Amy Coney Barrett - The Nightmare Dotard SC Pick That Could Send Women's Rights Back A Century

Tonight, (p)Resident Donnie J. Dotard is set to announce perhaps the most critical Supreme Court pick in a generation.   It is not exaggeration or hyperbole to say that liberal America will be holding its collective breath - and experience no small degree of trepidation - when he announces it at around 9 p.m. EDT.  Knowing Dotard's perverse nature, I will bet that he will want to rub his malignant narcissism in our faces and pick Amy Coney  Barrett.  His degenerate base will also love it, because their primary entertainment these days is to watch liberal America freak out over each and every Dotard insult, especially if it impacts the (mostly)  silent sane majority.

Amy Coney Barrett may well be quite a nice person, as well as being a dutiful, devoted Catholic mom of 7 kids. As nice as she may well be, we cannot afford to have her as a Supreme Court Justice, which I suspect Dotard the pussy grabber will seek to impose on us tonight. And as you process that, also process the absolute irony of a self-described pussy grabber appointing a religious zealot like Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

At issue here is whether Barrett can deliver honest,  well reasoned judgments in critical cases such as to do with abortion, and lower case rulings re: Rose v. Wade.  At root is the extent to which the group to which she belongs, called People of Praise, which has roughly 1,700 members,  will be dictating her brain dynamics as she considers any abortion or contraception cases (the latter say, as regards contraception provided via the ACA for employees of religious outfits.)

A critical aspect of the group is their belief that they can receive divine or other esoteric, spiritual  messages via "speaking in tongues".   An old saw I recall from my brief foray into charismatic Catholicism  in the early 70s went like this: "It's okay and fine when you talk to God, as when speaking in tongues....but the time to worry is when God starts talking back!" Indeed. And the issue here becomes how does one distinguish an internal "voice" issuing from a brain center, from an external "God"?

Put another way: When Amy Barrett issues judgments how can we be certain these are forged by her innate intellect and not products of  "spiritual" voices she may "hear"?  This question is not frivolous at all, nor should it be construed as an attack on religion. Given its massive impact on human lives and life quality,  religion can never be exempt from serious scrutiny - or even criticism where and when appropriate.

In an earlier (June 18)  post on my response to the religionist  Tom McLeish,  I referred to  brain research done by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and his associate Eugene Daquill M.D.. Their main findings were published in their book, ‘Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief’.   Specific attention was directed at the brain region known as the OAA or orientation association area. Most pertinent is the authors’ portrayal of how a subject's OAA (orientation and activation area) translates images, sounds into religious reality, described in detail on pages 121-22.

Within minutes of holding a fixed image or religious ideation, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans,  showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions amplified as the ideation or image was sustained.  As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area. 

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation or religious ideation.  In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area, and surrender to the supremacy of the ideation.  In the words of the authors (pp. 121-22):  "“it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”

Based on this, I argued in my response that "we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers, or those like McLeish who defend religious accommodation. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA."

Now, if Coney Barrett belongs to a group that gives prominence and unquestioned validity  to  speaking in "tongues" then these will play the same role as a fixed religious ideation or imagery in the OAA experiments.  In effect, the recipients will firmly believe they are in a special communication loop and privy to information and knowledge - say from the divine- that no one else is.  This is clearly going to cause them to also be convinced they possess superior judgment.

In many respects related to alleged "esoteric" communications, one finds parallels to the brain activity of ancient humans, say at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Much of this was already expounded in the 1976 book  authored by Julian Jaynes,  'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Jaynes, a Princeton psychologist (who'd also been in communication with Dr. Pat Bannister in the early 70s while she worked with schizophrenics at the Jenkins Mental Institution in Barbados) argued that ancient  human brains - prior to any evidence of higher consciousness (say as exemplified in use of  logic, reason and ethics) would have resembled the brain dynamics of modern schizophrenics.  

Jaynes maintained that, like schizophrenics, ancient humans would have initiated conversations with unseen deities as well as inanimate objects. And this is most important: even be the beneficiaries of their conversations with them! Jaynes argued that this showed there existed a constancy and wholeness of reality for these early Bronze Age humans. 

