) or being paranoid that strangers are waiting around every corner to abduct our kids (Stranger Danger and the Predator Next Door), we reveal what social animals we are.

Problems arise when the information is not accurate or is a deliberate concoction. In the case of radio and TV fictional dramas that (at least some of) the audience thought was real, we see the failure of the disclaimers. People miss them or don’t pay attention. Or, other factors overwhelm assurances, such as a serious tone, historical context, or delivery from trusted sources.

For example, in a chapter devoted to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and 1990s that was sparked by a best selling book and then fueled by problematic psychotherapy techniques, the authors note that claims of upwards of 50,000 victims of kidnapping and sacrifice went unchallenged. Yet, there was not a single verified case! The tales drew from a societal fear of an evil secret network where victims were subject to horrific scenes with trusted members of the community doing unspeakable things. These stories grew in conjunction with the expansion of television programming. With the explosion of talk shows, hosts such as Geraldo Rivera garnered lots of viewers when the topic generated a moral panic such as the lurid tales of Satanic ritual abuse.

My favorite chapter was about The Batmen on the Moon, an 1835 story that marked the beginning of tabloid journalism. The hoax story included sciencey bits that are so often compelling to readers to convince them of trustworthiness. But the rival newspapers, attempting to fact check, couldn’t confirm the story and worried that they were either missing out on a huge story or, if they bit, they would look foolish for falling for a hoax. Today, with the immediate transmission of news, rumor and gossip on the same social media channels, it hardly matters. The push is for speed, not accuracy. Scoops, not integrity.

The media does not anticipate nor feel very much responsibility for the consequences of spreading less than true tales. We have seen the results in the decline of vaccination rates due to unfounded fears and the spread of conspiracy theories into the mainstream.

That’s why the topic of media-driven panics and hoaxes is very important to comprehend. We are fooled. Often. And we should remember that media is a business more so than a public service. Hyperinflation and sensationalism is the M.O. It has been in the past and will be as far as I can see down the road, and so The Martians Have Landed serves as both a history and prophetic caution for future skepticism of the media.

Democrats and Republicans

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

P. J. O'Rourke

Feel good about the government?

Feeling good about government is like looking on the bright side of any catastrophe. When you quit looking on the bright side, the catastrophe is still there.

P.J. O'Rourke

Scientology Exposed

Book reviews by Jim Lippard

This is a reprint from eSkeptic magazine, Wednesday, April 10th, 2013.
It's a little long, but intriguing. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Times are tough for the Church of Scientology. Since Skeptic’s Scientology cover issue went to press near the end of 2011, the Church of Scientology has faced increasing media attention on revelations from high-ranking defectors as well as internal criticism over its strategy of continual fundraising to build “Ideal Orgs” (or, as some wags have dubbed them, “Idle Morgues”). The latter spilled over into public view as the result of an email sent to thousands of Scientologists on December 31, 2011 which argued that this fundraising violates L. Ron Hubbard’s policies, citing and quoting chapter and verse. The sender was (at the time) a Scientologist in good standing who was well known to members of the Church—Debbie Cook, former Flag Service Organization captain known as the “face of the Sea Org” for her appearances in Sea Org recruiting videos. The Church of Scientology sued her in January, but was embarrassed by her testimony in an open court hearing in February about the abuses she witnessed at Scientology’s “Int Base,” where executives were kept in prison-like conditions in a pair of double-wide trailers known as “The Hole.” The case was quickly settled in April, and Cook moved to the Caribbean and then to Mexico.

2013 is shaping up to be even worse for the Church. In just the first six weeks of the year three major critical books have been published and an hour-long critical documentary aired on cable television. On January 7, BBC journalist John Sweeney’s The Church of Fear: Inside The Weird World of Scientology, was published. On January 16, a documentary of Nancy Many’sMy Billion-Year Contract, about her time in the Sea Org including her time in Scientology’s dirty tricks organization—the Guardian Office—aired on the new Investigation Discovery channel. January 17 saw the publication of Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, a book that grew out of his February 14, 2011 New Yorker story, “The Apostate,” a profile of Oscar-winning film director Paul Haggis’s noisy departure from Scientology. And last but not least, a memoir from the niece of the head of the Church of Scientology, Jenna Miscavige Hill’s Beyond Belief: My Secret Life Inside Scientology and My Harrowing Escape, was published on February 5.

Timed to distract from the Many documentary and Wright book, the Church of Scientology paid $50,000 for an “advertorial” on the website ofThe Atlantic magazine on January 15. The piece, titled “David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year,” argued that Scientology is growing like never before, citing the opening of numerous “Ideal Orgs.” The Atlantic’s “sponsored content” prompted such a backlash that the article was pulled from the website before the day was over. On February 3, perhaps in an attempt to garner some distracting publicity from Jenna Miscavige Hill’s book, Scientology purchased television advertising in several local markets during the Super Bowl’s half time to air an advertisement, titled “Knowledge,” which it had already released on YouTube on December 18.

Each of these books recounts a different slice of life experience with Scientology. Sweeney’s book reports the experience of a critical journalist as Scientology’s power to intimidate is beginning to decline, Hill’s book is about growing up as a third-generation Scientologist and family relation of the head of the Church, and Wright’s book focuses on Scientology as seen by its senior executive clergy and celebrities.

