Litecoin Price Prediction: Abra Updates on LTC as CEO Predicts Another Bull Run

Posted on by

Litecoin News Update
Cryptocurrencies are experiencing another bloodbath, but "Abra" founder Bill Barhydt thinks a reversal is just around the corner.

Barhydt, who has created the first-of-its-kind crypto-cum-fiat investing application partly using Litecoin’s technology, is of the view that the cryptocurrency markets will enter into another bull run once institutional money begins to flow from the west.

Barhydt’s hypothesis has intuitive logic. Recall that the last bull market materialized in December when Bitcoin futures were launched. This was the time when institutional investors first poured money into cryptos.

The last bull run, according to Barhydt, was.

The post Litecoin Price Prediction: Abra Updates on LTC as CEO Predicts Another Bull Run appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Go here to read the rest:
Litecoin Price Prediction: Abra Updates on LTC as CEO Predicts Another Bull Run

Ethereum Price Forecast: The ETH “Flippening” No One Expected

Posted on by

Ethereum News Update
Ever since the dawn of cryptocurrencies, two things have been true: 1) Retail investors are excited about distributed ledgers/blockchain technology, and 2) Institutions are not.

Now that paradigm is changing.

You don’t have to go back very far to see what I’m talking about. At the end of 2017, Ethereum started a bullish rally that led prices up more than 336% in two months. Investors were incredibly optimistic about the future of ETH prices.

Meanwhile, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) called Bitcoin—and by relation, the rest of the cryptocurrency market—a “fraud.” Dimon also said that if any of his employees.

The post Ethereum Price Forecast: The ETH “Flippening” No One Expected appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read the rest here:
Ethereum Price Forecast: The ETH “Flippening” No One Expected

Maximum Life Foundation | Reverse Aging by 2033 Biotech …

Posted on by

Researchers Discovered How to Cure Aging in Our Lifetime

Maximum Life Foundation will show you how to add up to 20 healthy aging years to your life now... will help control aging and aging diseases for most individuals, and may position you for an indefinite youthful lifespan by 2033. Senescence, the destructive process that is responsible for human aging, is a primary cause behind heart disease, cancer, stroke, type II diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's disease and more. The Foundation has created a network of scientists, physicians, and biotechnology industry professionals to use their talents and resources to develop a strategic plan to understand and neutralize the causes of these disease processes.

Amazing tips & tricks to improve your health & increase longevity starting today.

Maximu Life Foundationis not only extremely informative, but it all makes so much common sense. Just about everything in...

I highly recommend David's book Life Extension Expressif you're interested in getting started in extending your life.It's very easy...

Continue reading here:

Maximum Life Foundation | Reverse Aging by 2033 Biotech ...

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Posted on by

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burgers and others long-settled understanding of the Second Amendments limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturdays marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

More:

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Bitcoin’s Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This …

Posted on by

Even as his face towered 10 feet above the crowd at the Bitcoin Investors Conference in Las Vegas, Craig Steven Wright was, to most of the audience of crypto and finance geeks, a nobody.

The 44-year-old Australian, Skyping into the D Hotel ballrooms screen, wore the bitcoin enthusiasts equivalent of camouflage: a black blazer and a tieless, rumpled shirt, his brown hair neatly parted. His name hadnt made the conferences list of "featured speakers." Even the panels moderator, a bitcoin blogger named Michele Seven, seemed concerned the audience wouldnt know why he was there. Wright had hardly begun to introduce himself as a "former academic who does research that no one ever hears about," when she interrupted him.

"Hold on a second, who are you?" Seven cut in, laughing. "Are you a computer scientist?"

"Im a bit of everything," Wright responded. "I have a master's in lawa masters in statistics, a couple doctorates..."

"How did you first learn about bitcoin?" Seven interrupted again, as if still trying to clarify Wrights significance.

Wright paused for three full seconds. "Um. Ive been involved with all this for a long time," he stuttered. "Itry and stayI keep my head down. Um..." He seemed to suppress a smile. The panels moderator moved on. And for what must have been the thousandth time in his last seven years of obscurity, Wright did not say the words WIREDs study of Wright over the past weeks suggests he may be dying to say out loud.

"I am Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin."

Either Wright invented bitcoin, or he's a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did.

Since that pseudonymous figure first released bitcoins code on January 9th, 2009, Nakamotos ingenious digital currency has grown from a nerd novelty to a kind of economic miracle. As its been adopted for everything from international money transfers to online narcotrafficking, the total value of all bitcoins has grown to nearly $5 billion. Nakamoto himself, whoever he is, appears to control a stash of bitcoins easily worth a nine-figure fortune (it rose to more than a billion at the cryptocurrencys peak exchange rate in 2014). But the true identity of bitcoins creator remains a cipher. Media outlets from the New Yorker to Fast Company to Newsweek have launched investigations into unmasking Nakamoto that were either inconclusive or, in Newsweeks case, pointed to a man who subsequently denied having anything to do with cryptography, not to mention cryptocurrency. Altogether, the worlds Satoshi-seekers have hardly put a dent in one of the most stubborn mysteries of the 21st century, one whose answer could resonate beyond a small sphere of crypto geeks and have real economic effects.

In the last weeks, WIRED has obtained the strongest evidence yet of Satoshi Nakamotos true identity. The signs point to Craig Steven Wright, a man who never even made it onto any Nakamoto hunters public list of candidates, yet fits the cryptocurrency creators profile in nearly every detail. And despite a massive trove of evidence, we still cant say with absolute certainty that the mystery is solved. But two possibilities outweigh all others: Either Wright invented bitcoin, or hes a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did.

The first evidence pointing to Wright appeared in mid-November, when an anonymous source close to Wright began leaking documents to Gwern Branwen, a pseudonymous, independent security researcher and dark web analyst. Branwen provided those documents to WIRED, and they immediately led to several direct, publicly visible connections between Nakamoto and Wright:

WIRED

In addition to those three blog posts, we received a cache of leaked emails, transcripts, and accounting forms that corroborate the link. Theres a leaked message from Wright to his lawyer date June 2008 in which Wright imagines "a P2P distributed ledger"an apparent reference to bitcoins public record of transactions known as the blockchain, long before it was publicly released. The email goes on to reference a paper called "Electronic Cash Without a Trusted Third Party" that Wright expects to release in 2009.

'I did my best to try and hide the fact that I've been running bitcoin since 2009. By the end of this I think half the world is going to bloody know.'

Craig Steven Wright

Another leaked email from Wright to computer forensics analyst David Kleiman, a close friend and confidant, just before bitcoins January 2009 launch discusses a paper theyd been working on together. Wright talks about taking a buyout from his job and investing in hundreds of computer processors to "get [his] idea going." Theres also a PDF authored by Kleiman, who died in April of 2013, in which he agrees to take control of a trust fund, codenamed the "Tulip Trust," containing 1.1 million bitcoins. The PDF is signed with Kleimans PGP signature, a cryptographic technique that ensures it couldnt have been altered post-signature.

That million-coin troveThe Tulip Trustis the same size as a mysterious bitcoin fortune thats long been visible on bitcoins blockchain and widely attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. No one but Nakamoto is known to have assembled such a massive hoard of the cryptocurrency, and only Nakamoto could have generated so many bitcoins so early in its evolution, when a bitcoin could be mined with relatively small amounts of processing power. Only one such bitcoin megapile exists, and the closely-watched coins havent moved in bitcoins entire history.

Another clue as to Wrights bitcoin fortune wasnt leaked to WIRED but instead remains hosted on the website of the corporate advisory firm McGrathNicol: a liquidation report on one of several companies Wright founded known as Hotwire, an attempt to create a bitcoin-based bank. It shows that the startup was backed in June 2013 by $23 million in bitcoins owned by Wright. That sum would be worth more than $60 million today. At the time of the companys incorporation, Wrights investment in that one firm alone represented more than 1.5 percent of all existing bitcoins, a strangely large stash for an unknown player in the bitcoin world.

The giveaways go on: Theres a leaked email from Wright to an associate in January 2014 about a tax dispute with the Australian government. In it, he seems to consider using Nakamotos name to wield influence with New South Wales Senator Arthur Sinodinos "Would our Japanese friend have weight coming out of retirement?" Wright asks. It includes a draft email to the senator signed "Satoshi Nakamoto." And a leaked transcript of Wrights meeting with attorneys and tax officials in February 2014 quotes him in a moment of exasperation: "I did my best to try and hide the fact that I've been running bitcoin since 2009," Wright says. "By the end of this I think half the world is going to bloody know."

On December 1st, WIRED sent an encrypted email to Wright suggesting that we knew his secret and asking for a meeting. A few hours later, we received a wary response from the address Tessier-Ashpool@AnonymousSpeech.com, a cyberpunk reference to a rich and powerful corporate dynasty in William Gibsons Sprawl trilogy. Wright had referenced the same fictional family in the bio of his private twitter profile. The emails IP showed that it came from an IP address in Panama controlled by Vistomail, the same service that Satoshi Nakamoto had used to send his emails introducing bitcoin and to run Bitcoin.org. This is a throw away account. There are ways even with [the anonymity software] Tor, but the people in Panama are exteremly [sic] good and do not violate people's desired privacy, the email read. You are digging, the question is how deep are you? The message ended, Regards, the Director of Tessier-Ashpool

After WIRED sent an encrypted email to Wright suggesting that we knew his secret, we received a perplexing message: 'You seem to know a few things. More than you should.'

A few hours later, we received another, even more perplexing message from the same account. The nature of this moniker is selected for a purpose. I now have resources. This makes me a we now. I am still within that early phase of learning just what my capabilities happen to be. So, even now with resources I remain vulnerable, it read. You seem to know a few things. More than you should.

When we responded by describing the three blog posts that showed Wrights clear connection to bitcoins creation and asking again for a meeting, he gave a revealing answer. Although we all desire some level of credit, I have moved past many of these things, read his response from the same Tessier-Ashpool account. Too many already know secrets, the world does not need to know. There are other means to lead change than to be a dictator.

After our second followup message asking for a chance to talk, Wright responded that he would consider our request. Then he stopped responding altogether.

Despite that overwhelming collection of clues, none of it fully proves that Wright is Nakamoto. All of it could be an elaborate hoaxperhaps orchestrated by Wright himself. The unverified leaked documents could be faked in whole or in part. And most inexplicably of all, comparisons of different archived versions of the three smoking gun posts from Wrights blog show that he did edit all threeto insert evidence of his bitcoin history. The PGP key associated with Nakamotos email address and references to an upcoming "cryptocurrency paper" and "triple entry accounting" were added sometime after 2013. Even the post noting bitcoins beta launch is questionable. While it was ostensibly posted in January 2009, it later seems to have been deleted and then undeletedor possibly even written for the first timesometime between October 2013 and June of 2014.

Wrights blog, his public records, and his verified writings on mail lists and Twitter sketch a man who matches with Satoshi Nakamoto's known characteristics well enough to place him leagues above other candidates.

Why those breadcrumbs were dropped remains a mystery. Is Wright trying to falsely steal Nakamotos glory (or money)? Is he quietly revealing himself as bitcoins creator?

But this much is clear: If Wright is seeking to fake his Nakamoto connection, his hoax would be practically as ambitious as bitcoin itself. Some of the clues added to his blog were made more than 20 months agoa very patient deception if it were one. His references to Griggs "triple entry accounting" paper would represent an uncannily inventive lie, representing a new and obscure possible inspiration for bitcoin. And theres little doubt Wright is a certified bitcoin mogul. Even the $60 million portion of his cryptocurrency stash thats verifiable in McGrathNicols public audit record is suspiciously large.

More circumstantially, Wrights blog, his public records, and his verified writings on mail lists and Twitter sketch a man who matches with Satoshi Nakamotos known characteristics well enough to place him leagues above other candidates. Hes a former subscriber to the 1990s "cypherpunks" mailing list devoted to anti-authoritarianism and encryption, an advocate of gold as a financial tool, an accomplished C++ coder, a security professional plausibly capable of writing a tough-to-hack protocol like bitcoin, a libertarian who battled with tax authorities, and a fan of Japanese culture.

He is alsoparallels to Nakamoto asidea strange and remarkable person: an almost obsessive autodidact and double-PhD who once boasted of obtaining new graduate degrees at a rate of about one a year. Hes a climate-change denier, a serial entrepreneur who started companies ranging from security consultancies to a bitcoin bank, and an eccentric who wrote on his blog that he once accepted a challenge to create a pencil from scratch and spent years on the problem, going so far as to make his own bricks to build his own kiln in which to mix the pencils graphite.

Wrights blogging and leaked emails describe a man so committed to an unproven cryptocurrency idea that he mortgaged three properties and invested more than $1 million in computers, power, and connectivityeven going so far as to lay fiberoptic cables to his remote rural home in eastern Australia to mine the first bitcoins. His company, Tulip Trading, built two supercomputers that have officially ranked among the top 500 in the world, both seemingly related to his cryptocurrency projects. (Wright seems to enjoy tulip references, a likely taunt at those who have compared bitcoin to the Netherlands 17th century "tulip bubble.") The first of those supercomputers he named Sukuriputo OkaneJapanese for "script money." Another, named Co1n, holds the title of the worlds most powerful privately owned supercomputer. As Wright told the Bitcoin Investors conference, hes applying that second machine towards the mysterious task of "modeling Bitcoins scalability," and meanwhile building an even more powerful supercomputing cluster in Iceland because of its cheap geothermal power.

Bitcoin watchers have long wondered why the giant cache of coins they attribute to Satoshi Nakamoto never moved on the bitcoins publicly visible blockchain. Wrights "Tulip" trust fund of 1.1 million bitcoins may hold the key to that mystery. The trust fund PDF signed by Wrights late friend David Kleiman keeps those coins locked in place until 2020, yet gives Wright the freedom to borrow them for applications including "research into peer-to-peer systems" and "commercial activities that enhance the value and position of bitcoin."

Despite those exceptions to the trusts rules, the million-coin hoard has yet to budge, even after Kleimans death in 2013. That may be because Wright could be keeping the coins in place as an investment. He could be leveraging the trust in less visible ways, like legally transferring ownership of money to fund his companies while still leaving it at the same bitcoin address. Or he might still be waiting for January 1st, 2020, a countdown to a date that could take the lid off the biggest cryptocurrency fortune in history.