In line with this, one of the most startling finds by Daquill and Newberg was that the focus mandate of the OAA leads to a total de-afferentation of the orientation region. This then gives rise to the state known as Absolute Unitary Being, otherwise described as "one Mind linking all minds".  In other words, the OAA experiments showed the potential to attain states not unlike the ancient Bronze Age humans, or modern day schizophrenics. 

 By logical extension, one can conclude the potential for achieving these unitary (or schizophrenic)  states is also  possible for those who engage in speaking in tongues - such as Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise. Again, in itself there's nothing wrong with pursuing such activities, but it does lead one to ask whether such practitioners can also serve as rational Justices.

Attainment of such exalted brain states may well be worthy of celebration and acclaim, but do we really want a Supreme Court Justice whose head is already filled with dogma subject to them?  Can we be absolutely certain when Ms. Barrett is rendering an opinion those hidden OAA "voices" aren't providing input - which we won't know and she certainly won't tell us?  Or, to be sure, her fellow Justices.

 The imperative for People of Praise  to seek meaning in esoteric communications  is understandable given the Scientism which is now ubiquitous in our modern world. Scientism insists the cosmos is purposeless and is the product of a long. purposeless evolution which also produced our material brains. Take that purposeless evolution away and these brains no longer exist.   The primary evidence for  the brain being a product of purposeless evolution as opposed to being a divine masterwork is the hodge podge way it is thrown together. That is, the more recent neocortex -  which embodies human intellectual achievement and creativity, sitting just 'above' more ancient ape and reptile brain regions. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/04/evil-natural-outcome-of-innate-brain.html


 Faced with this verdict on their brain limits by materialist evolution it is no wonder the ardent religionists, say like Tom McLeish or Amy Coney Barrett, seek a reality beyond those limits. That is their right to do, of course, and that defines the extent of religious liberty: the liberty of the religiously inclined to seek and perhaps find what they are looking for, even if only in secret rituals. Whether that be accommodation with modern science (McLeish) or being a beneficiary of supposed divine messages and guidance via "tongues" (Amy  Barrett). 

However, religious liberty does not include imposing these  aspirations (or their claimed 'results') on the secular side, or imposing one's beliefs to the extent of making the latter surrender its control over its own reproductive decisions.  That is especially the worry with Barrett, given we cannot be sure her  presumed divine messages will not dictate more severe controls, not only on abortion but the use of artificial contraception.  Such decisions could well wreck those parts of the ACA allowing it, and even hurl women's reproductive rights back a century or more. 

If Coney Barrett is indeed named to the highest court compliments of  the nation's pussy grabber-in-chief, it is the signal for all out resistance on a massive, national scale.  In other words, this nomination cannot be allowed to materialize or proceed. (I am invoking a variant of Dick Cheney's "1 percent" doctrine here, i.e. if there is only a 1 percent chance Barrett will be influenced by esoteric, "spiritual" communications, she can't be allowed to move forward.)

If one were to ask me what the least offensive SC pick might be, I would have to respond, Brett M. Kavanaugh - mainly because he appears to be able to question his past decisions. But that pick would require the Dotard to be in a sane and sober state, which I doubt we can expect.  Maybe I will be wrong, we will see.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/alex-henderson/80033/sex-trump-and-the-supreme-court-here-are-8-seminal-decisions-trumps-far-right-appointees-could-rever

Brain Babble? Or.....Words from On High?

A controversial new book, now making the formal publishing scene and energizing Evangelicals is 'When God Talks Back' by anthropologist T.M. Luhrmann. According to a recent WSJ review ('That Voice Sounds Familiar', p. A13, April 3):

"Ms. Luhrmann is a widely read scholar and a capable writer, and she is both sympathetic and professional in her anthropological approach".

The reviewer, Barton Swain, then goes on to document how she attended assorted churches in Northern California and also a few attached to the 'Vineyard movement" described as "a loose confederation of churches that sprung from charismatic Christianity of 1960s America". This it turns out, is a good background if one is going to write a book on how God talks to people....mainly of the evangelical persuasion.

It is also good, as this reviewer notes, that the author "maintains a tone of objectivity and avoids the temptation to belittle" what her subjects tell her, especially when this content includes where to get a good haircut, and even pouring the deity his own cup of coffee at the breakfast table. But at some point, the confirmed skeptic must ask at what point does this content veer from anthropology and into the realm of abnormal psychology? Or, at the very least, neuro-biology.