Wright’s book, Going Clear, is a carefully researched, detailed, and entertaining story that follows the life story of Paul Haggis from his youth in London, Ontario where he was first recruited into Scientology, to his successful career in Hollywood as a writer and director, with side trips into the life of L. Ron Hubbard, current head of the church David Miscavige, and other celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta. In the process, Wright explains much of Scientology doctrine and history, often uncovering new facts not reported in previous books.

Wright begins with Haggis’ adoption of Scientology after being handed a copy of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and being told, “You have a mind. This is the owner’s manual. Give me two dollars” (p. 3). Haggis becomes a representative of the typical public (and subsequently celebrity) Scientologist for Wright, who notes in the book’s introduction that “Few Scientologists have had a conversion experience—a sudden, radical reorientation of one’s life; more common is a gradual, wholehearted acceptance of propositions that might have been regarded as unacceptable or absurd at the outset, as well as the incremental surrender of will on the part of people who have been promised enhanced power and authority” (pp. xii–xiii). Haggis moved to Hollywood, became “Clear” #5925, and then established himself as a successful writer. Although he recognized that parts of Scientology seemed absurd—including in particular Scientology’s origin myth about Xenu the galactic warrior—Haggis has “no doubt…that he had gained some practical benefits from his several years of auditing and that his communication skills had improved” (p. 17). Because he was immersed in a community where Scientology was prevalent, with his wife, sister, and circle of friends as adherents, he came “to understand implicitly that those relationships would be jeopardized if he chose to leave the church” (pp. 17–18). These become some of the bars of the “Prison of Belief” of the book’s subtitle.

The event that ultimately led to Haggis’ departure from the church was the apparent sponsorship of California’s Proposition 8 by the Church of Scientology of San Diego. Tommy Davis, then still a spokesman for the church, said that it wasn’t actually the San Diego church that had adopted a position on the proposition, but “one guy who somehow got it in his head it would be a neat idea [to] put Church of Scientology San Diego on the list.” Davis got the church removed from the list (p. 310). Haggis, however, insisted that the Church of Scientology should issue a public statement disclaiming responsibility, while Davis declined, saying that a public statement would simply give undeserved attention to the issue. While Davis thought the issue was resolved since he heard nothing more from Haggis, Haggis began investigating criticisms of Scientology on the Internet. In the process, he came across a YouTube video in which Davis, acting as public spokesman for the church, falsely denied the existence of the practice of “disconnection” from family members or friends who are critical of the church. Haggis developed more reasons to leave, culminating in writing and sending a letter of resignation to Davis that used the church’s stance on homosexuality as the primary reason for his departure. Davis tried to bring Haggis back in to the church, but when Haggis gave permission for former #2 in the church, ex-member Marty Rathbun, to post the resignation letter on his blog, Haggis became a lost cause.

Wright’s book is an excellent introduction to the Church of Scientology, its history, and its doctrines, with a focus on the celebrity experience from recruitment to disillusion, and on what keeps current celebrity members involved. The odd experiences of Tom Cruise, who drifted away from the church only to be pulled back in, illustrate life at the very top of Scientology. David Miscavige, “chairman of the board” (“COB”) of the Religious Technology Center, who runs the church, lives a lavish lifestyle which Wright describes in detail, including his eating habits (dinner is a five-course meal, with a choice from two prepared entrees), sleeping habits (he regularly starts his day at noon, and ends at 3 or 4 a.m.), travel habits (he flies by Boeing business jet, accompanied by his hairdresser and chiropractor) and his acquisitions (he collects guns, motorcycles, automobiles, and expensive clothing) (pp. 271–272). Meanwhile, many Scientology staff work long hours for sub-minimum wage and dine on beans and rice.

The book is another damning critique of the Church of Scientology’s corruption, deception, and extraction of money from its members to build its “Super Power” building in Clearwater and its “Ideal Orgs.” Wright estimates that it has $1 billion in liquid assets and 12 million square feet of real estate worldwide, including 26 properties in Hollywood worth $400 million. There’s a stark discrepancy between Scientology’s claims and reality, which was presaged by Hubbard’s tall tales in his youth. While members think that Scientology was the product of scientific research by Hubbard, Wright’s re-examination of Hubbard’s life shows, once again, that Hubbard mixed his own tall tales and subjective experience with things he picked up from others—Korzybski, Parsons, Crowley, the U.S. Navy, and so on—to create the policies and doctrines of Scientology.

Wright’s book, though lacking the daring escape stories or depth of reporting on the Lisa McPherson case that are strengths in Janet Reitman’sInside Scientology, seems to me to more comprehensively describe Scientology doctrine and history than her account. Scientology has responded to his book similar as it did to hers, by denying its accuracy (resulting in numerous humorous footnotes in the book reporting Scientology’s absurd denials of reports by multiple witnesses). The only error I’ve seen noted in the book is his mistaken dating of Hubbard’s “tomato auditing” photo to 1968 (instead of 1959 or 1960), an error which is widespread apparently due to Life magazine’s attribution of the photo to theEvening Standard, January 1, 1968.

Wright closes his book with a comparison to other religions—Islam, Christianity, Amish and Mennonite communities, Christian Science, and especially Mormonism, a religion whose early history seems to have many parallels with Scientology. As Wright puts it, “Joseph Smith was plainly a liar” (p. 355). But such observations are unlikely to get through to the prisoner of belief, as Haggis found when he tried to persuade his friends in Scientology to read material critical of Scientology in the St. Petersburg Times (now the Tampa Bay Times), only to be told by composer Mark Isham that “it was like reading Mein Kampf if you wanted to know something about the Jewish religion” (p. 328). If a reputable newspaper criticizes your religion, it must be equivalent to Nazi propaganda and therefore not worth reading. But for those who do read the material, even if they first rationalize it away as the false complaints of unethical apostates, as Scientology encourages its members to believe, they often accumulate personal experiences confirming what they’ve read, which helps them find their way out. I hope that Wright’s book will help.

