It's going to be an interesting year

Before I left home, my dad insisted that I read up on Congressman Ron Paul's weblog (thanks, Dad!). Paul, a Libertarian, is vying for presidential candidacy on the Republican ticket. Three months ago, after reading what he has to say--after hearing the way he thinks (logically! honestly! imagine!), I thought no way will he ever make real waves before he's silenced in some way or another. However, Congressman Paul is sure as hell proving me wrong. The Republicans are awfully uncomfortable with him hanging around, and it would be comical if it weren't so sickening what lengths the Fox news allegiance and co. will do to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/160507rigsdebate.htm

the entire debates are available here:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272672,00.html

oh yeah and recent news says that members of the GOP actually want to ban Paul from further debates. I'll be honest, I don't agree with a lot of what he says (not so keen on his views about abortion), but at this point i think he's just the person to shake things up in the right way.

[disclaimer: i usually ignore politics so i apologise for any grave lapses of reason in terms of my supporting this guy.]


Just so long as I'm being all "hey go look at this", i've been poking around this site again after years of neglect: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/

it's weird... last week i wrote a paper arguing as a hard-liner materialist about human consciousness. i handed the paper in feeling that i had really made a good point against Merlin Donald's semi-dualistic view of the mind. talking about it with someone a few hours later, it hit me that, "oh. wait. that's not necessarily what i really think about the mind at all!" I'll explain: I don't know what's the truth about consciousness/minds/souls/spirits/freedom. no one does! and yet, science relentlessly scorns "spooky" or "paranormal" properties, just as religion and much of philosophy react in abject horror to the idea that materialism might mean we are utterly mortal and without free will. I don't profess to know who's right, but I think it is beyond shameful--ESPECIALLY for the so-called scientists (neurologists/cognitivists/psychologists/biologists/etc)--that ideas and opinions are smothered for fear of their upending the way the world has been thought of up to this point (god forbid they have to toss out their personal crusades and admit they are wrong!). I'm aware that for all neurobiology can say up to this point, that every belief i have and everything i choose are bound to causal events that my experience of consciousness cannot access--and therefore when i die, that's it. When that's proven, fine, but we don't have the tools. So basically, I'm revisiting this website with intent to write about the possiblity that physics can prove that human minds continue on from the physical realm after death. I've already been given "that look" by my teacher for suggesting i might be looking into arguing for dualism, and got something along the lines of "don't write about the paranormal". I've found out this semester that it's really contentious to make claims about our lack of free will; apparently, it's even more dangerous to go the other way. Sweet.

Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.