An old saw I recall from my brief foray into charismatic Catholicism went like this: "It's okay and fine when you talk to God, as when speaking in tongues....but the time to worry is when God starts talking back!" Indeed. And the issue here becomes how does one distinguish an internal "voice" issuing from a brain center, from an external "God"?

Previous blogs to do with related issues touched on work done by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and his associate Eugene Daquill M.D.. Their main findings were published in their book, ‘Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief’.Most pertinent is the authors’ portrayal of how the brain’s OAA (orientation and activation area) translates images, sounds into religious reality, described in detail on pages 121-22.

The example cited was in connection with a person given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it. Within minutes, neurological measurements showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system, hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements actually showed that as the subject focused on the image of Christ BOTH were activated. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT -scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the attention area of the OAA was subsequently seen to deprive the right orientation area of the OAA of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”. As the authors put it (p. 121):

"It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus”

Now, what if the temporal lobes of a highly religious person engendered dynamic internal "sounds" in his or her own head, that were later translated into "God's voice" via the OAA? Is this feasible? First, we know from the work of Michael Persinger at Laurentian University, published in his book, The Neuropychological Basis of God Belief, such a thing is possible. In his experiments, Persinger used a specially designed helmet on his test subjects to stimulate their temporal lobes and induce what he called "TLTs" or temporal lobe transients.

Extreme post-stimuli manifestations included: circumstantiality, a sense of the hyper-personal (e.g. egocentric references, divine guidance), perseveration, hypergraphia, altered affect, and most importantly an overwhelming sense of religiosity. Persinger didn't draw too many firm conclusions but one could reasonably conjecture that any two of those manifestations could easily transform to direct talking to an imagined deity and then ...transferring this "language" to the OAA for its own attention. If the effect is in any way similar to that for an image one might expect to be the recipient of "back talk". Or "God" (as reconstructed in the subject's OAA) talking back to the subject via neural feedback loops. In this case, preservation of the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) would depend on the attention area focusing on God talking back to the person. (In Prof. Lurhmann's own parlance, she described such manifestations in her subjects as God being imagined as "hyper-real".

Well, yes....so real that one would imagine being able to drink a separate cup of coffee!

Is this so incredible? Are these talkative Evangelicals or related groups the first to experience this God talk or initiate it? Hardly! And here is where Luhrmann, had she done more homework, might have disclosed this wasn't anthropologically unusual. In his controversial 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes (a Princeton psychologist) argued that the brain activity of ancient people - those living roughly 3,500 years ago, prior to early evidence of consciousness such as logic, reason, and ethics - would have resembled that of modern schizophrenics.

Jaynes maintained that, like schizophrenics, they'd have initiated conversations with unseen deities as well as inanimate objects and even been the beneficiaries of conversations from them! There existed a constancy and wholeness of reality and moreover, the abiding perception that everything encountered in one's world was real as well as conscious.

It was only later, with the emergence of language, logic and quantitative empirical testing that this perception gave way to scientific detachment, conscious distance (leading to self-consciousness, introspection and reflection) and reductionism. (The horrific process of conscious distancing is beautifully described in Morris Berman's 'The Re-Enchantment of the World') In this new reflective - reductive world, there was no longer a place for those who spoke to the unseen or received messages back from the invisible entities. These individuals were deemed mentally unbalanced, or "out of it" ("out of this world"). Today, we are more generous to those committed to hard core fundamentalist religions, acknowledging that at least a large part of their perception arises from their over-committment to a supernatural belief system. This perception is generally substituted for the conviction that all these folks (like my preacher bro) are certifiable nuts.

Luhrmann herself perhaps arrives at a much more generous and objective conclusion for the "voices" that Evangelicals (mainly) hear: that is, that they are creating a kind of psychological defense against the prevailing culture's disbelief...not only in God (as has been championed by the 'New Atheists' of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, et al) but also the wholesale rejection of the entire supernatural realm, to replace it with naturalism-Materialism.

Indeed, atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg carries this to an extreme in his book The Atheist's Guide To Reality and especially in his first chapter: 'Do You Want Stories Or Reality?' Rosenberg insists that we can either maintain ourselves as existential babies steeped in what he refers to as "conspiracy theories" of how the world works and was supposedly "created" , or we can accept that physics (the most perfected and refined of all the sciences) fixes the facts of the world and hence we must follow a rigorous Scientism.