When investigative journalist John Sweeney set out to make a segment of the BBC documentary seriesPanorama about Scientology in 2007, he had some idea of the risks involved, but was unable to prepare sufficiently to avoid famously losing his temper in response to prodding from Church of Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis. The YouTube video of that outburst was picked up by the mass media and seen by millions.

This book, the first of three major books about Scientology published in the first six weeks of 2013, is narrowly focused on a specific set of events in 2007, when Sweeney conducted his investigation and interviews for what became Panorama’s “Scientology and Me.” What makes this book remarkable is that it doesn’t just include Sweeney’s perspective, it includes a Church of Scientology viewpoint, as revealed from recent leaks of internal documents and interviews with high-level defectors who coordinated the response to Sweeney’s investigation and who have now been speaking out. They were monitoring his activities, having him followed, and periodically confronting him, sometimes while he was in the middle of interviews with Scientology critics and defectors. The inside information shows how the Church, at a turning point in its history, dealt with a perceived threat.

While Sweeney received much less harassment than investigators of prior decades (notably Paulette Cooper, Joel Sappell and Robert Welkos of theLos Angeles Times, Richard Behar of Time magazine, and Richard Leiby of the Washington Post), it was apparently much more focused attention than recent investigators such as Janet Reitman and Lawrence Wright (so far as we know to date, anyway). Then-church media spokesman Tommy Davis and head of the Office of Special Affairs Mike Rinder were the key players against Sweeney, along with a “Communicator” apparently being told what to say by David Miscavige (like a Stanley Milgram “Cyranoid”). Though Rinder was nominally the senior, Sweeney perceived him at the time to be of lesser status—confirmed by the fact that Rinder had only been spending time in “The Hole,” a sort of prison for out-of-favor senior executives, but had been released to work against Sweeney. Rinder and Davis have now both left Scientology, though only Rinder is speaking out publicly.

Also noteworthy in Sweeney’s book is the record he establishes of Scientologists who have reached Operating Thetan III, yet are perfectly willing to lie by issuing false denials of familiarity with the story of the evil Galactic overlord Xenu found in that level of Scientology. Sweeney states: “A ‘religion’ that hides its core belief from the world is not a religion because a true religion must be open about itself to all.” But this is a tendentious definition of “true religion” (Sweeney attributes it to the Charity Commission in the UK) that excludes esoteric and occult traditions, as well as the Druze faith. It is in fact not uncommon for religious traditions to excuse both secrecy and lying to non-members about the secrets.

The book is somewhat marred by a number of errors including repeated misspellings of the names of Kirstie Alley, Kendrick Moxon, and the Kia Sedona minivan. More significant mistakes include an assertion that Hubbard was a friend of Aleister Crowley (they never met, though Hubbard lived with Crowley follower John Parsons in 1945–46 and borrowed elements of Scientology from Crowley’s work), and a claim that in 1993 the “Inland [sic: Internal] Revenue Service reversed its previous position and declared the Church a religion” (the IRS doesn’t determine what counts as a religion).

Sweeney’s book doesn’t cover the broad ground of books like Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear and Janet Reitman’s Inside Scientology, but it is an entertaining and revealing look at the experiences of a journalist investigating Scientology at a turning point in its history.

Jenna Miscavige Hill was a third-generation Scientologist. Her maternal grandmother, Janna Blythe, started with Hubbard’s science fiction in the 1950s, was an advocate ofDianetics by 1957, and joined Scientology in 1969. Blythe and her husband and their nine children all joined the Sea Org on the shipExcalibur, but most returned to being “public” Scientologists after only a few months. Jenna’s mother, Elizabeth or “Bitty,” refused to leave the ship even though she was still a minor. On her father’s side, her grandfather, Ronald Miscavige Sr., also brought his whole family into Scientology when he joined in the 1970s. His two sons, Ron Jr. and David, both joined the Sea Org as teenagers. Jenna’s parents had been Scientologists for 15 years by the time she was born, though they both left the Sea Org beforehand. But just before she was two, they decided to rejoin the Sea Org, at about the same time her uncle David was taking control of the entire Church of Scientology.

Beyond Belief tells Jenna Miscavige Hill’s story of life growing up not only in Scientology, but in the Sea Org as a close relative of the head of the church. While her name gave her some occasional benefits, her family’s lifestyle was not like that of her uncle (described in Lawrence Wright’s book). Her parents’ positions in the Sea Org meant that in her early years she lived in a small two-bedroom apartment with another family, the Rinders. She would go for months at a time without seeing her mother, and would often see her father only once a week. She thought that joining the Sea Org herself held the promise of seeing her parents more often, and she signed her own billion-year contract at the age of 7. But the promise was a false one, and she saw less of them rather than more. Her exposure to the world outside of Scientology was virtually nil, and once she was in the Sea Org, even the life of a public Scientologist became foreign to her.

