Blog powered by Typepad

« Cool | Main | Atlas Shrugged: the movie »


You've been facebooked.

I think I have facebook just to see what videos that interest me friends are posting.

Some "friends" post some great footage about parapsychology once in a while.

if your signifant other uses facebook I would advise you to run while you can.^^

The virtual chaos that may ensue is all but joyful.

Me too, Michael.

I didn't resist it as such - I just couldn't get my head round the concept of treating total strangers as friends. Being warmly wished a happy birthday by people who the day before didn't know I existed, for instance,

I suppose one gets into the swing of it - like everything. It seems a good place to be for authors, if you know how to use it.

I don't have the heart to subject you to my inanities, or the stomach for the inevitable 'unfriending' they'd force you to! ;-D

I look forward to poking you, Michael.

I find that social networking is good if you actually have some friends and family that use it.

"I look forward to poking you, Michael."

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds dirty?


Facebook/MySpace Tied to Most Divorce Cases
Tiffany Kaiser - February 11, 2011 9:11 AM

"Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace are great tools when used to stay connected with friends and family. But now, Raleigh, NC attorneys are saying that almost every divorce case they work with involves a spouse's misuse of these sites.
Lee Rosen, an attorney with Rosen Law Firm in Raleigh, and Alice Stubbs, an attorney with Tharrington Smith LLP in Raleigh, have agreed that a majority of the divorce cases they handle are related to problems with a spouse's behavior on social networking sites."

full article can be read @:

Art, that doesn't surprise me. I've had Facebook friends fight with their spouses openly on FB. I've even seen people flirt inappropriately via FB just to upset their partner. Personally, I don't post any content that I wouldn't want my mom to read. I wouldn't want Mom to think she had raised an idiot, so I'm not likely to torment Hubby online anytime soon.

A friend of mine at Church who is a psychologist/counselor had mentioned in church several weeks ago that Facebook and Myspace was responsible for a lot of divorces these days and then I saw the online article about the same thing. Thought ya'll might find it interesting.

Hi Art

I'm not sure if Facebook causes the divorces, or rather it provides a platform for the problems to arise. It is an interesting social phenomenon though.

Facebook gives me hearburn, but some people seem to love to "poke each other" and for social extraverts all manner of information regaring future activities are often only available on FB, I however could not stand it. Though it is only a matter of time before pets have their pages complete with social updates.

Nemo, I hate to tell you this, but many pets already have their own FB pages.

That is exactly what every pet needs. Hilarious.

"I look forward to poking you, Michael"

Sounded dirty to me, hehe. And as such, I wouldn't leave that :-O emoticon you signed off with to tempt him! lol

On a cleaner note, Just sent you a friend request. Looking forward to it. I promise not to poke!

Also, in my friend request, I provided a link on how to link your fan page. I hope it was what you were looking for.

Thanks, J9. I'll look for it.

Also sent you a friend request

I was a bad girl on FB this morning. A friend of a friend who "friended" me is very right wing and militantly religious. I try to ignore that, because she isn't a bad person, just a little uninformed. But I felt the need to comment this morning. I expect to be unfriended very soon, lol.

Art, have you heard this yet?

I'd heard of it but haven't listened to it because it's two hours long (two one hour programs) video and it would probably put me to sleep trying to sit quietly and listen to it.

I would prefer a short abstract of just a few paragraphs to just sort of clue me in on what the deal is. I scrolled down and noticed there was a program on the bottom they refer to about the holographic universe. I tried to click on it and there was nothing there.

anyway, do you have anything shorter that is just a couple of pages I could read in like 15 minutes or less? I'll tell you what, I'll bookmark it and sometime when I think I can stay awake for that long I'll try and listen to it.

When you scroll down to the links section, there is one to the My Big Toe website. That links to videos and shorter podcasts that you might like better.

cool article

So what exactly makes consciousness

This is the kind of stuff I really love. Objective evidence proving that we so far haven't understood the workings of the brain and consciousness at all!

The case of the three-year-old child with no cerebellum brings to mind the studies of Dr. John Lorber at Sheffield University in the 1970’s. Dr. Lorber was a pediatrician who examined over 600 cases of hydrocephalus, a condition where the ventricles of the brain fill up with cerebrospinal fluid. In the most severe cases, where up to 95% of the volume of the brain was filled with fluid, he found that half of the individuals had IQ’s that were higher than average. One student at the university was an outstanding mathematician with an IQ of 126. He had only a thin coating of brain cells on the interior of his skull and a patch of brain tissue of the top of his spine.

"He had only a thin coating of brain cells on the interior of his skull and a patch of brain tissue of the top of his spine."

I've been aware of cases like this ever since I began studying NDE's in the early 90's. It always surprises me that we don't hear more about these brainless (or relatively so) individuals who lead normal lives. It seems like such a nail in the coffin for the notion that memories are stored in the brain.

Does anyone know how the skeptics/materialists try to explain these cases away? Maybe, with the boy, one could argue that other areas of the brain have learned to take over the functions of the missing parts, but how about the guy described in the quote above?

It just occurred to me, though, that cases like these (no-brainers?) are a problem not only for the "production" theory, but also for the "transmission" theory. If Jack can live a normal life without a brain, then it's obvious that the brain doesn't produce consciousness.

But since Jack's brain is not available to receive and transmit consciousness either, there's still a mystery there, right?

Still—I think I'd rather be put in the position of having to explain these cases as a spiritually-oriented person than as a materialist.