In spite of all the clues as to Wrights possible secret lifesome that he apparently placed himselfWright has demonstrated such a talent for obfuscation and a love of privacy that hes never even raised the suspicions of most Nakamoto-worshipping bitcoiners. "If we don't want to go out there and say Im a billionaire, or Im running XYZ, or this is my life, I shouldn't have to tell people that," Wright told the Las Vegas crowd in October when an audience member asked his thoughts about what bitcoin means for property rights. "We should be able to choose how we live."

In the leaked emails, Wright seems to bristle at the few times anyone has attempted to out bitcoins creator. "I am not from the bloody USA! Nor am I called Dorien [sic]," reads a message from Wright to a colleague dated March 6, 2014. Thats the same day as Newsweeks largely discredited story claimed the inventor of bitcoin to be the American Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto.

If Wright is bitcoin's creator, the revelation of his work carries more importance than merely sating the curiosity of a few million geeks.

Wright seemed to take personal offense at the Newsweek story. "I do not want to be your posterboy. I am not found and I do not want to be," he writes in another message the same day. The email, addressed to a colleague and titled "please leak," may have been an early draft of the Nakamotos posted denial of Newsweeks story. That public denial, a rare message from Nakamoto posted from his account on the P2P Foundation forum, simply read I am not Dorian Nakamoto. But Wrights private response was far angrier. "Stop looking... Do you know what privacy means? A gift freely given is just that and no more!"

At times, however, Wright has seemed practically envious of Nakamoto. "People love my secret identity and hate me," he complained to Kleiman in a leaked email from 2011. "I have hundreds of papers. Satoshi has one. Nothing, just one bloody paper and I [cant] associate myself with ME!"

If Wright is bitcoins creator, the revelation of his work carries more importance than merely sating the curiosity of a few million geeks. The bitcoin economy would need to consider that if his million-bitcoin trust unlocks in 2020, Wright and those to whom he may have assigned hundreds of thousands of bitcoins would be free to sell them on the open market, potentially tanking the cryptocurrencys price; debates within the bitcoin community like the current fracas over bitcoins "block size may look to long-lost Nakamoto for guidance; the world would have to grapple with the full scope of Wright's vision when he unleashes the result of his companies' post-bitcoin research. The other suspected Satoshis may finally get a reprieve from nosey reporters like us. And the intellectual history of cryptocurrencies would be forever rewritten.

Wright himself, despite his hostile response to Satoshi-seekers, has lately seemed to be dropping clues of a double life. In the last two years hes started to write more frequently about bitcoin on his blog; hes even peppered Twitter with hints (Though he also deleted many of those earlier this month and made his tweets private.)

"'Identity' is not your name. Where people go wrong is that they do not see it to be the set of shared experiences with other individuals," he wrote in one tweet in October.

When a UCLA professor nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for a Nobel Prize earlier this monthand he was declared ineligible due to the mystery of his identityWright lashed out. "If Satoshi-chan was made for an ACM turing price [sic] or an Alfred Nobel in Economics he would let you bloody know that," he wrote on twitter, using the Japanese "chan" suffix that indicates familiarity or a nickname.

"I never desired to be a leader but the choice is not mine," reads a third recent tweet from Wright. "We are a product of the things we create. They change us."

In one cryptic and meandering blog post in September in which Wright takes stock of his long career, he even seems to concede that no one can build and wield the wealth that Satoshi Nakamoto has amassed and remain hidden indefinitely. "There is a certain power and mystery in secrets," Wright mused.

"Am slowly coming to the realisation and acceptance," he added, "No secret remains forever."

Update 12/14/2015 2:40pm: New clues following the publication of this story have shown inconsistencies in Wright's academic and supercomputing claims that may point to the second, strange possibility we noted: an elaborate, long-planned hoax.

You may also like:

The rest is here:

Bitcoin's Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This ...

Immortality | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Posted on by

Immortality is the indefinite continuation of a persons existence, even after death. In common parlance, immortality is virtually indistinguishable from afterlife, but philosophically speaking, they are not identical. Afterlife is the continuation of existence after death, regardless of whether or not that continuation is indefinite. Immortality implies a never-ending existence, regardless of whether or not the body dies (as a matter of fact, some hypothetical medical technologies offer the prospect of a bodily immortality, but not an afterlife).

Immortality has been one of mankinds major concerns, and even though it has been traditionally mainly confined to religious traditions, it is also important to philosophy. Although a wide variety of cultures have believed in some sort of immortality, such beliefs may be reduced to basically three non-exclusive models: (1) the survival of the astral body resembling the physical body; (2) the immortality of the immaterial soul (that is an incorporeal existence); (3) resurrection of the body (or re-embodiment, in case the resurrected person does not keep the same body as at the moment of death). This article examines philosophical arguments for and against the prospect of immortality.

A substantial part of the discussion on immortality touches upon the fundamental question in the philosophy of mind: do souls exist? Dualists believe souls do exist and survive the death of the body; materialists believe mental activity is nothing but cerebral activity and thus death brings the total end of a persons existence. However, some immortalists believe that, even if immortal souls do not exist, immortality may still be achieved through resurrection.

Discussions on immortality are also intimately related to discussions of personal identity because any account of immortality must address how the dead person could be identical to the original person that once lived. Traditionally, philosophers have considered three main criteria for personal identity: the soul criterion , the body criterion and the psychological criterion.

Although empirical science has little to offer here, the field of parapsychology has attempted to offer empirical evidence in favor of an afterlife. More recently, secular futurists envision technologies that may suspend death indefinitely (such as Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, and mind uploading), thus offering a prospect for a sort of bodily immortality.

Discourse on immortality bears a semantic difficulty concerning the word 'death. We usually define it in physiological terms as the cessation of biological functions that make life possible. But, if immortality is the continuation of life even after death, a contradiction appears to come up (Rosemberg, 1998). For apparently it makes no sense to say that someone has died and yet survived death. To be immortal is, precisely, not to suffer death. Thus, whoever dies, stops existing; nobody may exist after death, precisely because death means the end of existence.

For convenience, however, we may agree that death simply means the decomposition of the body, but not necessarily the end of a persons existence, as assumed in most dictionary definitions. In such a manner, a person may die in as much as their body no longer exists (or, to be more precise, no longer holds vital signs: pulse, brain activity, and so forth), but may continue to exist, either in an incorporeal state, with an ethereal body, or with some other physical body.

Some people may think of immortality in vague and general terms, such as the continuity of a persons deeds and memories among their friends and relatives. Thus, baseball player Babe Ruth is immortal in a very vague sense: he is well remembered among his fans. But, philosophically speaking, immortality implies the continuation of personal identity. Babe Ruth may be immortal in the sense that he is well remembered, but unless there is someone that may legitimately claim I am Babe Ruth, we shall presume Babe Ruth no longer exists and hence, is not immortal.

Despite the immense variety of beliefs on immortality, they may be reduced to three basic models: the survival of the astral body, the immaterial soul and resurrection (Flew, 2000). These models are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in fact, most religions have adhered to a combination of them.

Much primitive religious thought conceives that human beings are made up of two body substances: a physical body, susceptible of being touched, smelt, heard and seen; and an astral body made of some sort of mysterious ethereal substance. Unlike the physical body, the astral body has no solidity (it can go through walls, for example.) and hence, it cannot be touched, but it can be seen. Its appearance is similar to the physical body, except perhaps its color tonalities are lighter and its figure is fuzzier.

Upon death, the astral body detaches itself from the physical body, and mourns in some region within time and space. Thus, even if the physical body decomposes, the astral body survives. This is the type of immortality most commonly presented in films and literature (for example, Hamlets ghost). Traditionally, philosophers and theologians have not privileged this model of immortality, as there appears to be two insurmountable difficulties: 1) if the astral body does exist, it should be seen depart from the physical body at the moment of death; yet there is no evidence that accounts for it; 2) ghosts usually appear with clothes; this would imply that, not only are there astral bodies, but also astral clothes a claim simply too extravagant to be taken seriously (Edwards, 1997: 21).

The model of the immortality of the soul is similar to the astral body model, in as much as it considers that human beings are made up of two substances. But, unlike the astral body model, this model conceives that the substance that survives the death of the body is not a body of some other sort, but rather, an immaterial soul. In as much as the soul is immaterial, it has no extension, and thus, it cannot be perceived through the senses. A few philosophers, such as Henry James, have come to believe that for something to exist, it must occupy space (although not necessarily physical space), and hence, souls are located somewhere in space (Henry, 2007). Up until the twentieth century, the majority of philosophers believed that persons are souls, and that human beings are made up of two substances (soul and body). A good portion of philosophers believed that the body is mortal and the soul is immortal. Ever since Descartes in the seventeenth century, most philosophers have considered that the soul is identical to the mind, and, whenever a person dies, their mental contents survive in an incorporeal state.

Eastern religions (for example, Hinduism and Buddhism) and some ancient philosophers (for example, Pythagoras and Plato) believed that immortal souls abandon the body upon death, may exist temporarily in an incorporeal state, and may eventually adhere to a new body at the time of birth (in some traditions, at the time of fertilization). This is the doctrine of reincarnation.

Whereas most Greek philosophers believed that immortality implies solely the survival of the soul, the three great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) consider that immortality is achieved through the resurrection of the body at the time of the Final Judgment. The very same bodies that once constituted persons shall rise again, in order to be judged by God. None of these great faiths has a definite position on the existence of an immortal soul. Therefore, traditionally, Jews, Christians and Muslims have believed that, at the time of death, the soul detaches from the body and continues on to exist in an intermediate incorporeal state until the moment of resurrection. Some others, however, believe that there is no intermediate state: with death, the person ceases to exist, and in a sense, resumes existence at the time of resurrection.

As we shall see, some philosophers and theologians have postulated the possibility that, upon resurrection, persons do not rise with the very same bodies with which they once lived (rather, resurrected persons would be constituted by a replica). This version of the doctrine of the resurrection would be better referred to as re-embodiment: the person dies, but, as it were, is re-embodied.

Most religions adhere to the belief in immortality on the basis of faith. In other words, they provide no proof of the survival of the person after the death of the body; actually, their belief in immortality appeals to some sort of divine revelation that, allegedly, does not require rationalization.

Natural theology, however, attempts to provide rational proofs of Gods existence. Some philosophers have argued that, if we can rationally prove that God exists, then we may infer that we are immortal. For, God, being omnibenevolent, cares about us, and thus would not allow the annihilation of our existence; and being just, would bring about a Final Judgement (Swinburne, 1997). Thus, the traditional arguments in favor of the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological) would indirectly prove our immortality. However, these traditional arguments have been notoriously criticized, and some arguments against the existence of God have also been raised (such as the problem of evil) (Martin, 1992; Smith, 1999).

Nevertheless, some philosophers have indeed tried to rationalize the doctrine of immortality, and have come up with a few pragmatic arguments in its favor.

Blaise Pascal proposed a famous argument in favor of the belief in the existence of God, but it may well be extended to the belief in immortality (Pascal, 2005). The so-called Pascals Wager argument goes roughly as follows: if we are to decide to believe whether God exists or not, it is wiser to believe that God does exist. If we rightly believe that God exists, , we gain eternal bliss; if God does not exist, we lose nothing, in as much as there is no Final Judgment to account for our error. On the other hand, if we rightly believe God does not exist, we gain nothing, in as much as there is no Final Judgment to reward our belief. But, if we wrongly believe that God does not exist, we lose eternal bliss, and are therefore damned to everlasting Hell. By a calculation of risks and benefits, we should conclude that it is better to believe in Gods existence. This argument is easily extensible to the belief in immortality: it is better to believe that there is a life after death, because if in fact there is a life after death, we shall be rewarded for our faith, and yet lose nothing if we are wrong; on the other hand, if we do not believe in a life after death, and we are wrong, we will be punished by God, and if we are right, there will not be a Final Judgment to reward our belief.

Although this argument has remained popular among some believers, philosophers have identified too many problems in it (Martin, 1992). Pascals Wager does not take into account the risk of believing in a false god (What if Baal were the real God, instead of the Christian God?), or the risk of believing in the wrong model of immortality (what if God rewarded belief in reincarnation, and punished belief in resurrection?). The argument also assumes that we are able to choose our beliefs, something most philosophers think very doubtful.

Other philosophers have appealed to other pragmatic benefits of the belief in immortality. Immanuel Kant famously rejected in his Critique of Pure Reason the traditional arguments in favor of the existence of God; but in his Critique of Practical Reason he put forth a so-called moral argument. The argument goes roughly as follows: belief in God and immortality is a prerequisite for moral action; if people do not believe there is a Final Judgment administered by God to account for deeds, there will be no motivation to be good. In Kants opinion, human beings seek happiness. But in order for happiness to coincide with moral action, the belief in an afterlife is necessary, because moral action does not guarantee happiness. Thus, the only way that a person may be moral and yet preserve happiness, is by believing that there will be an afterlife justice that will square morality with happiness. Perhaps Kants argument is more eloquently expressed in Ivan Karamazovs (a character from Dostoevskys The Brothers Karamazov) famous phrase: If there is no God, then everything is permitted... if there is no immortality, there is no virtue.

The so-called moral argument has been subject to some criticism. Many philosophers have argued that it is indeed possible to construe secular ethics, where appeal to God is unnecessary to justify morality. The question why be moral? may be answered by appealing to morality itself, to the need for cooperation, or simply, to ones own pleasure (Singer, 1995; Martin, 1992). A vigilant God does not seem to be a prime need in order for man to be good. If these philosophers are right, the lack of belief in immortality would not bring about the collapse of morality. Some contemporary philosophers, however, align with Kant and believe that secular morality is shallow, as it does not satisfactorily account for acts of sacrifice that go against self-interest; in their view, the only way to account for such acts is by appealing to a Divine Judge (Mavrodes, 1995).