As a child cadet in the Sea Org, Jenna lived at a Scientology boarding school known as “The Ranch” in the California desert, not far from Int Base at Gilman Hot Springs, where her father and uncle lived. Her days would begin at 6:30 a.m. with cleaning, followed by morning muster, roll call, and personal inspections at 7 a.m. This was followed by “Chinese school,” where students would repetitively and in unison read aloud L. Ron Hubbard quotations written on sheets of butcher paper. All cadets had assigned work positions in a formal organizational structure with children as commanding officers. Seven-year-old Jenna’s assigned post was Medical Liaison Officer responsible for treating sick children (p. 55) and providing vitamins to the healthy. While Scientology didn’t permit the use of medicine for the treatment of pain or fever (“touch assists” were prescribed for such ailments), it did allow for MMR vaccinations (p. 57). At 9:15 a.m. was second muster, followed by “deck work” or labor intensive projects, which lasted until 12:45 p.m. on weekdays and all day long on Saturdays. Projects included laundry, pool cleaning, weeding, planting trees, digging trenches, and hauling rocks. Hard labor in the “Heavy MEST [Scientology acronym for matter, energy, space, and time] Work Unit” was assigned as punishment for underperformers (p. 61). After deck work came lunch and cleanup, followed by academic course work from 1:45 p.m. to 6 p.m. Following Hubbard’s educational methods, there was no formal instruction, but only self-directed study under the watchful eye of a “course supervisor.” Dinner and more cleanup ran from 6–6:45 p.m., and the study of Scientology until 9 p.m. Hubbard policy applied to all aspects of life, and courses had to be taken and their prescriptions followed for everything—how to clean a room, how to make a bed, and how to ride a bicycle (p. 80).

While Jenna found this environment unpleasant, she was afraid to complain about it to her parents and instead decided to run away with another unhappy cadet, stealing fresh eggs from a chicken coop that were reserved for her uncle. They were quickly apprehended and assigned to “lower conditions” as punishment, which forced them to work their way back into the good graces of their fellow cadets. She notes that this was actually the second time she had stolen her uncle’s eggs, having previously taken some and put them into a dresser drawer hoping to hatch chicks. When she was caught at that, she was forced to write a letter of confession to David Miscavige. Rather than getting in trouble, he “wrote…back and explained that my drawer was probably not warm enough for the eggs, and that I would need an incubator if I wanted to succeed in hatching them” (pp. 83–84).

Several of Jenna’s early experiences with her uncle, described in the book, depict him as a normal, kindly relative, even as she started to accumulate evidence that her parents were hiding something from her. For example, while living with her mother, who was a senior Sea Org executive in Clearwater with a nice apartment to herself, she would occasionally visit her mother’s office. Her mother told her not to be in the office when her Uncle Dave was there. On one occasion she heard him coming down the hall and tried unsuccessfully to hide, which he subsequently joked about with her (pp. 139–140). Her father similarly escorted her out of a situation where Miscavige was about to berate some staff over a sound system problem at a Scientology event (p. 141).

After her mother got caught having an affair and was put on the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF), Jenna started receiving “sec checks,” E-meter sessions that were intended to uncover evidence of wrongdoing rather than self-improvement (p. 185). Her brother was also put on the RPF, and ended up leaving the church. In 1997, she saw people protesting the death of Lisa McPherson at the Ft. Harrison Hotel building in downtown Clearwater. Some picket signs made reference to Xenu, the Galactic overlord of OT III, which Scientologists are not permitted to know about until they are properly trained. Sea Org members were no longer permitted to walk between buildings, but instead were shuttled in vans with contact paper over the windows to shield them from seeing the dangerous material (pp. 221–222). The only error I noted in the book was Hill’s statement that the Lisa McPherson Trust, which helped organize these protests, had “a staff of five, four of whom were former Scientologists, the fifth was [funder Bob] Minton” (p. 220); Jeff Jacobsen and Mark Bunker were two LMT staff members who were never Scientologists.

The book continues with her life through the reconciliation of her parents and their departure from the Church of Scientology, and her decision to stay even though she was still under 18. The church remained suspicious of her loyalties and controlling of her life, which caused further friction when her love life was involved. An assignment to Canberra, Australia with her new husband gave her a level of exposure to the world outside of Scientology and a chance to examine information critical of Scientology online. Ultimately, she departed the church, reunited with her family, and became a co-founder of exscientologykids.org.

Beyond Belief is one of the better books by an ex-member. While she suffered nothing like the abuses of members who were assigned to the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF), physically beaten by senior executives, coerced to have abortions, and separated from their spouses, her book is unique in a number of respects. I believe it is the only book by a third-generation Scientologist that describes life as a child of parents in the Sea Org, and certainly is the only book by someone in such a position who is also a relative of the head of the Church of Scientology. Jenna Hill didn’t advance very far “up the Bridge,” during her time in the church—she didn’t even become clear, let alone achieve any of the OT levels, and, like most of the general public who has heard of Xenu, she learned about OT III from the animated television series South Park (p. 372). Her lack of progress in Scientology and the occasional preferential treatment she received will likely be used by Scientology as reasons why her book should be disregarded. But the contrary lesson is probably the better one—her story shows that even members of the head of the Church of Scientology’s own family get mistreated, which is why David Miscavige’s brother, his brother’s family, and his own father have left.

Tread lightly, take only pictures, steal only time, leave only footprints

The author of this quote is unknown, but it has been used over and over by many sources for as long as I can remember.

As a life long hiker, wilderness backpacker, and mountaineer, I took this simple phrase as a kind of mantra. I've been to an unnumbered list of places, and did my best to leave as little impact as possible at each. However, as I have gotten older and more introspective, I began to ponder if this simple phrase didn't have a deeper meaning, waiting under the surface for us to discover. I've heard it and said it myself many times, so did it, or was I just looking for something that wasn't there?