Come to think of it, I'd hate to have to explain ANYTHING from a materialist position. :o)

“Does anyone know how the skeptics/materialists try to explain these cases away? Maybe, with the boy, one could argue that other areas of the brain have learned to take over the functions of the missing parts, but how about the guy described in the quote above?”
Bruce: From what I have seen they try to stretch the idea of brain plasticity to cover even the most extreme cases. I believe their preferred method would be, however, to put the cases in their anomalies drawer, lock it up and hide the key. I.e., just ignore them.

I think you raise an interesting point about the transmission theory. How can there be any consciousness at all if the brain is essentially destroyed? I’m not sure this meets the problem head-on, but consider the work of the well-known brain surgeon, Wilder Penfield. He exposed the brains of epileptic patients and stimulated them with an electrode. He discovered one small area, which he called “the interpretive cortex” where in a minority of patients he could induce memories of past events so detailed that the patients felt like they were reliving the events. At the same time they were aware of the operating room and the procedure they were undergoing. It was as if they were a detached observer watching what was happening to their brain.

This suggests to me that our consciousness in not unitary, but is somehow composite. Perhaps even when our “brain consciousness” is severely impaired, we have a second “soul consciousness” that keeps on working. This would seem to be in accord with spiritist views of an etheric body.

By the way, I enjoy your comments. You always seem able to add something worthwhile to the discussion.

"I believe their preferred method would be, however, to put the cases in their anomalies drawer"

Do they make drawers that big? :o)

"I enjoy your comments"

Thank you!

Bruce: there's an article in EdgeScience #6, accessible for free from the Society for Scientific Exploration (, which may be slightly helpful in considering the role of the heart (and, perhaps, the entire peripheral nervous system) in enabling/entangling the mind to the body. I wonder also, as the LHC in Switzerland moves rapidly toward experimental confirmation of a 10 or 11-dimensional hyperverse, how the mind and body are expressed within such a multitude of dimensions. The EdgeScience article assesses the possible role of the heart in cognition and emotional functioning (interesting to note how many reports of NDEs originate from hospital cardiac care wards-coincidence?). I note also that those reports of missing cortical masses which are so confounding to scientific materialists ("white crows", anyone?) don't claim a total absence of nerve cells. Perhaps a small root of ganglia or a few neurons are all that is required to serve as the focal point/anchor for consciousness to interact in these familiar dimensional structures. Hope this is helpful, anyway.

To Michael: my condolences on being Booked in the Face. Beware the Pokes of the Pokers. I, myself, prefer NOT to be poked;-)

Having been suck into facebook by family several years ago and added by some strange people from my past I am indeed also on facebook. I'm starting to get used to some things like "hugs" and "xo" and other such endearments that do not really mean much to me and of which I would never have thought possible for me to use. I now find myself returning them. So strange things happen when you have such a mixture of cultures. I hope to add to your friends. I will enjoy reading your posts and those of your friends. Nice to connect again after all these years. !!

If Stuart Hameroff is right, and consciousness originates as quantum effects in neuronal microtubules, you might only require the minimum amount displayed by these hydrocephalic cases for mind to exist and even thrive. These sub-cellular structures add an extra 10 - 12 magnitudes of complexity, so even a single cell should be viewed in a totally different light. Just consider the paramecium (no nervous system, but contains microtubules), this amazing single celled organism can reproduce, respond to stimuli, and possesses a rudimentary learning ability. The question remains therefore, why has nature engineered such gross redundancy in normal human brains? I like Hameroff's ideas that consciousness is fundamental in the universe and there is an accessing of this universality at the quantum level in these microtubules. It's a neat idea and he might well be right.
Regarding Facebook, I spend way too much time on the damn thing, wish it was never invented!

"The EdgeScience article assesses the possible role of the heart in cognition and emotional functioning"

Thanks, Kevin. It's an interesting article. And a reminder that in trying to understand how consciousness is linked to the body, we may be too narrowly focused on the brain. Maybe it's literally true when we talk about knowing something "in our heart."

The article made me think about people who have artificial hearts. I wondered if they're changed in ways that might provide clues. So I tracked down this:

"Houghton is the first permanent lifetime recipient of a Jarvik 2000 left ventricular assist device. Seven years ago, it took over for the heart he was born with. Since then, it has unquestionably improved his physical well-being. He has walked long distances, traveled internationally and kept a daunting work schedule.

At the same time, he reports, he's become more "coldhearted" -- "less sympathetic in some ways." He just doesn't feel like he can connect with those close to him. He wishes he could bond with his twin grandsons, for example. "They're 8, and I don't want to be bothered to have a reasonable relationship with them and I don't know why," he says.

He can only feel enough to regret that he doesn't feel enough."

Then, too, there are all those stories of heart transplant recipients who suddenly take on characteristics of their donors.

What happened to transplant memory research? There was a lot of stuff from Schwartz a decade or so ago, but not much since.
Here is a link to Stuart Hameroff (well known and respected anaesthesiologist and Professor at Arizona State University) discussing the plausibility of reincarnation (with a background reference to the James Leininger case) from his theory of consciousness:

I hope you aren't a FB drama queen, MP. I have a couple of friends who delete their accounts on a regular basis. Of course, you can't REALLY delete an account. FB won't let you. All you can actually do is hide you account when you want to.

I had one FB friend who did that a lot, so I deleted him. He took offense to that. I asked him why he goes offline, and he said sometimes he doesn't want to be bothered by having to interact with all his FB friends. I told him he should be happy that he has one less friend to interact with on FB now, and that he could still send me a good old-fashioned email when he did want to interact. I haven't heard from him since.

Oh hey, congratulations that Shiver was/is being made into a movie! Cool! I hope it comes to Netflix. I haven't actually rented a DVD in ages.

I didn't used facebook daily. But sometime i passed great time on it.

The comments to this entry are closed.