Yet another pragmatic argument in favor of the belief in immortality appeals to the need to find meaning in life. Perhaps Miguel de Unamunos Del sentimiento trgico de la vida is the most emblematic philosophical treatise advocating this argument: in Unamunos opinion, belief in immortality is irrational, but nevertheless necessary to avoid desperation in the face of lifes absurdity. Only by believing that our lives will have an ever-lasting effect, do we find motivation to continue to live. If, on the contrary, we believe that everything will ultimately come to an end and nothing will survive, it becomes pointless to carry on any activity.

Of course, not all philosophers would agree. Some philosophers would argue that, on the contrary, the awareness that life is temporal and finite makes living more meaningful, in as much as we better appreciate opportunities (Heidegger, 1978). Bernard Williams has argued that, should life continue indefinitely, it would be terribly boring, and therefore, pointless (Williams, 1976). Some philosophers, however, counter that some activities may be endlessly repeated without ever becoming boring; furthermore, a good God would ensure that we never become bored in Heaven (Fischer, 2009).

Death strikes fear and anguish in many of us, and some philosophers argue that the belief in immortality is a much needed resource to cope with that fear. But, Epicurus famously argued that it is not rational to fear death, for two main reasons: 1) in as much as death is the extinction of consciousness, we are not aware of our condition (if death is, I am not; if I am, death is not); 2) in the same manner that we do not worry about the time that has passed before we were born, we should not worry about the time that will pass after we die (Rist, 1972).

At any rate, pragmatic arguments in favor of the belief in immortality are also critiqued on the grounds that the pragmatic benefits of a belief bear no implications on its truth. In other words, the fact that a belief is beneficial does not make it true. In the analytic tradition, philosophers have long argued for and against the pragmatic theory of truth, and depending on how this theory is valued, it will offer a greater or lesser plausibility to the arguments presented above.

Plato was the first philosopher to argue, not merely in favor of the convenience of accepting the belief in immortality, but for the truth of the belief itself. His Phaedo is a dramatic representation of Socrates final discussion with his disciples, just before drinking the hemlock. Socrates shows no sign of fear or concern, for he is certain that he will survive the death of his body. He presents three main arguments to support his position, and some of these arguments are still in use today.

First, Socrates appeals to cycles and opposites. He believes that everything has an opposite that is implied by it. And, as in cycles, things not only come from opposites, but also go towards opposites. Thus, when something is hot, it was previously cold; or when we are awake, we were previously asleep; but when we are asleep, we shall be awake once again. In the same manner, life and death are opposites in a cycle. Being alive is opposite to being dead. And, in as much as death comes from life, life must come from death. We come from death, and we go towards death. But, again, in as much as death comes from life, it will also go towards life. Thus, we had a life before being born, and we shall have a life after we die.

Most philosophers have not been persuaded by this argument. It is very doubtful that everything has an opposite (What is the opposite of a computer?) And, even if everything had an opposite, it is doubtful that everything comes from its opposite, or even that everything goes towards its opposite.

Socrates also appeals to the theory of reminiscence, the view that learning is really a process of remembering knowledge from past lives. The soul must already exist before the birth of the body, because we seem to know things that were not available to us. Consider the knowledge of equality. If we compare two sticks and we realize they are not equal, we form a judgment on the basis of a previous knowledge of equality as a form. That knowledge must come from previous lives. Therefore, this is an argument in favor of the transmigration of souls (that is, reincarnation or metempsychosis).

Some philosophers would dispute the existence of the Platonic forms, upon which this argument rests. And, the existence of innate ideas does not require the appeal to previous lives. Perhaps we are hard-wired by our brains to believe certain things; thus, we may know things that were not available to us previously.

Yet another of Socrates arguments appeals to the affinity between the soul and the forms. In Platos understanding, forms are perfect, immaterial and eternal. And, in as much as the forms are intelligible, but not sensible, only the soul can apprehend them. In order to apprehend something, the thing apprehending must have the same nature as the thing apprehended. The soul, then, shares the attributes of the forms: it is immaterial and eternal, and hence, immortal.

Again, the existence of the Platonic forms should not be taken for granted, and for this reason, this is not a compelling argument. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the thing apprehending must have the same nature as the thing apprehended: a criminologist need not be a criminal in order to apprehend the nature of crime.

Platos arguments take for granted that souls exist; he only attempts to prove that they are immortal. But, a major area of discussion in the philosophy of mind is the existence of the soul. One of the doctrines that hold that the soul does exist is called dualism; its name comes from the fact that it postulates that human beings are made up of two substances: body and soul. Arguments in favor of dualism are indirectly arguments in favor of immortality, or at least in favor of the possibility of survival of death. For, if the soul exists, it is an immaterial substance. And, in as much as it is an immaterial substance, it is not subject to the decomposition of material things; hence, it is immortal.

Most dualists agree that the soul is identical to the mind, yet different from the brain or its functions. Some dualists believe the mind may be some sort of emergent property of the brain: it depends on the brain, but it is not identical to the brain or its processes. This position is often labeled property dualism, but here we are concerned with substance dualism, that is, the doctrine that holds that the mind is a separate substance (and not merely a separate property) from the body, and therefore, may survive the death of the body (Swinburne, 1997).

Ren Descartes is usually considered the father of dualism, as he presents some very ingenuous arguments in favor of the existence of the soul as a separate substance (Descartes, 1980). In perhaps his most celebrated argument, Descartes invites a thought experiment: imagine you exist, but not your body. You wake up in the morning, but as you approach the mirror, you do not see yourself there. You try to reach your face with your hand, but it is thin air. You try to scream, but no sound comes out. And so on.

Now, Descartes believes that it is indeed possible to imagine such a scenario. But, if one can imagine the existence of a person without the existence of the body, then persons are not constituted by their bodies, and hence, mind and body are two different substances. If the mind were identical to the body, it would be impossible to imagine the existence of the mind without imagining at the same time the existence of the body.

This argument has been subject to much scrutiny. Dualists certainly believe it is a valid one, but it is not without its critics. Descartes seems to assume that everything that is imaginable is possible. Indeed, many philosophers have long agreed that imagination is a good guide as to what is possible (Hume, 2010). But, this criterion is disputed. Imagination seems to be a psychological process, and thus not strictly a logical process. Therefore, perhaps we can imagine scenarios that are not really possible. Consider the Barber Paradox. At first, it seems possible that, in a town, a man shaves only those persons that shave themselves. We may perhaps imagine such a situation, but logically there cannot be such a situation, as Bertrand Russell showed. The lesson to be learned is that imagination might not be a good guide to possibility. And, although Descartes appears to have no trouble imagining an incorporeal mind, such a scenario might not be possible. However, dualists may argue that there is no neat difference between a psychological and a logical process, as logic seems to be itself a psychological process.

Descartes presents another argument. As Leibniz would later formalize in the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles, two entities can be considered identical, if and only if, they exhaustively share the same attributes. Descartes exploits this principle, and attempts to find a property of the mind not shared by the body (or vice versa), in order to argue that they are not identical, and hence, are separate substances.

Descartes states: There is a great difference between a mind and a body, because the body, by its very nature, is something divisible, whereas the mind is plainly indivisible. . . insofar as I am only a thing that thinks, I cannot distinguish any parts in me. . . . Although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, nevertheless, were a foot or an arm or any other bodily part amputated, I know that nothing would be taken away from the mind (Descartes, 1980: 97).

Descartes believed, then, that mind and body cannot be the same substance. Descartes put forth another similar argument: the body has extension in space, and as such, it can be attributed physical properties. We may ask, for instance, what the weight of a hand is, or what the longitude of a leg is. But the mind has no extension, and therefore, it has no physical properties. It makes no sense to ask what the color of the desire to eat strawberries is, or what the weight of Communist ideology is. If the body has extension, and the mind has no extension, then the mind can be considered a separate substance.

Yet another of Descartes arguments appeals to some difference between mind and body. Descartes famously contemplated the possibility that an evil demon might be deceiving him about the world. Perhaps the world is not real. In as much as that possibility exists, Descartes believed that one may be doubt the existence of ones own body. But, Descartes argued that one cannot doubt the existence of ones own mind. For, if one doubts, one is thinking; and if one thinks, then it can be taken for certain that ones mind exists. Hence Descartes famous phrase: cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore, I exist. Now, if one may doubt the existence of ones body, but cannot doubt the existence of ones mind, then mind and body are different substances. For, again, they do not share exhaustively the same attributes.

These arguments are not without critics. Indeed, Leibnizs Principle of Indiscernibles would lead us to think that, in as much as mind and body do not exhaustively share the same properties, they cannot be the same substance. But, in some contexts, it seems possible that A and B may be identical, even if that does not imply that everything predicated of A can be predicated of B.

Consider, for example, a masked man that robs a bank. If we were to ask a witness whether or not the masked man robbed the bank, the witness will answer yes!. But, if we were to ask the witness whether his father robbed the bank, he may answer no. That, however, does not imply that the witness father is not the bank robber: perhaps the masked man was the witness father, and the witness was not aware of it. This is the so-called Masked Man Fallacy.

This case forces us to reconsider Leibnizs Law: A is identical to B, not if everything predicated of A is predicated of B, but rather, when A and B share exhaustively the same properties. And, what people believe about substances are not properties. To be an object of doubt is not, strictly speaking, a property, but rather, an intentional relation. And, in our case, to be able to doubt the bodys existence, but not the minds existence, does not imply that mind and body are not the same substance.

In more recent times, Descartes strategy has been used by other dualist philosophers to account for the difference between mind and body. Some philosophers argue that the mind is private, whereas the body is not. Any person may know the state of my body, but no person, including even possibly myself, can truly know the state of my mind.

Some philosophers point intentionality as another difference between mind and body. The mind has intentionality, whereas the body does not. Thoughts are about something, whereas body parts are not. In as much as thoughts have intentionality, they may also have truth values. Not all thoughts, of course, are true or false, but at least those thoughts that pretend to represent the world, may be. On the other hand, physical states do not have truth values: neurons activating in the brain are neither true, nor false.

Again, these arguments exploit the differences between mind and body. But, very much as with Descartes arguments, it is not absolutely clear that they avoid the Masked Man Fallacy.

Opponents of dualism not only reject their arguments; they also highlight conceptual and empirical problems with this doctrine. Most opponents of dualism are materialists: they believe that mental stuff is really identical to the brain, or at the most, an epiphenomenon of the brain. Materialism limits the prospects for immortality: if the mind is not a separate substance from the brain, then at the time of the brains death, the mind also becomes extinct, and hence, the person does not survive death. Materialism need not undermine all expectations of immortality (see resurrection below), but it does undermine the immortality of the soul.

The main difficulty with dualism is the so-called interaction problem. If the mind is an immaterial substance, how can it interact with material substances? The desire to move my hand allegedly moves my hand, but how exactly does that occur? There seems to be an inconsistency with the minds immateriality: some of the time, the mind is immaterial and is not affected by material states, at other times, the mind manages to be in contact with the body and cause its movement. Daniel Dennett has ridiculed this inconsistency by appealing to the comic-strip character Casper. This friendly ghost is immaterial because he is able to go through walls. But, all of a sudden, he is also able to catch a ball. The same inconsistency appears with dualism: in its interaction with the body, sometimes the mind does not interact with the body, sometimes it does (Dennett, 1992).Dualists have offered some solutions to this problem. Occasionalists hold that God directly causes material events. Thus, mind and body never interact. Likewise, parallelists hold that mental and physical events are coordinated by God so that they appear to cause each other, but in fact, they do not. These alternatives are in fact rejected by most contemporary philosophers.

Some dualists, however, may reply that the fact that we cannot fully explain how body and soul interact, does not imply that interaction does not take place. We know many things happen in the universe, although we do not know how they happen. Richard Swinburne, for instance, argues as follows: That bodily events cause brain events and that these cause pains, images, and beliefs (where their subjects have privileged access to the latter and not the former), is one of the most obvious phenomena of human experience. If we cannot explain how that occurs, we should not try to pretend that it does not occur. We should just acknowledge that human beings are not omniscient, and cannot understand everything (Swinburne, 1997, xii).

On the other hand, Dualism postulates the existence of an incorporeal mind, but it is not clear that this is a coherent concept. In the opinion of most dualists, the incorporeal mind does perceive. But, it is not clear how the mind can perceive without sensory organs. Descartes seemed to have no problems in imagining an incorporeal existence, in his thought experiment. However, John Hospers, for instance, believes that such a scenario is simply not imaginable:

You see with eyes? No, you have no eyes, since you have no body. But let that pass for a moment; you have experiences similar to what you would have if you had eyes to see with. But how can you look toward the foot of the bed or toward the mirror? Isnt looking an activity that requires having a body? How can you look in one direction or another if you have no head to turn? And this isnt all; we said that you cant touch your body because there is no body there; how did you discover this?... Your body seems to be involved in every activity we try to describe even though we have tried to imagine existing without it. (Hospers, 1997: 280)

Furthermore, even if an incorporeal existence were in fact possible, it could be terribly lonely. For, without a body, could it be possible to communicate with other minds. In Paul Edwards words: so far from living on in paradise, a person deprived of his body and thus of all sense organs would, quite aside from many other gruesome deprivations, be in a state of desolate loneliness and eventually come to prefer annihilation. (Edwards, 1997:48). However, consider that, even in the absence of a body, great pleasures may be attained. We may live in a situation the material world is an illusion (in fact, idealists inspired in Berkley lean towards such a position), and yet, enjoy existence. For, even without a body, we may enjoy sensual pleasures that, although not real, certainly feel real. However, the problems with dualism do not end there. If souls are immaterial and have no spatial extension, how can they be separate from other souls? Separation implies extension. Yet, if the soul has no extension, it is not at all clear how one soul can be distinguished from another. Perhaps souls can be distinguished based on their contents, but then again, how could we distinguish two souls with exactly the same contents? Some contemporary dualists have responded thus: in as much as souls interact with bodies, they have a spatial relationships to bodies, and in a sense, can be individuated.

Perhaps the most serious objection to dualism, and a substantial argument in favor of materialism, is the minds correlation with the brain. Recent developments in neuroscience increasingly confirm that mental states depend upon brain states. Neurologists have been able to identify certain regions of the brain associated with specific mental dispositions. And, in as much as there appears to be a strong correlation between mind and brain, it seems that the mind may be reducible to the brain, and would therefore not be a separate substance.