Maybe having children and then a grandchild has altered my thinking. I have lost my parents and a brother through their passing. I have also suffered the untimely loss of friends, people I deeply respected or admired, and others who, although they never knew me, impacted my life in ways I never thought possible. Looking at my life and all of my experiences, both good and bad, has molded me into the person I am, but not necessarily the one I chose to be.

Then I began to see something else in it, like discovering the hidden magic in an unhurried sunrise on a Spring morning. This was less about the physical steps I've been taking, and more of a testimonial on how to live... and reach the end of what you can only hope will be a long and enjoyable life. So I asked myself...

Will I leave behind me footprints that others can feel, enjoy, and know of the kind of person I was? Have I left a pleasing, memorable, and lasting impression for those I loved, those that only knew me, and others who will come to know me through my actions and deeds, and stories others will tell about me?

What about you? 

Did you take only pictures? Did you steal only time?

What kind of footprints will YOU leave?

What I've learned...

Slowly, but surely, I've been going through all of the parts of my hard drive where I have not been in a while, sorting out and removing old files that go back five or six computer upgrades ago. Around the time when I was using a Mac IIvx, I did a lot of writing and collecting of interesting pieces, I felt were thoughtful and worthy of keeping. 

This one is from an old Microsoft Word file that dates back to April 23, 1998. I don't remember writing this, so it must be something I found while involved during the time of taking some manuscript classes. I still like it. Maybe there is something in for you too. Enjoy.

I’ve learned that you cannot make someone love you.  All you can do is be someone who can be loved.  The rest is up to them.

I’ve learned that no matter how much I care, some people just don’t care back.

I’ve learned that it takes years to build up trust, and only seconds to destroy it.

I’ve learned that it’s not what you have in your life, but who you have in your life that counts.

I’ve learned that you can get by on charm for about 15 minutes.  After that, you’d better know something.

I’ve learned that you shouldn’t compare yourself to the best others can do, but to the best you can do.

I’ve learned that it’s not what happens to people that’s important. It’s what they do about it.

I’ve learned that you can do something in an instant that will give you a heartache for life.

I’ve learned that no matter how thin you slice it, there are always two sides.

I’ve learned that it’s taking me a long time to become the person I want to be.

I’ve learned that it’s a lot easier to react than it is to think.

I’ve learned that you should always leave loved ones with loving words.  It may be the last time you see them.

I’ve learned that you can keep going long after you think you can’t.

I’ve learned that we are responsible for what we do, no matter how we feel.

I’ve learned that either you control your attitude or it controls you.

I’ve learned that regardless of how hot and steamy a relationship is at first, the passion fades and there had better be something else to take its place.

I’ve learned that heroes are the people who do what has to be done when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.

I’ve learned that learning to forgive takes practice.

I’ve learned that there are people who love you dearly, but just don’t know how to show it.

I’ve learned that money is a lousy way of keeping score.

I’ve learned that my best friend and I can do anything or nothing and have the best time.

I’ve learned that sometimes the people you expect to kick you when you’re down may be the ones to help you get back up.

I’ve learned that I’m getting more and more like my grandpa, and I’m kinda happy about it.

I’ve learned that sometimes when I’m angry I have the right to be angry, but that doesn’t give me the right to be cruel.

I’ve learned that true friendship continues to grow, even over the longest distance.  Same goes for true love.

I’ve learned that just because someone doesn’t love you the way you want them to doesn’t mean they don’t love you with all they have.

I’ve learned that maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you’ve had and what you’ve learned from them, and less to do with how many birthdays you’ve celebrated.

I’ve learned that you should never tell a child her dreams are unlikely or outlandish.  Few things are more humiliating, and what a tragedy it would be if she believed it.

I’ve learned that your family won’t always be there for you.  It may seem funny, but people you aren’t related to can take care of you and love you and teach you to trust people again.

I’ve learned that no matter how good a friend someone is, they’re going to hurt you every once in a while and you must forgive them for that.

I’ve learned that it isn’t always enough to be forgiven by others. Sometimes you have to learn to forgive yourself.

I’ve learned that no matter how badly your heart is broken, the world doesn’t stop for your grief.

I’ve learned that our background and circumstances may have influenced who we are, but we are responsible for who we become.

I’ve learned that sometimes when my friends fight, I’m forced to choose sides even when I don’t want to.

I’ve learned that just because two people argue, it doesn’t mean they don’t love each other.  And just because they don’t argue, it doesn’t mean they do.

I’ve learned that sometimes you have to put the individual ahead of their actions.

I’ve learned that we don’t have to change friends if we understand that friends change.

I’ve learned that if you don’t want to forget something, stick it in your underwear drawer.

I’ve learned that you shouldn’t be so eager to find out a secret.  It could change your life forever.

I’ve learned that the clothes I like best are the ones with the most holes in them.

I’ve learned that two people can look at the exact same thing and see something totally different.

I’ve learned that no matter how you try to protect your children, they will eventually get hurt and you will hurt in the process.

I’ve learned that there are many ways of falling and staying in love.

I’ve learned that no matter the consequences, those who are honest with themselves get further in life.

I’ve learned that many things can be powered by the mind; the trick is self-control.

I’ve learned that no matter how many friends you have, if you are their pillar, you will feel lonely and lost at the times you need them most.

I’ve learned that your life can be changed in a matter of hours by people who don’t even know you.