Scientism shows that the cosmos is purposeless, and also we are the products of a long, purposeless Darwinian evolution which produced the material brains we have and renders them adaptable to survive in a less than perfect world. Religion, by contrast, offers essentially fairy stories that try to tell us we emerged by special creation from an "omnipotent deity", or are somehow unique beings in the universe blessed with "souls", "minds" and "morals" that put us over all other animals. The capper is that if we choose to believe the right stories (e.g. that a God man can save us) we can earn an everlasting respite up in the clouds somewhere, while those nasty unbelievers will suffer eternal perdition.

Rosenberg's most extreme claim (which I believe causes him to overstep the bounds of reality himself) is that just as there can be no purpose there can be no "aboutness". In other words, our brains, despite their appearance of ability to generate meaning, can do no such thing. In the end words mean nothing, the brain can't interpret reality or assign any dimension of interpretation anywhere...whether to history, psychology, physics, astronomy or whatever. (Hmmmm......so if physics' equations, like in celestial mechanics, have no interpretative dimensions, how did we manage to use them to send spacecraft to Mars, Mercury, Venus? Or...were those landings all in our collective imaginations?)

Rosenberg bases all these on documented experiments, such as those by Lüder Deecke and Hans Helmut Kornhuber in 1964, showing that all human actions precede conscious decisions to perform them. For example, Rosenberg observes (p. 152) that: "On average it takes 200 milliseconds from conscious willing to wrist flexing and finger pressing"

Thus, to the ordinary (sensory deluded) human it appears as if he's willed and initiated the action, but he really hasn't. It's all an illusion. As Rosenberg goes on:

"But the cortical processes responsible for wrist flexing started 500 ms earlier. "

In other words, 500 ms before a test subject depressed a button to indicate when he felt the actual conscious act of willing was initiated. As Rosenberg concludes (ibid.):

"In other words, wrist flexing is already set in motion, and everything needed to complete it has already taken place 300 ms before the subjects are conscious of deciding to flex the wrist and press the button"

The obvious implication? "Consciously deciding to do something is not the cause of doing it"

Or, to use this tack: "If there is no real will, there can be no willpower". Rosenberg then adopts this as a grounding for his notion that we are beings entirely governed by "blind sight". (I.e. p. 155, `Driving Through Life with Both Eyes Fixed on the Rearview Mirror').In other words, all our sensory outputs are based on ex post facto- conducted neural process corrections to much earlier sensory inputs that, for lack of a better term, need to be transduced.

The point is we aren't equipped to gain real time access to anything in our world. Even vision! What actually happens in vision is that the brain must perform tricks to erect an image that appears initially inverted on the retina. Thus, to quote Rosenberg, "vision turns out to be hindsight not foresight". The inescapable conclusion to Rosenberg is because of this we are victims of a monumental illusion condemned to live our lives through back sight, not foresight or will. This then transfers to his Chapter Eight, in which we are shown `The Brain Does Everything Without Thinking About It At All'.

From here, through the rest of the book, we have merely reinforcement of the basic premise: there is no purpose in the universe (which I do agree with) and there is also no "aboutness" since introspection is an illusion as well, given the brain doesn't really think.

I cite Rosenberg's brief for Scientism to show just how radical current atheism has become. So radical that Rosenberg himself seems not to realize he has actually reduced his own book to indecipherable jabber! Clearly, if there is no story, no capacity in humans for any introspection then books can't possess any interpretative dimensions either. Hence, whatever we believe ourselves to be cogitating on is ...well.... a trick of our brains....to make us think some interior -based seat of mind is pulling the strings of consciousness when there' nothing really there. It's all flesh-ware operating on inputs and outputs. We are merely elaborate automatons operating under the illusion of genuine personhood, or that history really has significance when it's all mostly accident, or that philosophy is anything more than words input to our neurons then processed as output. No ulterior meaning beyond.

The point? If such a radical meme exists and is now circulating in the culture at large, why wouldn't those who devoutly accept a "Creator" and supernatural realm do everything in their power to make those things more real to them? Thus, in a world tilting ever more toward Rosenberg's premise, it makes sense that for many people creating a divine basis for language would be a mental life preserver.

If we have compassion, should we not let these God talkers (and listeners) keep their delusions? At least so long as they don't attempt to foist or force them on the rest of us?