In the last recent decades, neuroscience has accumulated data that confirm that cerebral damage has a great influence on the mental constitution of persons. Phineas Gages case is well-known in this respect: Gage had been a responsible and kind railroad worker, but had an accident that resulted in damage to the frontal lobes of his brain. Ever since, Gage turned into an aggressive, irresponsible person, unrecognizable by his peers (Damasio, 2006).

Departing from Gages case, scientists have inferred that frontal regions of the brain strongly determine personality. And, if mental contents can be severely damaged by brain injuries, it does not seem right to postulate that the mind is an immaterial substance. If, as dualism postulates, Gage had an immortal immaterial soul, why didnt his soul remain intact after his brain injury?

A similar difficulty arises when we consider degenerative neurological diseases, such as Alzheimers disease. As it is widely known, this disease progressively eradicates the mental contents of patients, until patients lose memory almost completely. If most memories eventually disappear, what remains of the soul? When a patient afflicted with Alzheimer dies, what is it that survives, if precisely, most of his memories have already been lost? Of course, correlation is not identity, and the fact that the brain is empirically correlated with the mind does not imply that the mind is the brain. But, many contemporary philosophers of mind adhere to the so-called identity theory: mental states are the exact same thing as the firing of specific neurons.

Dualists may respond by claiming that the brain is solely an instrument of the soul. If the brain does not work properly, the soul will not work properly, but brain damage does not imply a degeneration of the soul. Consider, for example, a violinist. If the violin does not play accurately, the violinist will not perform well. But, that does not imply that the violinist has lost their talent. In the same manner, a person may have a deficient brain, and yet, retain her soul intact. However, Occams Razor requires the more parsimonious alternative: in which case, unless there is any compelling evidence in its favor, there is no need to assume the existence of a soul that uses the brain as its instrument.

Dualists may also suggest that the mind is not identical to the soul. In fact, whereas many philosophers tend to consider the soul and mind identical, various religions consider that a person is actually made up of by three substances: body, mind and soul. In such a view, even if the mind degenerates, the soul remains. However, it would be far from clear what the soul exactly could be, if it is not identical to the mind.

Any philosophical discussion on immortality touches upon a fundamental issue concerning personspersonal identity. If we hope to survive death, we would want to be sure that the person that continues to exist after death is the same person that existed before death. And, for religions that postulate a Final Judgment, this is a crucial matter: if God wants to apply justice, the person rewarded or punished in the afterlife must be the very same person whose deeds determine the outcome.

The question of personal identity refers to the criterion upon which a person remains the same (that is, numerical identity) throughout time. Traditionally, philosophers have discussed three main criteria: soul, body and psychological continuity.

According to the soul criterion for personal identity, persons remains the same throughout time, if and only if, they retain their soul (Swinburne, 2004). Philosophers who adhere to this criterion usually do not think the soul is identical to the mind. The soul criterion is favored by very few philosophers, as it faces a huge difficulty: if the soul is an immaterial non-apprehensible substance (precisely, in as much as it is not identical to the mind), how can we be sure that a person continues to be the same? We simply do not know if, in the middle of the night, our neighbors soul has transferred into another body. Even if our neighbors body and mental contents remain the same, we can never know if his soul is the same. Under this criterion, it appears that there is simply no way to make sure someone is always the same person.

However, there is a considerable argument in favor of the soul criterion. To pursue such an argument, Richard Swinburne proposes the following thought experiment: suppose Johns brain is successfully split in two, and as a result, we get two persons; one with the left hemisphere of Johns brain, the other with the right hemisphere. Now, which one is John? Both have a part of Johns brain, and both conserve part of Johns mental contents. So, one of them must presumably be John, but which one? Unlike the body and the mind, the soul is neither divisible nor duplicable. Thus, although we do not know which would be John, we do know that only one of the two persons is John. And it would be the person that preserves Johns souls, even if we have no way of identifying it. In such a manner, although we know about Johns body and mind, we are not able to discern who is John; therefore, Johns identity is not his mind or his body, but rather, his soul (Swinburne, 2010: 68).

Common sense informs that persons are their bodies (in fact, that is how we recognize people ) but, although many philosophers would dispute this, ordinary people seem generally to adhere to such a view). Thus, under this criterion, a person continues to be the same, if, and only if, they conserve the same body. Of course, the body alters, and eventually, all of its cells are replaced. This evokes the ancient philosophical riddle known as the Ship of Theseus: the planks of Theseus ship were gradually replaced, until none of the originals remained. Is it still the same ship? There has been much discussion on this, but most philosophers agree that, in the case of the human body, the total replacement of atoms and the slight alteration of form do not alter the numerical identity of the human body.

However, the body criterion soon runs into difficulties. Imagine two patients, Brown and Robinson, who undergo surgery simultaneously. Accidentally, their brains are swapped in placed in the wrong body. Thus, Browns brain is placed in Robinsons body. Let us call this person Brownson. Naturally, in as much as he has Browns brain, he will have Browns memories, mental contents, and so forth. Now, who is Brownson? Is he Robinson with Browns brain; or is he Brown with Robinsons body? Most people would think the latter (Shoemaker, 2003). After all, the brain is the seat of consciousness.

Thus, it would appear that the body criterion must give way to the brain criterion: a person continues to be the same, if and only if, she conserves the same brain. But, again, we run into difficulties. What if the brain undergoes fission, and each half is placed in a new body? (Parfit, 1984). As a result, we would have two persons pretending to be the original person, but, because of the principle of transitivity, we know that both of them cannot be the original person. And, it seems arbitrary that one of them should be the original person, and not the other (although, as we have seen, Swinburne bites the bullet, and considers that, indeed, only one would be the original person). This difficulty invites the consideration of other criteria for personal identity.

John Locke famously asked what we would think if a prince one day woke up in a cobblers body, and the cobbler in a princes body (Locke, 2009). Although the cobblers peers would recognize him as the cobbler, he would have the memories of the prince. Now, if before that event, the prince committed a crime, who should be punished? Should it be the man in the palace, who remembers being a cobbler; or should it be the man in the workshop, who remembers being a prince, including his memory of the crime?

It seems that the man in the workshop should be punished for the princes crime, because, even if that is not the princes original body, that person is the prince, in as much as he conserves his memories. Locke, therefore, believed that a person continues to be the same, if and only if, she conserves psychological continuity.

Although it appears to be an improvement with regards to the previous two criteria, the psychological criterion also faces some problems. Suppose someone claims today to be Guy Fawkes, and conserves intact very vividly and accurately the memories of the seventeenth century conspirator (Williams, 1976). By the psychological criterion, such a person would indeed be Guy Fawkes. But, what if, simultaneously, another person also claims to be Guy Fawkes, even with the same degree of accuracy? Obviously, both persons cannot be Guy Fawkes. Again, it would seem arbitrary to conclude that one person is Guy Fawkes, yet the other person isnt. It seems more plausible that neither person is Guy Fawkes, and therefore, that psychological continuity is not a good criterion for personal identity.

In virtue of the difficulties with the above criteria, some philosophers have argued that, in a sense, persons do not exist. Or, to be more precise, the self does not endure changes. In David Humes words, a person is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement (Hume, 2010: 178). This is the so-called bundle theory of the self.

As a corollary, Derek Parfit argues that, when considering survival, personal identity is not what truly matters (Parfit, 1984). What does matter is psychological continuity. Parfit asks us to consider this example.

Suppose that you enter a cubicle in which, when you press a button, a scanner records the states of all the cells in your brain and body, destroying both while doing so. This information is then transmitted at the speed of light to some other planet, where a replicator produces a perfect organic copy of you. Since the brain of your replica is exactly like yours, it will seem to remember living your life up to the moment when you pressed the button, its character will be just like yours, it will be every other way psychologically continuous with you. (Parfit, 1997: 311)

Now, under the psychological criterion, such a replica will in fact be you. But, what if the machine does not destroy the original body, or makes more than one replica? In such a case, there will be two persons claiming to be you. As we have seen, this is a major problem for the psychological criterion. But, Parfit argues that, even if the person replicated is not the same person that entered the cubicle, it is psychologically continuous. And, that is what is indeed relevant.

Parfits position has an important implication for discussions of immortality. According to this view, a person in the afterlife is not the same person that lived before. But, that should not concern us. We should be concerned about the prospect that, in the afterlife, there will at least be one person that is psychologically continuous with us.

As we have seen, the doctrine of resurrection postulates that on Judgment Day the bodies of every person who ever lived shall rise again, in order to be judged by God. Unlike the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of resurrection has not been traditionally defended with philosophical arguments. Most of its adherents accept it on the basis of faith. Some Christians, however, consider that the resurrection of Jesus can be historically demonstrated (Habermas, 2002; Craig, 2008). And, so the argument goes, if it can be proven that God resurrected Jesus from the dead, then we can expect that God will do the same with every human being who has ever lived.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of resurrection runs into some philosophical problems derived from considerations on personal identity; that is, how is the person resurrected identical to the person that once lived? If we were to accept dualism and the soul criterion for personal identity, then there is not much of a problem: upon the moment of death, soul and body split, the soul remains incorporeal until the moment of resurrection, and the soul becomes attached to the new resurrected body. In as much as a person is the same, if and only if, she conserves the same soul, then we may legitimately claim that the resurrected person is identical to the person that once lived.

But, if we reject dualism, or the soul criterion for personal identity, then we must face some difficulties. According to the most popular one conception of resurrection, we shall be raised with the same bodies with which we once lived. Suppose that the resurrected body is in fact made of the very same cells that made up the original body, and also, the resurrected body has the same form as the original body. Are they identical?

Peter Van Inwagen thinks not (Van Inwagen, 1997). If, for example, an original manuscript written by Augustine is destroyed, and then, God miraculously recreates a manuscript with the same atoms that made up Augustines original manuscript, we should not consider it the very same manuscript. It seems that, between Augustines original manuscript, and the manuscript recreated by God, there is no spatio-temporal continuity. And, if such continuity is lacking, then we cannot legitimately claim that the recreated object is the same original object. For the same reason, it appears that the resurrected body cannot be identical to the original body. At most, the resurrected body would be a replica.

However, our intuitions are not absolutely clear. Consider, for example, the following case: a bicycle is exhibited in a store, and a customer buys it. In order to take it home, the customer dismantles the bicycle, puts its pieces in a box, takes it home, and once there, reassembles the pieces. Is it the same bicycle? It certainly seems so, even if there is no spatio-temporal continuity.

Nevertheless, there is room to doubt that the resurrected body would be made up of the original bodys same atoms. We know that matter recycles itself, and that due to metabolism, the atoms that once constituted the human body of a person may later constitute the body of another person. How could God resurrect bodies that shared the same atoms? Consider the case of cannibalism, as ridiculed by Voltaire:

A soldier from Brittany goes into Canada; there, by a very common chance, he finds himself short of food, and is forced to eat an Iroquis whom he killed the day before. The Iroquis had fed on Jesuits for two or three months; a great part of his body had become Jesuit. Here, then, the body of a soldier is composed of Iroquis, of Jesuits, and of all that he had eaten before. How is each to take again precisely what belongs to him? And which part belongs to each? (Voltaire, 1997: 147)

However, perhaps, in the resurrection, God neednt resurrect the body. If we accept the body criterion for personal identity, then, indeed, the resurrected body must be the same original body. But, if we accept the psychological criterion, perhaps God only needs to recreate a person psychologically continuous with the original person, regardless of whether or not that person has the same body. John Hick believes this is how God could indeed proceed (Hick, 1994).

Hick invites a thought experiment. Suppose a man disappears in London, and suddenly someone with his same looks and personality appears in New York. It seems reasonable to consider that the person that disappeared in London is the same person that appeared in New York. Now, suppose that a man dies in London, and suddenly appears in New York with the same looks and personality. Hick believes that, even if the cadaver is in London, we would be justified to claim that the person that appears in New York is the same person that died in London. Hicks implication is that body continuity is not needed for personal identity; only psychologically continuity is necessary.

And, Hick considers that, in the same manner, if a person dies, and someone in the resurrection world appears with the same character traits, memories, and so forth, then we should conclude that such a person in the resurrected world is identical to the person who previously died. Hick admits the resurrected body would be a replica, but as long as the resurrected is psychologically continuous with the original person, then it is identical to the original person.

Yet, in as much as Hicks model depends upon a psychological criterion for personal identity, it runs into the same problems that we have reviewed when considering the psychological criterion. It seems doubtful that a replica would be identical to the original person, because more than one replica could be recreated. And, if there is more than one replica, then they would all claim to be the original person, but obviously, they cannot all be the original person. Hick postulates that we can trust that God would only recreate exactly one replica, but it is not clear how that would solve the problem. For, the mere possibility that God could make more than one replica is enough to conclude that a replica would not be the original person.

Peter Van Inwagen has offered a somewhat extravagant solution to these problems: Perhaps at the moment of each mans death, God removes his corpse and replaces it with a simulacrum which is what is burned or rots. Or perhaps God is not quite so wholesale as this: perhaps He removes for safekeeping only the core person the brain and central nervous system or even some special part of it (Van Inwagen, 1997: 246). This would seem to solve the problem of spatio-temporal continuity. The body would never cease to exist, it would only be stored somewhere else until the moment of resurrection, and therefore, it would conserve spatio-temporal continuity. However, such an alternative seems to presuppose a deceitful God (He would make us believe the corpse that rots is the original one, when in fact, it is not), and would thus contradict the divine attribute of benevolence (a good God would not lie), a major tenet of monotheistic religions that defend the doctrine of resurrection.

Some Christian philosophers are aware of all these difficulties, and have sought a more radical solution: there is no criterion for personal identity over time. Such a view is not far from the bundle theory, in the sense that it is difficult to precise how a person remains the same over time. This position is known as anti-criterialism, that is, there is no intelligible criterion for personal identity; Trenton Merricks (1998) is its foremost proponent. By doing away with criteria for personal identity, anti-criterialists purport to show that objections to resurrection based on difficulties of personal identity have little weight, precisely because we should not be concerned about criteria for personal identity.