I’ve learned that even when you think you have no more to give, when a friend cries out to you, you will find the strength to help.

I’ve learned that writing, as well as talking, can ease emotional pains.

I’ve learned that the paradigm we live in is not all that is offered to us.

I’ve learned that credentials on the wall do not make you a decent human being.

I’ve learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon.

I’ve learned that although the word “love” can have many different meanings, it loses value when overly used.

I’ve learned that it’s hard to determine where to draw the line between being nice and not hurting people’s feelings, and standing up for what you believe.

I’ve learned that love is not for me to keep, but to pass on to the next person.

I’ve learned that even if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, it’s still the wrong thing to do.

Artha Gallery is closing its doors

Sue and I have run the web site Artha Gallery since around 2005. It has been great, and we have enjoyed an opportunity to do something like this. Originally, it began as a small gift shop called Simbatta, beginning in 2001, in Mesa, AZ. It eventually evolved to point we are now.

On June 1, 2013, we will be shutting down the site and rolling up the rugs for good. Over the years, the number of internet sites has increased dramatically, and a little mom and pop site like ours just can't compete against them. 

The main product of interest has been our ebony martial art products. They were great, and we shipped these to corners of the world I can only imagine. However, our supplier in the Philippines has apparently vanished, so we have watched our inventory dwindle over time. 

We also have offered a fantastic cross-section of fine Asian gifts, most of which are handcrafted Korean items. These were the things I  enjoyed displaying, because they bring along with them such history and culture of the Korean people.

Although the number of visitors has stayed strong, the number of customers has decreased. We are now to the point where keeping the site open has become a personal expense, and less of a profitable venture. 

I invite you to go there and look around. If you find something while we are still in business, please buy it. I can guarantee that you will not find better prices for items like these anywhere. We have been uncommon in our offering, and the things we sold would be still difficult to find, even now an internet site. Some are absolutely unique.

We appreciate all of the many world wide customers we have connect with over the years. You have made all of this possible. 

Exercise Myths and the Real Deal

This post comes from a good friend of mine, Marlene Harris. I have posted things of hers in the past and welcome her informative inputs on things fitness and health.

1). Exercising Turns Fat Into Muscle   
The real deal: “Fat cells can never be turned into muscle cells and vice versa,” says Wayne Westcott, PhD, head of the Exercise Science Program at Quincy College in Quincy, MA. “They’re two different tissues.” You can, however, reduce the amount of fat in your fat cells and increase the size of your muscles.

2). Ab Exercises Will Flatten Your Belly   
The real deal: If you do hundreds of crunches, or better yet become a regular at pilates class, your abs will be in great shape. If only you could see them. While it’s entirely possible to “spot strengthen” muscles with targeted strength training, you can’t “spot reduce” the fat around them, says Laura Dosdall, certified trainer. You have to burn more calories than you eat, and unfortunately, you have little say in what goes first. A better bet? Crank up your intensity. Studies have found that vigorous exercise, like sprint exercises for 20 minutes, burns up to 5 times more fat than trekking more leisurely for twice as long. 

3). A Six-Pack Is a Sure Sign of a Strong Core    
The real deal: “A six-pack is a sign of leanness, not a strong core,” says Dan Trink, director of personal training operations. “A strong core really involves hips, glutes, lower back, and abdominals working together to produce force or transfer force to your extremities. Conversely, you can have a really strong core with absolutely no sign of a six pack.” Case in point: powerlifters.

4). Slow Workouts Burn More Fat   
The real deal: Like most myths, there’s a grain of truth somewhere. “Our cells need oxygen to convert fat to energy,” explains Mary Jayne Johnson, PhD, an exercise physiologist and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. “So we thought for years that low-intensity aerobics was better for burning fat.” What matters more, however, is burning more calories than you take in, and it takes longer to burn calories at a slower pace--more than 4 times as long. In one study exercisers who alternated 30 seconds of sprinting with 4 minutes of rest to catch their breath for a total of 2.5 hours a week got the same benefits as those who did long, slow exercise for 10.5 hours a week. Studies have also shown that this kind of interval training can also boost your body’s fat-burning capacity in just 2 weeks, so you’ll burn more flab even when you’re lapping the grocery store.
 
5). You Only Need to Exercise If You Have Weight to Lose     
The real deal: Ever heard the term “skinny-fat”? According to Mayo Clinic researchers, over half of so-called normal weight adults fall into this category, defined as having more than 30 percent body fat for women or 20 percent for men. And the risks go beyond an unfortunate muffin top. Too much body fat puts you at the same disease risk as an obese person—you’re just more likely to fly under the radar as conditions like diabetes progress. But don’t try to diet your way out of this one—it can actually make the problem worse, since dieters who cut calories alone tend to lose more pounds of lean muscle (in effect increasing your percentage of body fat). It’s time to get moving.

6). Pilates creates long, lean muscles   
The real deal: Pilates is a great way to exercise, but it’s not going to reshape your muscles. “All muscles are lean—have you ever heard of a 'fat muscle'?” says Trink. “Muscle length is determined completely by genetics, so if you don't have the 'long, lean muscles' you’re looking for, blame your parents, not your training.” Tumminello adds, “If your goal is to look leaner, you have to drop body fat and the best way to do that is to strictly control what goes into your mouth.”
 
