Big thanks to Chade Meng (aka the Buddha in the Googleplex) for making this happen. I hope that someday Shinzen’s approach and style of teaching meditation be taught in universities as part of the humanities, health, and science departments.

Thanks, Shinzen! Today, Google Talks. Tomorrow, TED Talks… moment by moment, just this…

A few months ago I followed up with a blog about the Renaissance of the Theory of Evolution in which a group called Altenberg 16 were poised to gather to discuss an "extended evolutionary synthesis."

And now there’s an e-book about it: The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? — An Exposé of the Evolution Industry – by Suzan Mazur. The title alone is already a compelling read. (Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the heads up.)

Here’s an excerpt from the Introduction. 

"No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.

"Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. It also knows that self-organization is real, that is, matter can form without a genetic recipe – like the snowflake (non-living). It does this without external guidance." [read more]

Interesting. So will this e-book serve as a vindication for Intelligent Design proponents to push through with their agenda? Will it support Wilber’s critique of Neo-Darwinian evolution? How would Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the Neo-Darwinian evolutionists react to this? (UPDATE: Here’s PZ Myers’ reaction to the Altenberg 16) What would be its implication on evolutionary spirituality in general, and Integralists in particular?

I haven’t read the entire e-book yet so I’ll hold off on my layman’s commentary. But for those who consider themselves well-informed on evolutionary theory, I’d like to hear what you think about The Altenberg 16. Feel free to post your thoughts on the comment section.

UPDATE (07/19/2008): Altenberg 16 is over via Pharyngula.

Read: The neuroscience behind swiftboating.

So let this be a warning to all of us. Our human tendency to categorize (Platonicity) and explain the causes of everything with theories (narrative fallacy) backed up with partial evidence (confirmation bias; fallacy of silent evidence) while concocting models of reality (ludic fallacy), coupled with a brain that lies to us, make us blind to the truth.

Fine. So what is there left to believe?

I don’t know. All I know is that I’m aware at this very moment of both truth and lies, and everything in between. Ignorance is sooo underrated.

The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

"Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough." We can stop
looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about
what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing
clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find
patterns where science cannot.

"The best practical example of this is the shotgun gene sequencing by
J. Craig Venter. Enabled by high-speed sequencers and supercomputers
that statistically analyze the data they produce, Venter went from
sequencing individual organisms to sequencing entire ecosystems. In
2003, he started sequencing much of the ocean, retracing the voyage of
Captain Cook. And in 2005 he started sequencing the air. In the
process, he discovered thousands of previously unknown species of
bacteria and other life-forms." [read more]

This reminded of the book, The Black Swan (see my review). Theoretical models are useful as starting points and for framing but in the long run our human tendency to categorize (Platonicity) and explain the causes of everything with theories (narrative fallacy) backed up with partial evidence (confirmation bias; fallacy of silent evidence) while concocting models of reality (ludic fallacy) make us blind to Black Swans (i.e. high-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations).

In this Petabyte Age, mathematics, statistics, and a dose of serendipity trump theory. But that’s in the realm science, not philosophy.

Is Tegmark reducing everything to mathematics? As a non-mathematician I find Tegmark’s assertion hard to swallow. But with further reading Tegmark do make distinctions between interior and exterior.

"To understand the concept, you have to distinguish two ways of viewing
reality. The first is from the outside, like the overview of a
physicist studying its mathematical structure. The second way is the
inside view of an observer living in the structure. You can think of a
frog living in the landscape as the inside view and a high-flying bird
surveying the landscape as the outside view. These two perspectives are
connected to each other through time."

Then again Tegmark sounds more like a philosopher or a mystic whenever he talks about ultimate reality. He reminds me of an Advaita mystic who reduces everything to consciousness, e.g. "Consciousness is all there is." After all, without consciousness, would there be mathematics? And that’s our Zen koan for the day.

"Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.

"The
scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing
emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight
people of the opposite sex.
            
       

"The
differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early
infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says." [read more]

I also notice that homosexuality runs in the family. For example, it’s more likely to have homosexuals in families with history of homosexuality. I have gay friends who swear that they knew their sexuality to be different since their early childhood. So a big part of being gay could be genetic along with other psychological factors. I wonder how this study would impact the attitude of homophobic religious groups who are still brainwashed in the belief that homosexuality is a "sin."

Speaking of homosexuality, check out Joe Perez’s dialogue with Ken Wilber. Joe is the author of the book, Soulfully Gay.

"I’m often asked, as I was on Christian talk radio yesterday
afternoon, “Why do you evangelize evolution? What are you hoping to
accomplish?” My answer depends, of course, on what kind of audience I’m
addressing.

"I share the science-based history of the Universe as passionately
and as inspiringly as I know how (which is what I mean when I say I
“evangelize evolution”) for a variety of reasons. When I speak in an
evangelical context, what I’m hoping to accomplish is not exactly the
same as when I speak in a secular or non-Christian context." [read more]

I think Dowd is doing the more skillful approach in addressing the religion vs. science schism.

Godspeed Michael!

More images from Mars here.

Here’s a case in point. A
lot of Christians (especially in developing countries under theocracy)
still believe that a woman should fully subject to her husband. A
common justification for this is the Old Testament’s narrative of Eve’s
submission to Adam, because Adam was created first and Eve was made
from his rib. Fine. That’s a good story. Countless artworks, and
literature had ingrained this narrative into the Christian collective
forging it into a belief structure which is still believed by many:
that women should submit to their husbands.

However, from the apocryphal perspective, there’s a prequel to the age-old story about Adam and Eve. Before Eve, there was Lilith: Adam’s first wife. For more context, watch this video excerpt from the documentary, Banned From the Bible.

The story of Adam and Lilith is only one of numerous stories banned from the Bible. Go ahead and watch the full video of the documentary with your friends and family (the more religious they are, the better ).

By the way, I’m not suggesting that the Bible is the primary source of
sexual inequality between men and women. There are biological,
psycho-social, cultural, and political factors–all of them
intertwined–that contribute to this issue. But there’s no denying that
the Bible (along with other holy books) had been used (and still being
used) as a tool to perpetrate beliefs which are no longer applicable to
the moral zeitgeist of modern and postmodern societies.

Allow me to a share my rough pop culture-ish analogy. The Bible is like the Star Wars mythology. Just when people thought that the
saga is complete, here comes George Lucas again doing the Phantom Menace. The
apocrypha are like the Star Wars prequels. They fill in the details of
the saga. A big difference, of course, is that the Star Wars mythology has a more consistent continuity due to its careful editing, impeccable recording,
dominant authorship, and the shared collective memory of the audience
which keeps the author(s) honest. We don’t have those conditions with the
Bible (and other holy books).

Which brings me to ask these rhetorical questions: If the Bible is the word of God then whose words are those that were banned
from the Bible? And more importantly, who decided what words were to be
included and banned? The answers may be obvious to you. But in reality
a lot of people haven’t (yet) asked these questions. Thanks to
narrow-minded religious leaders who continue to perpetrate ignorance
among their congregation in the service of their beliefs and powerful churches.

Ideally, the interpretation of religious texts should no longer just be
in the exclusive domain of religions and theologians. Religious texts
should also be subjected to both literary and scientific studies to
give us a better understanding of religion, culture, history, and their
underlying mythology. The resulting body of knowledge should then be
openly accepted or debated by religious leaders and relayed to their
adherents. But this notion is too utopian. I don’t think this will
happen in the near future. Religions, like organisms, have strong tendencies
for self-preservation. In the meantime, thank goodness we all have the
faculty of critical thinking we can rely on.