The discipline of parapsychology purports to prove that there is scientific evidence for the afterlife; or at least, that there is scientific evidence for the existence of paranormal abilities that would imply that the mind is not a material substance. Originally founded by J.B.S. Rhine in the 1950s, parapsychology has fallen out of favor among contemporary neuroscientists, although some universities still support parapsychology departments.

Parapsychologists usually claim there is a good deal of evidence in favor of the doctrine of reincarnation. Two pieces of alleged evidence are especially meaningful: (1) past-life regressions; (2) cases of children who apparently remember past lives.

Under hypnosis, some patients frequently have regressions and remember events from their childhood. But, some patients have gone even further and, allegedly, have vivid memories of past lives. A few parapsychologists take these as so-called past-life regressions as evidence for reincarnation (Sclotterbeck, 2003).

However, past-life regressions may be cases of cryptomnesia, that is, hidden memories. A person may have a memory, and yet not recognize it as such. A well-known case is illustrative: an American woman in the 1950s was hypnotized, and claimed to be Bridey Murphy, an Irishwoman of the 19th century. Under hypnosis, the woman offered a fairly good description of 19th century Ireland, although she had never been in Ireland. However, it was later discovered that, as a child, she had an Irish neighbor. Most likely, she had hidden memories of that neighbor, and under hypnosis, assumed the personality of a 20th century Irish woman.

It must also be kept in mind that hypnosis is a state of high suggestibility. The person that conducts the hypnosis may easily induce false memories on the person hypnotized; hence, alleged memories that come up in hypnosis are not trustworthy at all.

Some children have claimed to remember past lives. Parapsychologist Ian Stevenson collected more than a thousand of such cases (Stevenson, 2001). And, in a good portion of those cases, children know things about the deceased person that, allegedly, they could not have known otherwise.

However, Stevensons work has been severely critiqued for its methodological flaws. In most cases, the childs family had already made contact with the deceaseds family before Stevensons arrival; thus, the child could pick up information and give the impression that he knows more than what he could have known. Paul Edwards has also accused Stevenson of asking leading questions towards his own preconceptions (Edwards, 1997: 14).

Moreover, reincarnation runs into conceptual problems of its own. If you do not remember past lives, then it seems that you cannot legitimately claim that you are the same person whose life you do not remember. However, a few philosophers claim this is not a good objection at all, as you do not remember being a very young child, and yet can still surely claim to be the same person as that child (Ducasse, 1997: 199).

Population growth also seems to be a problem for reincarnation: according to defenders of reincarnation, souls migrate from one body to another. This, in a sense, presupposes that the number of souls remains stable, as no new souls are created, they only migrate from body to body. Yet, the number of bodies has consistently increased ever since the dawn of mankind. Where, one may ask, were all souls before new bodies came to exist? (Edwards, 1997: 14). Actually, this objection is not so formidable: perhaps souls exist in a disembodied form as they wait for new bodies to come up (DSouza, 2009: 57).

During the heyday of Spiritualism (the religious movement that sought to make contact with the dead), some mediums gained prominence for their reputed abilities to contact the dead. These mediums were of two kinds: physical mediums invoked spirits that, allegedly, produced physical phenomena (for example, lifting tables); and mental mediums whose bodies, allegedly, were temporarily possessed by the spirits.

Most physical mediums were exposed as frauds by trained magicians. Mental mediums, however, presented more of a challenge for skeptics. During their alleged possession by a deceased persons spirit, mediums would provide information about the deceased person that, apparently, could not have possibly known. William James was impressed by one such medium, Leonora Piper, and although he remained somewhat skeptical, he finally endorsed the view that Piper in fact made contact with the dead.

Some parapsychologists credit the legitimacy of mental mediumship (Almeder, 1992). However, most scholars believe that mental mediums work through the technique of cold reading: they ask friends and relatives of a deceased person questions at a fast pace, and infer from their body language and other indicators, information about the deceased person (Gardner, 2003).

Read the original post:

Immortality | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Freedom Health – Tampa, FL – Inc.com

Posted on by

Freedom Health - Tampa, FL You're about to be redirected

We notice you're visiting us from a region where we have a local version of Inc.com.

READ THIS ARTICLE ON

or remain on inc.com

' + searchedData[i].rank + '

' + growth + '

' + revenue + '

' + searchedData[i].industry + '

' + searchedData[i].metro + '

Please search by company, industry, or metro area above...

Please search by company name, industry, or metro area above...

CLOSE

Get Inc. Straight to Your Inbox

SIGN UP FOR TODAY'S 5 MUST READS

Freedom Health administers Medicare and Medicaid benefits in numerous counties in Florida. A health insurance company owned and operated by physicians, Freedom Health focuses on providing cost-effective health insurance that both improves quality of care and reduces total out-of-pocket costs for its members.

Read the rest here:

Freedom Health - Tampa, FL - Inc.com

In ‘Full-on War on Drugs Scare-Fest,’ Trump Proposes Death …

Posted on by

In a speech officially unveiling his administration's plan to combat the nation's ongoing opioid epidemic, President Donald Trump on Monday saod he would fight the crisis with "toughness", the creation of "very...very...bad commercials" aimed at children; andas expectedproposed that the death penalty be applied to drug dealers.

However, as drug policy reform advocates feared, he showed little understanding of the origins of the crisis and neglected to mention numerous measures public health experts have advocated for to stop the deadly epidemic.

A key tenet of Trump's plan to combat the crisis, which killed nearly 64,000 Americans in 2016, is to launch an advertising campaign showing the effects of opioid use.

"The best way to beat the drug crisis is to keep people from getting hooked on drugs to begin with," he told a crowd in Manchester, N.H. "As part of that effortso important, this is something I've been strongly in favor ofspending a lot of money on great commercials showing how bad it is."

The ads, Trump added, would be "very...very...bad commercials...And when they see those commercials, hopefully they're not going to be going to drugs of any kind."

Trump expresses support for anti-drug commercials aimed at kids to stop them from getting addicted to opioids: "That's the least expensive thing we can we do, where you scare them from ending up like the people in the commercials" pic.twitter.com/rIgUmRBMHL

BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) March 19, 2018

The proposal struck critics as similar to First Lady Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign of the 1980s, which has been denounced as "simplistic and vague" and which studies have shown did not make young Americans any less likely to use drugs.

Trump today called for "great commercials" that show kids "how bad" drugs are. As we explained recently, that strategy has been tried and hasn't worked. https://t.co/JSu2WDOjEo

The Upshot (@UpshotNYT) March 19, 2018

Scare tactics & Just Say No programs are not effective. Its better to equip our young people and parents with real information. https://t.co/GvZKxYyooI

Drug Policy Alliance (@DrugPolicyOrg) March 19, 2018

While Trump spent a large portion of his speech talking about keeping kids away from drugs, statistics show that Americans in their 50s and 60s are most at risk for overdosing on prescription opioidsa major driver of the overall crisis.

The prevalence of heroin abuse is of greater concern among younger Americans, but recent studies have shown that three-quarters of people who began using heroin in the 2000s abused prescription opioid painkillers first. Doctors have suggested that lax prescribing practices within their own profession continue to contribute to the opioid crisiscalling into question the notion that commercials would successfully steer Americans away from the drugs.

The president also linked the epidemic to immigration, urging Democrats to back his plan to "build the wall to keep the damn drugs out" and leading audience members in the chant, "Build the wall!"

But drug policy experts say that tougher border security would have little to no effect on the prevalence of drugs in the U.S.

"A wall alone cannot stop the flow of drugs into the United States," Christopher Wilson of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center, told Vox last year. "...history shows us that border enforcement has been much more effective at changing the when and where of drugs being brought into the United States rather than the overall amount of drugs being brought into the United States."

Critics also expressed shock at the president's proposal to seek the death penalty for drug dealersa plan that was hinted at last week. Trump has expressed admiration for Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte's drug warwhich has resulted in the deaths of thousands, many in poor communitiesand the stringent drug policies applied by Singapore's government.

"We can have all the blue ribbon committees we want but if we don't get tough on the drug dealers we're wasting our time...and that toughness includes the death penalty," said the president.

The remark was condemned on social media by many, including drug policy experts, who have long said drug addition should be treated as a public health issue instead of a criminal matter.

Anyone casually invoking taking the life of someone needs to be put in time out, including the POTUS. If you are not willing to clearly articulate a precise definition for what counts as taking someones life for an action, you have zero credibility and should be treated as such.

Bryan William Jones (@BWJones) March 19, 2018

Text from govt health official:

Potus remarks are a full-on War on Drugs scare fest. Health policy staff are extremely disappointed by this divisive rhetoric, and his focus on actions that we know dont work.

Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) March 19, 2018

Had heard from health officials who were crossing their fingers that Trump would lay off death penalty language and focus on the many public health proposals in the plan.

(He didnt.)

Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) March 19, 2018

Read the original:

In 'Full-on War on Drugs Scare-Fest,' Trump Proposes Death ...

List of Genetic Diseases – Types, Symptoms, Causes …

Posted on by

What is a genetic disease? How is it defined?

A genetic disease is any disease that is caused by an abnormality in an individual's genome, the person's entire genetic makeup. The abnormality can range from minuscule to major -- from a discrete mutation in a single base in the DNA of a single gene to a gross chromosome abnormality involving the addition or subtraction of an entire chromosome or set of chromosomes. Some genetic disorders are inherited from the parents, while other genetic diseases are caused by acquired changes or mutations in a preexisting gene or group of genes. Mutations can occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure.

What are the types of genetic inheritance?

There are a number of different types of genetic inheritance including:

Single gene genetic inheritance

Single gene inheritance, also called Mendelian or monogenetic inheritance. This type of inheritance is caused by changes or mutations that occur in the DNA sequence of a single gene. There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).

Some examples of monogenetic disorders include:

Single-gene disorders are inherited in recognizable patterns: autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and X-linked.

Multifactorial genetic inheritance

Multifactorial inheritance, which is also called complex or polygenic inheritance. Multifactorial inheritance disorders are caused by a combination of environmental factors and mutations in multiple genes. For example, different genes that influence breast cancer susceptibility have been found on chromosomes 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 22. Some common chronic diseases are multifactorial disorders.

Examples of multifactorial inheritance include:

Multifactorial inheritance also is associated with heritable traits such as fingerprint patterns, height, eye color, and skin color.

Chromosome abnormalities

Chromosomes, distinct structures made up of DNA and protein, are located in the nucleus of each cell. Because chromosomes are the carriers of the genetic material, abnormalities in chromosome number or structure can result in disease. Abnormalities in chromosomes typically occur due to a problem with cell division.

For example, Down syndrome (sometimes referred to as "Down's syndrome") or trisomy 21 is a common disorder that occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21. There are many other chromosome abnormalities including:

Diseases may also occur because of chromosomal translocation in which portions of two chromosomes are exchanged.

Mitochondrial genetic inheritance

This type of genetic disorder is caused by mutations in the non-nuclear DNA of mitochondria. Mitochondria are small round or rod-like organelles that are involved in cellular respiration and found in the cytoplasm of plant and animal cells. Each mitochondrion may contain 5 to 10 circular pieces of DNA. Since egg cells, but not sperm cells, keep their mitochondria during fertilization, mitochondrial DNA is always inherited from the female parent.

Examples of mitochondrial disease include:

What is the human genome?

The human genome is the entire "treasury of human inheritance." The sequence of the human genome obtained by the Human Genome Project, completed in April 2003, provides the first holistic view of our genetic heritage. The 46 human chromosomes (22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosomes) between them house almost 3 billion base pairs of DNA that contains about 20,500 protein-coding genes. The coding regions make up less than 5% of the genome (the function of all the remaining DNA is not clear) and some chromosomes have a higher density of genes than others.

Most genetic diseases are the direct result of a mutation in one gene. However, one of the most difficult problems ahead is to further elucidate how genes contribute to diseases that have a complex pattern of inheritance, such as in the cases of diabetes, asthma, cancer, and mental illness. In all these cases, no one gene has the yes/no power to say whether a person will develop the disease or not. It is likely that more than one mutation is required before the disease is manifest, and a number of genes may each make a subtle contribution to a person's susceptibility to a disease; genes may also affect how a person reacts to environmental factors.

Medically Reviewed on 3/23/2018

References

National Human Genome Research Institute.<http://www.genome.gov>

Here is the original post:

List of Genetic Diseases - Types, Symptoms, Causes ...

Orfox: Tor Browser for Android – Android Apps on Google Play

Posted on by

Orfox is built from the same source code as Tor Browser (which is built upon Firefox), but with a few minor modifications to the privacy enhancing features to make them compatible with Firefox for Android and the Android operating system.

Orfox REQUIRES Orbot app for Android to connect to the Tor network.

In as many ways as possible, we adhere to the design goals of Tor Browser (https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/), by supporting as much of their actual code as possible, and extending their work into the additional Android components of Firefox for Android.

** Also, includes NoScript and HTTPSEverywhere add-ons built in!

The Tor software protects you by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location, and it lets you access sites which are blocked.

Learn more at:https://guardianproject.info/apps/orfox

* * How is Orfox different than Tor Browser for desktop?

* The Orfox code repository is at https://github.com/guardianproject/tor-browser and the Tor Browser repository is here:https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor-browser.git/. The Orfox repository is a fork of the Tor Browser repository with the necessary modification and Android-specific code as patches on top of the Tor Browser work. We will keep our repository in sync with updates and release of Tor Browser.

* Orfox is built from the Tor Browser repo based on ESR38 (https://dev.guardianproject.info/issues/5146https://dev.guardianproject.info/news/221) and has only two modified patches that were not relevant or necessary for Android

* Orfox does not currently include the mobile versions of the Tor Browser * Button, but this we will be added shortly, now that we have discovered how to properly support automatic installation of extensions on Android (https://dev.guardianproject.info/issues/5360)

* Orfox currently allows for users to bookmark sites, and may have additional data written to disk beyond what the core gecko browser component does. We are still auditing all disk write code, and determining how to appropriately disable or harden it. (https://dev.guardianproject.info/issues/5437)

* * How is Orfox different than Orweb?