7). Lifting Heavy Weights Will Make You Look Like a Bodybuilder   
The real deal: Looking like a bodybuilder takes a precise combination of weight training, diet, and hormones. Women do not have enough testosterone to “get big,” even if they did pack themselves full of protein shakes, explains Jessica Cummings, a certified trainer. Want proof? In a study at Central Michigan University, researchers had women train one arm doing a just a few reps of a heavy weight and the other doing more reps with a lighter weight (both lifting an equivalent number of pounds). Surprise: The heavy lifters got stronger, but gained no more size than the arm lifting the wimpy weights.

8). You Have to Lift Heavy Weights to Get Stronger   
The real deal: OK, so we’ve established that heavy weights won’t make you huge. But they’re not the only way. A new study from McMaster University in Canada explored different types of training and found that as long as you keep lifting that light weight until you can’t lift it anymore, you can get the same or more muscle-building stimulation in your cells as you would lifting a bigger weight fewer times, but it will take longer.

9). Stretching Prevents Injuries   
The real deal: You’ve been trained to stretch before and after exercise since the first time you played dodge ball in elementary school gym class, and you’ve probably heard plenty of sporty friends—and even so-called fitness experts—swear by it. Yet despite decades of research on thousands of subjects the fact remains: There’s simply very little evidence that faithful stretchers are any less likely to get injured than the rest of us. Will reaching for your toes hurt you? No, not likely—unless you’re trying to jump or hoist a heavy weight immediately afterward, in which case some research suggests you might be momentarily weaker. It might even feel good. And stretching will make you more flexible. Just try not to stretch your expectations.

 10). Cooling Down Will Keep You from Getting Sore   
The real deal: There’s actually very little science to support the idea that a slow walk on your treadmill automatically triggers healing at the end of your workout. When Australian researchers had exercisers either warm-up, cool-down, do neither, or do both in conjunction with a soreness-inducing workout session, only the warm-up slightly reduced their next-day aches. The only proven benefit of cooling down: It helps your body to gradually redistribute the blood your heart has been quickly pumping to your legs to fuel the big muscles there for exercise, preventing possible light-headedness (like standing up too fast). But the walk to the locker room will do the trick.
 
11). Working Out on an Empty Stomach Burns More Fat   
The real deal: While some studies do insist that running on empty forces your body to burn more fat, other researchers are quick to point out that the fat you burn from the muscles doesn’t have any impact on your waistline. But let the scientists split hairs all they want. If you’re aiming to lose weight, having adequate energy to fuel your workout will have a much greater impact on overall burn than torching a couple extra calories from fat will, says Jessica Smith, a certified fitness and wellness expert who lost more than 50 pounds before becoming a personal trainer 10 years ago. The more vigorously you exercise, the fitter you’ll get, and the more efficient of a fat burner your body will become. Filling your tank with a nutritious meal or snack within a few hours of exercise may also help to prevent post-workout binges that can occur when you finish your session feeling famished.

12). Staying Off Your Feet Soothes Sore Muscles   
The real deal: Getting the body into motion through stretching and light cardio activity is what reduces muscle soreness the fastest. “Blood contains healing properties,” says author, celebrity trainer, and life coach Michael George. Moving around will increase the circulation of that nutrient-rich blood, which loosens tense muscle tissue and helps the body to release lactic acid buildup, free radicals, and toxins. “Use your non-training days to perform active recovery such as a non-intense incline walk on the treadmill or a leisurely bike ride,” suggests Trink.

13). Popping Ibuprofen Prevents Sore Muscles     
The real deal: Taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can fight the pain and inflammation associated with injuries, but when it comes to exercise-induced soreness, they’re not the right choice. Appalachian State University researchers found that participants who took ibuprofen before and during the Western States Endurance Run, a 100-mile trail race, didn’t finish any faster than those who didn’t take anything, nor did they experience less muscle damage or soreness the following week. What their blood tests did show, however, was higher levels of endotoxemia—the presence of toxins in the bloodstream. The muscle damage that occurs during new or intense exercise is essential to muscle growth. Taking NSAIDs, however, may impair the body’s natural recovery process, essentially canceling out strength gains.

What Science Really Says About the Soul

The following is a reprint from the Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 edition of eSkeptic magazine. Decide for yourself how much you wish to believe.

What Science Really Says About the Soul

BY STEPHEN CAVE

Nathalie was hemorrhaging badly. She felt weak, cold, and the pain in her abdomen was excruciating. A nurse ran out to fetch the doctor, but by the time they arrived she knew she was slipping away. The doctor was shouting instructions when quite suddenly the pain stopped. She felt free—and found herself floating above the drama, looking down at the bustle of activity around her now still body.

“We’ve lost her,” she heard the doctor say, but Nathalie was already moving on and upwards, into a tunnel of light. She first felt a pang of anxiety at leaving her husband and children, but it was soon overwhelmed by a feeling of profound peace; a feeling that it would all be okay. At the end of the tunnel, a figure of pure radiance was waiting with arms wide open.

This, or something like it, is how millions imagine what it will be like to die. In 2009, over 70 percent of Americans said they believe that they, like Nathalie, have a soul that will survive the end of their body. That figure may well now be higher after the phenomenal success of two recent books describing vivid near death experiences: one from an innocent—the four year old Todd Burpo—the other from the opposite: a Harvard scientist and former skeptic, neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander.²Both argue that when their brains stopped working, their souls floated off to experience a better place.