Orweb is our current default browser for Orbot/Tor mobile users (https://guardianproject.info/apps/orweb) that has been downloaded over 2 million times. It is VERY VERY SIMPLE, as it only has one tab, no bookmark capability, and an extremely minimal user experience.

Orweb is built upon the bundled WebView (Webkit) browser component inside of the Android operating system. This has proven to be problematic because we cannot control the version of that component, and cannot upgrade it directly when bugs are found. In addition, Google has made it very difficult to effectively control the network proxy settings of all aspects of this component, making it difficult to guarantee that traffic will not leak on all devices and OS versions.

Orweb also only provides a very limited amount of capability of Tor Browser, primarily related to reducing browser fingerprinting, minimizing disk writes, and cookie and history management. It trys to mimic some of the settings of Tor Browser, but doesnt actually use any of the actual code written for Tor Browser security hardening.

Original post:

Orfox: Tor Browser for Android - Android Apps on Google Play

The Huna Golden Rule: You Can Only Harm Yourself

Posted on by

The Ancient Hawaiian Huna Understood that we can only hurt ourselves. We cannot hurt another. Understanding and applying this lost esoteric wisdom can set us free.

By Cathy Eck

The ancient Hawaiian Hunas had a powerful version of the Golden Rule: What you think you do to others, you actually do to yourself. It is a powerful way of thinking. In fact, when we follow this Golden Rule, we start to see a whole new reality. We begin to free our minds of judgment, hatred, and fear.

People can hide behind the Bibles Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is not a bad rule. It makes good sense. But people say they use it all the time without even thinking about what it truly implies. They just make absolutely sure that they dont get caught doing anything wrong. They make sure their mask is secure so their shadow doesnt shine through the cracks.

One day at work, about twenty years ago, I got to thinking about the Golden Rule. I realized that I, like most, didnt take it very seriously. For just a day, I decided that I would analyze my every thought, word, and deed against the Golden Rule standard. I was horrified by what I found in my mind. I could appear to follow the Golden Rule if I left my mind out of the equation. But if I included my thinking in with my doing, I was a red, hot mess.

But Im not a quitter. I kept working on it, and over time, I was relatively pleased with my progress. Then I found the Huna Golden Rule. I didnt know that I was now going to have to up my game.

Jesus pointed out that thinking badly is no less of an offense than doing when he discussed adultery. Yet most people ignore that part of his teaching and act like a child that hides their eyes and thinks they are now invisible. The child doesnt realize that we can still see behind their hand mask.

We convince ourselves that we are kind when we tell little, white lies. We think we are peaceful, when we are merely tolerant. We think that saying something nice without meaning it still gets us points in heaven. We gossip or complain with a victim wrapper around our words so as not to diminish our good reputation. But according to the Huna Golden Rule, we are only deceiving ourselves. We create bigger and bigger illusions; and we are rejecting our true Self, which has nothing to hide.

It makes sense if you think about it. When we say even one untrue thing, we have to maintain that false perspective forevermore. Our mind has to work to remember what we said or how we behaved so that we dont contradict ourselves. Eventually, we become like robots with our persona becoming as natural as brushing our teeth. But if we are honest, we must admit that our persona doesnt fulfill our needs. In fact, it causes us to feel lonely, unworthy and inauthentic. All of our relationships become conditional, and we long for real love.

Our life becomes predictable and boring; we struggle to find excitement or entertainment to help us feel alive again. The truth is, we have lost our true nature and become unworthy, inauthentic, conditionally loving, and incredibly boring. But weve created the whole mess with our secrets and lies.

Ill be the first to admit how challenging this change of perspective can be. After I started trying to live the Golden Rule, Id meet up with friends and found I had nothing to talk about. The conditional bonding that I had with my spouse and family was now exposed. Everything that I would have said before was now taboo under the Golden Rule standards. Nevertheless, my life was enough of a mess that I was willing to keep applying it to the best of my ability even if those around me didnt care to play my new game.

Id be willing to bet that Jesus Golden Rule was exactly as the Huna Masters passed it down. Ive found the two sets of teachings to be a near perfect match. The Bible just lost some accuracy in translation. Humans have been looking through the perspective of good and evil for thousands of years. The Huna Golden Rule doesnt recognize good and evil; it comes from a unity perspective. But people cant translate a concept that they cant comprehend.

While admittedly difficult to apply in the modern world, this amplified Golden Rule can bring peace to many sad hearts. Think of how peaceful it would feel to experience a world where someone who bullies harms only themselves. Someone who demands obedience harms only themselves. Well the Huna masters were not crazy. It is that way. But people are taught that they should obey and respect authority, they are taught that what others think about them matters, and they are so entangled mentally and emotionally that the Huna Golden Rule appears to be ridiculous.

So many people, who dont fit in, have been told that they caused anothers pain or suffering. But, the Huna Golden Rule renders that impossible. It says that we cant hurt another; we can only hurt ourselves. I spent decades believing that I hurt others because I was honest to a fault; and it kept me in constant emotional turmoil. I also saw myself as bad and negatively inclined because I was extremely introverted. In other words, I was not socially gifted. That emotional pain and suffering created stress, pain, and disease in my body.

Likewise, people were hurting me, and I didnt even notice. I thought they were teaching me about life or building my character.

I remember the first time that I went with a boyfriend to Catholic church. Id never thought much about judgment before that time. It never really occurred to me to judge another, nor did it occur to me that others would ever judge me. I had a self-centered orientation, which happens to be our natural orientation. But after the priests long sermon on judgment and original sin, I found myself noticing the flaws in others. It was like the flaws suddenly stood out from the person saying Look at me.

The priest had projected his judgmental view on to his congregation by pretending that he was nonjudgmental. He probably thought he was non-judgmental. Just about everyone does. Usually we think the problems and flaws we see in others are real because they look so true.

I had accepted his projection because he was an authority figure. He sounded like he must know what he was talking about. And people were nodding their heads and clearly agreeing with him. Maybe I just didnt notice all the judgment in the world before. But there was a confusion in me that remained for decades until I came to understand what really happened on that day. I came into that church with the true view of the world as non-judgmental. The priest bestowed his false world view on me. And because I was inferior to him (as far as roles go), I accepted his crappy gift.

I was not the only one afflicted. I listened to the conversations around me as we left the church and noticed everyone was talking about someone else. They were following the Golden Rule that most of the world applies: They were doing to others what was done to them.

The priest was clearly not practicing the Huna Golden Rule. The Huna Golden Rule places the responsibility right where it needs to be. If we see judgment, the Huna master would say it is our judgment we see projected out into the world. He would tell us to shut up and work on our own mind.

But what is the payoff when projection seems so sweet? Our mind doesnt know the difference between another and ourselves. So each time we think we are hating them, we are hating ourselves. If we think we are judging them, we are judging ourselves. And as we do that, we create a bigger and bigger mental illusion. We increase the security of our false selfs mental prison. Our quality of life, our health, and our joy suffer. We lose our ability to love unconditionally and our divine connection.

People who keep their fears and hatred suppressed are constantly meeting their own false selfs beliefs, their shadow. Their lives are filled with competition, drama, and stress. Theyre rigid in their beliefs; and they see themselves as good and the rest of the world as evil. They expect problems. Dr. Hew Len, a true modern Huna Master, says (with a chuckle) People dont notice that whenever there are problems, they are always there. They dont realize that one can only see the problems or the evil they hold in mind.

Unlike other therapists and mentors, I dont see the shadow as something we have to live with. I dont see the shadow as our other half that needs to be integrated to be whole. I see it as something we have to let go if we want to be free of our false self. We were not born with a shadow because we were not born with good and evil (or judgmental) thinking. In fact, we have to learn about those things to see them.

The ancient masters also saw good and evil as a learned idea. Our true Self casts no shadow. In the ancient world, the initiated ones, who truly became like Gods, were said to cast no shadow just like the sun at high noon.

In the Huna Golden Rule, the person who sees a flaw in another would realize that they just saw their own reflection in the other. This is especially difficult for people to apply if the other shows up as an enemy. The one who wants to heal their mind would strip away their label or judgment of the enemy. They would see themselves as the cause and fix their mind by letting go of the belief that brought them face-to-face with their mirror image. Once their mind was clear, they would witness a change in their reflection, i.e, the enemy.

They would know their work was finished when they loved their reflection, even if the reflection didnt love them back. Theyve now freed part of their shadow; and they can never meet that part again.

Likewise, the person who reflected their shadow could also let go of the belief that brought them face-to-face with the projector so they could never play that role again. Thus, both people would return to the place they were before the giving of the hurt or the place of forgiving.

Our social convention doesnt require a victim to own responsibility for their part of the interaction. Sometimes the person who cries victim is the cause. Now dont get me wrong, this is confusing territory. But here is a rule that lets us know when we are at cause. An authority can never be a victim because the authority is the one in power; they are the cause. An authority figure is supposed to be the leader, supposed to be in control. When an authority convinces or coerces someone to obey their perspective or accept their false projection, the person in the role of the reflection becomes their subordinate or sometimes their victim.

But I want to convince you that every victim has power. Even if they are reflecting the most powerful dictator, bully, or rigid authority, they can regain their freedom. If they forgive the projector, they lose their ability to reflect that authority. They will become free from that person. So the victim role must never be a permanent condition.

We have to face the fact that in most cases, the one who is projecting doesnt recognize what they are doing. Jesus said it perfectly, Forgive them for they know not what they do. But once we recognize the pattern of thinking of a projector, we can stop reflecting them. We can set ourselves free. And when more and more of us do this, the projectors will have to own their own shadow. So lets look at a few examples.

Johnny comes home one day and tells mom and dad that he is gay. Mom and dad tell Johnny that he has ruined their lives. Johnny feels terrible because he cant change his sexual orientation. He feels stuck in a future of guilt and shame.

What really happened? Johnny came home and said he was gay. That is a simple fact. Mom and dads belief was exposed. They dont like gays. That is a belief or lie that is within their mind (and of course, they think their belief is true). So who has the problem? Not Johnny. He was just being truthful.

Johnny didnt hurt mom and dad. Mom and dad hurt themselves by believing something that is false. Johnny just exposed their false belief. He is giving them a chance to free a piece of their mind.

Mom and dad need to let go of the belief (or lie) in their head that being gay is wrong. They might have to dig deep and feel some emotional pain from their past. But that is treating Johnny right under the Huna Golden Rule. Johnny was simply their mirror showing them exactly what they needed to heal. But frequently, mom and dad would rather bestow their belief on Johnny and bury his true Self in their crap than get out the shovel and remove the shit theyve been hiding.

If Johnny believes that he has hurt them, he will suffer. He will feel bound to them for the rest of his life. Hell feel emotion every time he thinks of them or visits them. Over time, he might not even remember why he feels that emotion. Johnny is not going to hell for being gay. He is living in hell for being honest to people who believe a lie about him. The key to Johnnys freedom lies within him. He must recognize that what they believe only hurts them. It is a belief and the word belief has the word lie within it for a reason.

Sarah, a southern white girl, falls in love with Ron, a black man. Her parents tell them that theyve ruined their lives, embarrassed the family, and hurt them deeply. Sarah and Ron have done nothing wrong; they just fell in love. They also exposed the hidden prejudice that mom and dad were able to hide until Sarah lovingly gave them a chance to go free. Once again, Sarah and Ron dont have a problem. And if mom and dad see them as mirrors into their unconscious mind, everyone can win.

If mom and dad dont let go of their prejudice, then their future relationship with Sarah and Ron will require everyone to ignore the elephant in the room. The relationship will develop a superficial persona to avoid a lie that is being held in mind as true. If Sarah and Ron dont fall into the parents false view of the world, they will stay free. But they will have to accept that the parents are not yet ready to join their place of freedom and love. They will have to let them go.

Janice has always been a responsible and dependable person. You could set your watch by her. But suddenly she finds herself constantly late for work. Her new boss hates people who are late; and he doesnt admit that he is one of those constantly late people. Janice thinks there is something wrong with her. No matter how hard she tries, she finds herself late for work several times a week.

We are taught that we must respect and obey authority figures. That is the worst advice we could ever give to our children. It is a perspective that serves leaders who want blindly-obedient warriors and slaves to fulfill their selfish needs. Our world doesnt contain only wise, loving authority figures. Children must learn to discern true from false. They must only follow leaders who deserve their respect and obedience because they are leaders who are responsible for their minds. Janice had been taught to blindly obey authority, and she is obeying her bosss unconscious command to Be late.

As for her boss, hes certain that he told her to be on time. Hes even disciplined her again and again. But his unconscious projection is louder than his conscious, spoken message. She just cant avoid being engulfed in his giant shadow. He projects it on Janice because he wont admit that the judgment he feels about being late is the judgment he feels toward himself for not letting go of his own beliefs that cause him to be late.

People who project want to be authority figures to escape the pain of being someone elses reflection. Being an authority comes with an illusion of control. The authority thinks they can fix others or at least boss them around which only delays dealing with our own false self.

We find false-minded authority figures behind every social injustice. Police brutality, war heroes who become abusive spouses, and dictators are all false-minded authorities with huge superiority complexes.

But even many people in normal roles are unconsciously projecting. The truth is that doctors and healers are usually healing themselves. Therapists are often fixing their own minds. Lawyers are usually fixing their own sense of injustice. Teachers often need to learn. And politicians are always fixing their own giant messes. We arent bad for projecting so long as we dont break the mirror we see. We want to use the mirror to fix ourselves. The goal to being a good leader or boss is to use others to show us what beliefs we need to let go, not to impose our beliefs on the people were are supposed to be serving.

When I finally realized all of this, I took a hard look at the people that I thought hurt me. My mind desperately wanted to keep my seeming enemies separate and bad so that I could remain good. Being a victim came with benefits. I eventually came to realize that they did me a huge favor by showing me what I could not see. My true Self didnt care about being good; it was already good. It was my false self that wanted to be good; and for it to be good, someone had to be evil. My true Self wanted to be free.