This is an attractive view and a great consolation to those who have lost loved ones or who are contemplating their own mortality. Many also believe this view to be beyond the realm of science, to concern a different dimension into which no microscope can peer. Dr. Alexander, for example, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Our spirit is not dependent on the brain or body; it is eternal, and no one has one sentence worth of hard evidence that it isn’t.”³

But he is wrong. The evidence of science, when brought together with an ancient argument, provides a very powerful case against the existence of a soul that can carry forward your essence once your body fails. The case runs like this: with modern brain-imaging technology, we can now see how specific, localized brain injuries damage or even destroy aspects of a person’s mental life. These are the sorts of dysfunctions that Oliver Sacks brought to the world in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat.⁴ The man of the title story was a lucid, intelligent music teacher, who had lost the ability to recognize faces and other familiar objects due to damage to his visual cortex.

Since then, countless examples of such dysfunction have been documented—to the point that every part of the mind can now be seen to fail when some part of the brain fails. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has studied many such cases.⁵ He records a stroke victim, for example, who had lost any capacity for emotion; patients who lost all creativity following brain surgery; and others who lost the ability to make decisions. One man with a brain tumor lost what we might call his moral character, becoming irresponsible and disregarding of social norms. I saw something similar in my own father, who also had a brain tumor: it caused profound changes in his personality and capacities before it eventually killed him.

The crux of the challenge then is this: those who believe they have a soul that survives bodily death typically believe that this soul will enable them, like Nathalie in the story above, to see, think, feel, love, reason and do many other things fitting for a happy afterlife. But if we each have a soul that enables us to see, think and feel after the total destruction of the body, why, in the cases of dysfunction documented by neuroscientists, do these souls not enable us to see, think and feel when only a small portion of the brain is destroyed?

To make the argument clear, we can take the example of sight. If either your eyes or the optic nerves in your brain are sufficiently badly damaged, you will go blind. This tells us very clearly that the faculty of sight is dependent upon functioning eyes and optic nerves.

Yet curiously, when many people imagine their soul leaving their body, they imagine being able to see—like Nathalie, looking down on her own corpse surrounded by frantic doctors.⁶ They believe, therefore, that their soul can see. But if the soul can see when the entire brain and body have stopped working, why, in the case of people with damaged optic nerves, can’t it see when only part of the brain and body have stopped working? In other words, if blind people have a soul that can see, why are they blind?

So eminent a theologian as Saint Thomas Aquinas, writing 750 years ago, believed this question had no satisfactory answer.⁷ Without its body—without eyes, ears and nose—he thought the soul would be deprived of all senses, waiting blindly for the resurrection of the flesh to make it whole again. Aquinas concluded that the body-less soul would have only those powers that (in his view) were not dependent upon bodily organs: faculties such as reason and understanding.

But now we can see that these faculties are just as dependent upon a bodily organ—the brain—as sight is upon the eyes. Unlike in Aquinas’s day, we can now keep many people with brain damage alive and use neuroimaging to observe the correlations between that damage and their behavior. And what we observe is that the destruction of certain parts of the brain can destroy those cognitive faculties once thought to belong to the soul. So if he had had the evidence of neuroscience in front of him, we can only imagine that Aquinas himself would have concluded that these faculties also stop when the brain stops.

In fact, evidence now shows that everything the soul is supposed to be able to do—think, remember, love—fails when some relevant part of the brain fails. Even consciousness itself—otherwise there would be no general anesthetics. A syringe full of chemicals is sufficient to extinguish all awareness. For anyone who believes something like the Nathalie story—that consciousness can survive bodily death—this is an embarrassing fact. If the soul can sustain our consciousness after death, when the brain has shut down permanently, why can it not do so when the brain has shut down temporarily?

Some defenders of the soul have, of course, attempted to answer this question. They argue, for example, that the soul needs a functioning body in this world, but not in the next. One view is that the soul is like a broadcaster and the body like a receiver—something akin to a television station and a TV set. (Though as our body is also the source of our sensory input, we have to imagine the TV set also has a camera on top feeding images to the distant station.)

We know that if we damage our TV set, we get a distorted picture. And if we break the set, we get no picture at all. The naive observer would believe the program was therefore gone. But we know that it is really still being transmitted; that the real broadcaster is actually elsewhere. Similarly, the soul could still be sending its signal even though the body is no longer able to receive it.

This response sounds seductive, but helps little. First, it does not really address the main argument at all: Most believers expect their soul to be able to carry forward their mental life with or without the body; this is like saying that the TV signal sometimes needs a TV set to transform it into the picture, but once the set is kaput, can make the picture all by itself. But if it can make the picture all by itself, why does it sometimes act through an unreliable set?

Second, changes to our bodies impact on our minds in ways not at all analogous to how damage to a TV set changes its output, even if we take into account damage to the camera too. The TV analogy claims there is something that remains untouched by such damage, some independent broadcaster preserving the real program even if it is distorted by bad reception. But this is precisely what the evidence of neuroscience undermines. Whereas damage to the TV set or camera might make the signal distorted or fuzzy, damage to our brains much more profoundly alters our minds. As we noted above, such damage can even change our moral views, emotional attachments, and the way we reason.

Which suggests we are nothing like a television; but much more like, for example, a music box: the music is not coming from elsewhere, but from the workings within the box itself. When the box is damaged, the music is impaired; and if the box is entirely destroyed, then the music stops for good.

There is much about consciousness that we still do not understand. We are only beginning to decipher its mysteries, and may never fully succeed. But all the evidence we have suggests that the wonders of the mind—even near-death and out of body experiences—are the effect of neurons firing. Contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of people on Earth, from Hindus to New Age spiritualists, consciousness depends upon the brain and shares its fate to the end.