Eventually, I saw that those who played the opponent role in my life were lifting me toward my freedom. I let them off the hook in an instant. In fact, I was truly appreciative for their support. You have to really love someone to play their reflection, even if you do it unconsciously. True to the Huna Golden Rule, I also freed part of myself when I freed them.

Then I decided to let myself off the hook for the times that I believed I hurt another by reflecting their baggage. That was much harder, not because it was different from this side of the table. It was harder because I had the belief that they had to let me off the hook; after all, they put me on it. Then I realized that might never happen. I had to dig deeper for my freedom.

I was overwhelmed by how awful it felt to be hanging on someone elses hook. I continued to free people that I believed were bad or wrong because I knew that my perspective expanded and insights came with each person I released from my mental prison. I could now clearly recognize that I didnt want to do to others what was done to me.

Eventually, my mind became clear enough to see that since no one really hurt me (they could only hurt my false self and that was false), I never hurt another even if they thought I did. I simply exposed a belief in them just as other did for me. When we are caught in the false world, we cant see that our enemies are really our healers. We cant see that every experience has the potential to take us closer to freedom.

In that moment, both Golden Rules rang true. I healed the illusion that I hurt others or they hurt me; so I was no longer hurting myself. And I vowed to continue down this path so that Id no longer do unto others what I didnt want done to me.

Living this way takes time and offers constant challenges. Were all masters of suppression and projection, and we were all trained to see ourselves as separate. Now that I understand the Huna Golden Rule, the key to non-judgment, true forgiveness, and freedom, I know Im heading in the right direction. And one day, when I no longer need a mirror to see my dirty face, Ill reach the paradise that the Huna masters promised.

Cathy Eck has a Ph.D. in esoteric wisdom; she has been studying the lost wisdom of the ancient indigenous people for decades. Learn more about her work, her mentoring program, and her research at http://gatewaytogold.com.

Is the End of War Possible? | Home | The Ridiculous Notion of Ethical Manipulation

See original here:

The Huna Golden Rule: You Can Only Harm Yourself

Ripple Price Prediction: Asia, Not America, Might Save XRP

Posted on by

Ripple News Update
Although investors hope to see XRP flourish in the United States, there’s reason to believe Ripple’s main tailwind will blow from the East.

Just look at today’s leading Ripple news.

In the U.S., you have:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) threatening crypto investors. The IRS published a reminder for investors, urging them to report gains made on cryptocurrency investments. The profits will be taxed as capital gains. Anyone that fails to fulfill these regulatory requirements might be subject to a $250,000 fine and five years in prison. (Source: “.

The post Ripple Price Prediction: Asia, Not America, Might Save XRP appeared first on Profit Confidential.

See the original post here:
Ripple Price Prediction: Asia, Not America, Might Save XRP

Ethereum Price Forecast: U.S. Witch-Hunt Behind Crypto Slump, Report Says

Posted on by

Ethereum News Update
The intricate web of U.S. cryptocurrency regulations is choking off innovation, says a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The GAO report describes a fintech industry whose participants are stumbling around in the dark. No one quite knows which laws apply or when. So it becomes impossible to plan ahead with that much regulatory uncertainty. (Source: “Additional Steps by Regulators Could Better Protect Consumers and Aid Regulatory Oversight,” GAO, March 22, 2018.)

As a result, some firms delay launching in the U.S., while others abandon the idea entirely.

The GAO.

The post Ethereum Price Forecast: U.S. Witch-Hunt Behind Crypto Slump, Report Says appeared first on Profit Confidential.

See original here:
Ethereum Price Forecast: U.S. Witch-Hunt Behind Crypto Slump, Report Says

Bitcoin Price Prediction: One of the World’s Largest Stock Exchanges Launching Bitcoin Brokerage Services

Posted on by

Daily Bitcoin News Update
Canada is about to set a big precedent for the world. The country’s stock exchange will soon become the first in the world to begin offering cryptocurrency brokerage services to its clients.

The holding company of Canada’s Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE), which is the ninth-largest stock exchange in the world, is launching a trading platform for cryptocurrencies, starting with Bitcoin and Ethereum. This marks a major breakthrough for cryptocurrencies.

Read it to mean that Bitcoin has just been institutionalized as an asset class in Canada. It’s the first time ever that Bitcoin may trade on the same platform as other traditional assets.

The.

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: One of the World’s Largest Stock Exchanges Launching Bitcoin Brokerage Services appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Originally posted here:
Bitcoin Price Prediction: One of the World’s Largest Stock Exchanges Launching Bitcoin Brokerage Services

U.S. Mission to NATO – Official Site

Posted on by

9 hoursago | Ambassador, News, Op-Eds, South & Central Asia

Afghans are demanding peace, and NATO must help By Kay Bailey Hutchison, Hans-Dieter Lucas, Mehmet Fatih Ceylan and Claudio Bisogniero We want peace, not revenge.

12 March, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison: We are so glad to be here, and Ive heard so much about this forum for all of my time in office.

1 March, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON ON RECONSTITUTION OF SENATE NATO OBSERVERS GROUP I am delighted that my former colleagues in

26 February, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Transcripts

Joint Statement from the NATO Framework Nations in Afghanistan Resolute Support Headquarters, Afghanistan 24 February 2018 Thank you very much, Ambassador Zimmermann. I am

16 February, 2018 | NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Press Briefing by Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis at NATO Headquarters Brussels, Belgium February 15, 2018 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JAMES N. MATTIS: Well,

13 February, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Telephonic Briefing Preview of Defense Ministerial February 13, 2018 Moderator: Greetings to everyone from the

13 February, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing February 13, 2018 Ambassador Hutchison: Good afternoon. Im very pleased to be here

15 December, 2017 | Key Documents, News, Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE From Kay Bailey Hutchison, Permanent Representative of the United States to the North Atlantic Council, on the Statement by the North Atlantic

4 December, 2017 | NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing 4 December 2017 Ambassador Hutchison: Welcome. I am so pleased that we are now

30 November, 2017 | Europe & Eurasia, News, Secretary Rex Tillerson, Speeches, Transcripts

Remarks by Secretary of State Rex W.Tillerson at The Wilson Center Washington, D.C. November 28, 2017 From State .gov Well, good morning, and thank

10 November, 2017 | NATO Ministerials, News, Secretary Mattis, Transcripts, U.S. & NATO

News Briefing by Secretary Mattis at NATO Headquarters following the Defense Ministerial November 9, 2017 From DoD SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JIM SEC. MATTIS: Well,

9 November, 2017 | NATO Ministerials, News, Secretary Mattis, Transcripts, U.S. & NATO

Remarks by Secretary Mattis at D-ISIS event at the NATO Headquarters Brussels, Belgium November 9, 2017 From DoD SECRETARY GENERALJENS STOLTENBERG: Welcome. I think

7 November, 2017 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing November 7, 2017 Ambassador Hutchison: Good afternoon. Im very pleased to be here.

2 October, 2017 | News, Speeches, Transcripts

Major General George, Major General Mika, Brigadier General Czosnek fellow soldiers and guestsDrodzy Mieszkacy Zagania, (dear Leaders of Zagan), members of the greater Poland communitymy

2 October, 2017 | News, Speeches, Transcripts

Good morning, Major General Mika, Major General George, Brigadier General Czosnek, Mayor Marchewka, distinguished guests, and the gracious people of Zagan. Todays ceremony is significant

2 October, 2017 | News, Speeches, Transcripts

Good morning (dzien dobry), my grandparents were born in Poland and its an honor for me to be here with you today. Thank you for

30 September, 2017 | News, Op-Eds

Washington Remains United Behind NATO By Kay Bailey Hutchison, US Ambassador to NATO BRUSSELS Partisanship and contentiousness typically dominate Washington news. In the clamor, its

22 August, 2017 | News, Transcripts

Statement of Kay Bailey Hutchison Nominee to be U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Senate Committee on Foreign Relations July 20, 2017 KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON:Good

Read the original post:

U.S. Mission to NATO - Official Site

Lau Islands – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Location of the Lau Islands in the Pacific Ocean

The Lau Islands (also called the Lau Group, the Eastern Group, the Eastern Archipelago) of Fiji are situated in the southern Pacific Ocean, just east of the Koro Sea. Of this chain of about sixty islands and islets, about thirty are inhabited. The Lau Group covers a land area of 188 square miles (487 square km), and had a population of 10,683 at the most recent census in 2007. While most of the northern Lau Group are high islands of volcanic origin, those of the south are mostly carbonate low islands.

Administratively the islands belong to Lau Province.

The British explorer James Cook reached Vatoa in 1774. By the time of the discovery of the Ono Group in 1820, the Lau archipelago was the most mapped area of Fiji.

Political unity came late to the Lau Islands. Historically, they comprised three territories: the Northern Lau Islands, the Southern Lau Islands, and the Moala Islands. Around 1855, the renegade Tongan prince Enele Ma'afu conquered the region and established a unified administration. Calling himself the Tui Lau, or King of Lau, he promulgated a constitution and encouraged the establishment of Christian missions. The first missionaries had arrived at Lakeba in 1830, but had been expelled. The Tui Nayau, who had been the nominal overlord of the Lau Islands, became subject to Ma'afu.

The Tui Nayau and Tui Lau titles came into personal union in 1969, when Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, who had already been installed as Tui Lau in 1963 by the Yavusa Tonga, was also installed as Tui Nayau following the death of his father Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba III in 1966. The title Tui Lau was left vacant from his uncle, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, in 1958 as referenced in Mara, The Pacific Way Paper.

The Northern Lau Islands, which extended as far south as Tuvuca, were under the overlordship of Taveuni and paid tribute to the Tui Cakau (Paramount Chief of Cakaudrove). In 1855, however, Ma'afu gained sovereignty over Northern Lau, establishing Lomaloma, on Vanua Balavu, as his capital.

The Southern Lau Islands extended from Ono-i-Lau, in the far south, to as far north as Cicia. They were the traditional chiefdom of the Tui Nayau, but with Ma'afu's conquest in the 1850s, he became subject to Tongan supremacy.

The Moala Islands had closer affiliation with Bau Island and Lomaiviti than with Lau, but Ma'afu's conquest united them with the Lau Islands. They have remained administratively a part of the Lau Province ever since.

Since they lie between Melanesian Fiji and Polynesian Tonga, the Lau Islands are a meeting point of the two cultural spheres. Lauan villages remain very traditional, and the islands' inhabitants are renowned for their wood carving and masi paintings. Lakeba especially was a traditional meeting place between Tongans and Fijians. The south-east trade winds allowed sailors to travel from Tonga to Fiji, but much harder to return. The Lau Island culture became more Fijian rather than Polynesian beginning around 500 BC.[1] However, Tongan influence can still be found in names, language, food, and architecture. Unlike the square-shaped ends characterizing most houses elsewhere in Fiji, Lauan houses tend to be rounded, following the Tongan practice.

In early July 2014, Tonga's Lands Minister, Lord Maafu Tukuiaulahi, revealed a proposal for Tonga to give the disputed Minerva Reefs to Fiji in exchange for the Lau Group.[2] At the time that news of the proposal first broke, it had not yet been discussed with the Lau Provincial Council.[3] Many Lauans have Tongan ancestors and some Tongans have Lauan ancestors; Tonga's Lands Minister is named after Enele Ma'afu, the Tongan Prince who originally claimed parts of Lau for Tonga.[4] Historically, the Minerva Reefs have been part of the fishing grounds belonging to the people of Ono-i-Lau, an island in the Lau Group.[5]

Just off the island of Vanua Balavu at Lomaloma was the Yanuyanu Island Resort, built to encourage tourism in what has been a less accessible area of Fiji, but the small resort failed almost immediately and has been abandoned since the year 2000. An airstrip is located off Malaka village and a port is also located on Vanua Balavu, at Lomaloma. There are guest houses on Vanua Balavu and on Lakeba, the other principal island.

The Lau Islands are the centre of the game of Cricket in Fiji. Cricket is the most popular team sport in Lau, unlike the rest of the country where Rugby and Association Football are preferred. The national team is invariably dominated by Lauan players.

The Lau Islands' most famous son is the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara (1920-2004), the Tui Lau, Tui Nayau, Sau ni Vanua (hereditary Paramount Chief of the Lau Islands) and the founding father of modern Fiji who was Prime Minister for most of the period between 1967 and 1992, and President from 1993 to 2000. Other noted Lauans include Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna (1898-1958), who forged embryonic constitutional institutions for Fiji in the years that preceded independence. Other notable Lauans include:

Given its small population, the Lau Islands' contribution to the leadership of Fiji has been disproportionately large.[citation needed]

List of resources about traditional arts and culture of Oceania

Coordinates: 1750S 17840E / 17.833S 178.667E / -17.833; 178.667

See the original post here:

Lau Islands - Wikipedia

Blockchain technology | Microsoft Azure

Posted on by

Microsoft is bringing blockchain to the enterprise, working with customers, partners, and the blockchain community to continually advance its enterprise readiness. Our mission is to help companies thrive in this new era of secure multiparty collaboration by delivering platforms and services that any companyincluding ledger startups, retailers, health providers, and global bankscan use to improved shared business processes.

As an open, flexible, and scalable platform, Azure supports a rapidly growing number of distributed ledger technologies that address specific business and technical requirements for security, performance, and operational processes. Our Data and AI platform provides unique off-chain data-management and analysis capabilities that no other platform offers. And the vast Microsoft partner ecosystem extends the capabilities of our platforms and services in unique ways that fit specific workload and industry needs.

Azure provides a rapid, low-cost, low-risk, and fail-fast platform for organizations to collaborate on by experimenting with new business processesand its all backed by a cloud platform with the largest compliance portfolio in the industry.

Read more:

Blockchain technology | Microsoft Azure

nootropics / smart drugs

Posted on by

Sceptics about the possibility of nootropics("smart drugs")are victims of the so-called Panglossianparadigm of evolution. They believe that our cognitive architecture has beenso fine-honed by natural selection that any tinkering with such a wonderfullyall-adaptive suite of mechanisms is bound to do more harm than good. Certainlythe notion that merely popping a pill could make you intellectually brighter sounds implausible - the sort of journalistic excess that sits more comfortably in thepages of Fortean Times than any scholarlyjournal of repute.

Yet as Dean,Morgenthaler and Fowkes'(hereafter "DMF") book attests, the debunkers are wrong. On the one hand, numerousagents with anticholinergicproperties are essentially dumb drugs.Anticholinergics impair memory, alertness, focus, verbal facility and creative thought. Conversely,a variety of cholinergic drugsand nutrients, which form a large part of the smart chemist's arsenal, can subtlybut significantly enhance cognitive performance on a whole range of tests. Thisholds true for victims of Alzheimer'sDisease, who suffer in particular from a progressive and disproportionateloss of cholinergic neurons.Yet, potentially at least, cognitive enhancers can aid non-dementedpeople too. Many members of the "normally" ageing population can benefit from an increasedavailability of acetylcholine,improved blood-flow to the brain, increased ATP production and enhanced oxygen and glucose uptake. Mostrecently, research with ampakines,modulators of neurotrophin-regulating AMPA-typeglutamate receptors, suggests that designer nootropics will soon deliver sharperintellectual performance even to healthy young adults.

DMFprovide updates from Smart Drugs (1) on piracetam,acetyl-l-carnitine,vasopressin, and severalvitamin therapies. Smart Drugs II offers profiles of agents such asselegiline (l-deprenyl), melatonin,pregnenolone,DHEA and ondansetron(Zofran). There is also a provocative question-and-answer section; a discussionof product sources; and aguide to further reading.

Sowhat's the catch? Unfortunately, there are many. Large, well-controlled, long-term trials of putative nootropics are scarce: the whole field of cognitive enhancement is rife with self-deception, snake-oil, hucksterism and (at best) publication bias. Another problem, to which not all authorities on nootropics giveenough emphasis, is the complex interplay between cognition and mood.Thus great care should be taken before tampering with the noradrenaline/acetylcholineaxis. Thought-frenziedhypercholinergic states,for instance, are characteristic of one "noradrenergic"sub-type of depression. A predominance of forebrain cholinergic activity, frequentlytriggered by chronic uncontrolled stress,can lead to a reduced sensitivity to reward,an inability to sustain effort, and behaviouralsuppression.

This mood-modulatingeffect does make some sort of cruel genetic sense. Extreme intensityof reflective thought may function as an evolutionarily adaptive response whenthings go wrong. When they're going right, as in optimal states of "flow experience", we don't need to bother. Hence boostingcholinergic function, aloneand in the absence of further pharmacologic intervention, can subdue mood. Cholinergics can even induce depression in susceptible subjects. Likewise, beta-adrenergic antagonists(e.g. propranolol(Inderal)) can induce depression and fatigue. Conversely, "dumb-drug" anticholinergicsmay sometimes have mood-brightening - progressing to deliriant- effects. Indeed antimuscarinic agents acting in the nucleus accumbens may eveninduce a "mindless" euphoria.

Now it might seem axiomaticthat helping everyone think more deeply is just what the doctor ordered. Yet our educationsystem is already pervaded by an intellectual snobbery that exalts academic excellenceover social cognition and emotional well-being. In the modern era, examinationrituals bordering on institutionalised child-abuse take a heavy toll on younglives. Depression and anxiety-disorders among young teens are endemic - and stillrising. It's worth recallingthat research laboratories routinely subject non-human animals to a regimen of"chronic mild uncontrolled stress" to induce depression in their captive animalpopulation; investigators then test putative newantidepressants on the depressed animals to see if their despair can beexperimentally reversed by patentabledrugs. The "chronic mild stressors" that we standardly inflict on adolescent humans can have noless harmful effects on the mental health of captive school-students; but in this case,no organised effort is made to reverse it. Instead its victims often go on toself-medicate with ethyl alcohol,tobacco and streetdrugs. So arguably at least, the deformed and emotionally pre-literate mindschurned out by our schools stand in need of safe, high-octane mood-brightenersmore urgently than cognitive tweakers. Memory-enhancers might be more worthwhile if we had more experiences worth remembering.

Onepossible solution to this dilemma involves taking a cholinergic agent such aspiracetam (Nootropil) or aniracetam(Draganon, Ampamet) that also enhances dopamine function. In the late twentieth century, many researchersbelieved that the mesolimbicdopamine system acts as the finalcommon pathway for pleasure in the brain. This hypothesis turned out to be simplistic at best. The mesolimbic dopamine system is most directly implicated in motivation and the capacity to anticipate future pleasures. The endogenous opioid system, and in particular activation of the mu opioid receptors, that mediates pure pleasure. Mesolimbic dopamine amplifies "incentive-motivation": "wanting" and "liking" may have different substrates, albeit intimately linked. Moreover mood-elevating memory-enhancers such as phosphodiesterase inhibitors (e.g. the selective PDE4 inhibitor rolipram) act on different neural pathways - speeding and strengthening memory-formation by prolonging the availability of CREB. In any event, severalof the most popular smart drugs discussed by DMF do indeed act on both the cholinergicand dopaminergic systems. In addition, agents like aniracetamand its analogs increase hippocampal glutaminergic activity. Hippocampalfunction is critical to memory- and mood. Thusnewly developed ampakines,agents promoting long-term potentiation of AMPA-typeglutamate receptors, are powerful memory-enhancers and future nootropics.

Another approach to enhancingmood and intellect alike involves swapping or combining a choline agonist with a different, primarily dopaminergic drug. Here admittedly there are methodological problems. The improved test score performances reported on so-called smart dopaminergics may have other explanations. Not all studies adequately exclude the confounding variables of increased alertness, sharper sensory acuity, greater motor activity or improved motivation - as distinct from any "pure" nootropic action. Yet the selective dopamine reuptake blocker amineptine(Survector) is both a mood-brightenerand a possible smart-drug. Likewiseselegiline, popularly known as l-deprenyl,has potentially life-enhancing properties. Selegiline is a selective, irreversibleMAO-b inhibitor with antioxidant,immune-system-boosting andanti-neurodegenerative effects. It retards the metabolism not just of dopaminebut also of phenylethylamine, atrace amine also found in chocolate andreleased when we're in love. Selegiline also stimulates the release of superoxidedismutase (SOD); SOD is a key enzymewhich helps to quench damaging free-radicals. Taken consistently in low doses,selegiline extends the life-expectancy of ratsby some 20%; enhances drive, libido and endurance; and independently improvescognitive performance in Alzheimer'spatients and in some healthy normals. It is used successfully to treat caninecognitive dysfunction syndrome (CDS) in dogs. In 2006, higher dose (i.e. less MAO-b selective) selegiline was licensed as the antidepressant EMSAM, a transdermal patch.Selegiline also protects the brain's dopaminecells from oxidative stress. The brain has only about 400,000 - 600,000 dopaminergicneurons in all. We lose perhaps 13% a decade in adult life. An eventual70%-80% loss leads to the dopamine-deficiency disorder Parkinson'sdisease and frequently depression.Clearly anything that spares so precious a resource might prove a valuable toolfor life-enrichment.

In 2005, a second selective MAO-b inhibitor, rasagiline (Azilect) gained an EC product license. Its introduction was followed a year later in the USA. Unlike selegiline, rasagiline doesn't have amphetamine trace metabolites - a distinct if modest therapeutic advantage.

Looking further ahead, the bifunctional cholinesterase inhibitor and MAO-b inhibitor ladostigil acts both as a cognitive enhancer and a mood brightener. Ladostigil has neuroprotective and potential antiaging properties too. Its product-license is several years away at best.

Consider,for instance, the plight of genetically engineered "smartmice" endowed with an extra copy of the NR2Bsubtype of NMDA receptor.It is now known that such brainy "Doogie" mice suffer from a chronically increasedsensitivity to pain.Memory-enhancing drugs and potential gene-therapies targeting the same receptorsubtype might cause equally disturbing side-effects in humans. Conversely, NMDAantagonists like the dissociative anaesthetic drug ketamineexert amnestic, antidepressant and analgesic effects in humans and non-humansalike.

Amplified memory canitself be a mixed blessing. Even among the drug-nave and chronically forgetful,all kinds of embarrassing, intrusive and traumatic memories may haunt our lives.Such memories sometimes persistfor months, years or even decades afterwards. Unpleasant memories can sour thewell-being even of people who don't suffer from clinical PTSD.The effects of using all-round memory enhancers might do something worse thanmerely fill our heads with clutter. Such agents could etch traumatic experiencesmore indelibly into our memories. Or worse, such all-round enhancers might promotethe involuntary recall of our nastiest memories with truly nightmarish intensity. Ironically, a popular smart drug such as modafinil can be used experimentally to prevent long-term memory consolidation in animal models" - not quite the effect pill-popping students cramming for exams have in mind. Like most psychostimulants, modafinil may also have a subtle anti-empathetic effect.

By contrast, the design ofchemical tools that empower us selectively to forget unpleasant memoriesmay prove to be at least as life-enriching as agents that help us remember moreeffectively. Unlike the software of digital computers, human memories can't bespecifically deleted to order. But this design-limitation may soon be overcome.The synthesis of enhanced versions of protease inhibitors such as anisomycinmay enable us selectively to erase horrible memories. If such agents can be refinedfor our personal medicine cabinets, then we'll potentially be able to rid ourselvesof nasty or unwanted memories at will - as distinct from drowning our sorrows withalcohol or indiscriminatelydulling our wits with tranquillisers.In future, the twin availability of 1] technologies to amplify desirable memories,and 2] selective amnestics to extinguish undesirable memories, promisesto improve our quality of life far more dramatically than use of today's lame smartdrugs.

Such a utopianpharmaceutical toolkit is still some way off. Given our current primitive state of knowledge,it's hard to boost the function of one neurotransmitter signalling system or receptorsub-type without eliciting compensatory and often unwanted responses from others.Life's successful, dopamine-driven go-getters, for instance, whether naturallypropelled or otherwise, maybe highly productive individuals. Yet they are rarely warm, relaxed and sociallyempathetic. This is because, crudely,dopamine overdrive tends to impair "civilising serotonin" function. Likewise, testosterone functionally antagonises pro-social oxytocin in the CNS. Unfortunately,tests of putative smart drugs typically reflect an impoverished and culture-boundconception of intelligence. Indeed today's "high IQ" alpha males may strike posterity as more akin to idiot savants than imposing intellectual giants. IQ tests, and all conventional scholastic examinations,neglect creative and practical intelligence. IQ tests simply ignore social cognition.Social intelligence, and its cognate notion of "emotionalIQ", isn't some second-rate substitute for people who can't do IQ tests. Onthe contrary, according to the Machiavellianape hypothesis, the evolution of human intelligence has been driven by oursuperior "mind-reading" skills. Higher-order intentionality [e.g. "you believe that I hope that she thinks that I want...", etc] is central to the lives of advanced social beings. The unique development of human mind is an adaptationto social problem-solving and the selective advantages it brings. Yetpharmaceuticals that enhance our capacity for empathy,enrich our socialskills, expand our "state-space" of experience, or deepen our introspectiveself-knowledge are not conventional candidates for smart drugs. For such facultiesdon't reflect our traditional [male] scientific value-judgements on what qualifiesas "intelligence". Thus in academia, for instance, competitive dominance behaviour among "alpha" male human primates often masquerades as the pursuit of scholarship. Emotional literacy is certainly harder to quantifyscientifically than mathematical puzzle-solving ability or performance in verbalmemory-tests. But to misquote Robert McNamara, we need to stop making what is measurable important, and find ways to make the important measurable. By some criteria, contemporary IQ tests are better measures of high-grade autism than mature full-spectrum intelligence. So before chemically manipulating one's mind, it's worth criticallyexamining which capacities one wants to enhance; and to what end?

Inpractice, the first and most boring advice is often the most important.Many potential users of smart pills would be better and more simply advised tostop taking tranquillisers, sleeping tablets or toxic recreational drugs; practise good sleep discipline; eat omega-3 rich foods, more vegetables and generally improvetheir diet; and try more mentally challengingtasks. One of the easiest ways of improving memory,for instance, is to increase the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain. Enhanced cerebrovascular function canbe achieved by running, swimming, dancing, brisk walking, and more sex.Regular vigorous exercisealso promotes nervecell growth in the hippocampus. Hippocampal brain cell growth potentiallyenhances mood, memory andcognitive vitality alike. Intellectuals are prone to echo J.S. Mill: "Better to be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig". But happiness is typically good for the hippocampus; by contrast, the reduced hippocampal volume anatomically characteristic of depressives correlates with the length of their depression.

In our current state of ignorance, homely remedies are still sometimes best. Thus moderateconsumption of adenosine-inhibiting,common-or-garden caffeineimproves concentration, mood and alertness; enhances acetylcholinerelease in the hippocampus; and statistically reduces the risk of suicide. Regular coffee drinking induces competitive and reversible inhibition of MAO enzymes type A and B owing to coffee's neuroactive beta-carbolines. Coffee is also rich in antioxidants.Non-coffee drinkers are around threetimes more likely to contract Parkinson's disease. A Michigan studyfound caffeine use was correlated with enhanced male virility in later life.

Before resorting to pills, aspiringintellectual heavyweights might do well to start the day with a low-fat/high carbohydratebreakfast: muesli ratherthan tasty well-buttered croissants. This will enhance memory, energy and bloodglucose levels. An omega-3 rich diet will enhance all-round emotional and intellectual health too. A large greasy fry-up, on the other hand, can easily leave onefeeling muddle-headed, drowsy and lethargic. If one wants to stay sharp, and toblunt the normal mid-afternoon dip, then eating big fatty lunches isn't a goodidea either. Fat releases cholecystokinin(CCK) from the duodenum. Modest intravenous infusions of CCK makeone demonstrably dopey and subdued.

To urgesuch caveats is not to throw up one's hands in defeatist resignation. Creativepsychopharmacology can often in principle circumvent such problems, even today.There may indeed be no safe drugs but just safe dosages.Yet some smart drugs, such as piracetam,are relatively innocuous. If the user doesn't like their effects, (s)he can simply stop taking them. Agents such as the alpha-1adrenergic agonist adrafinil (Olmifron) typicallydo have both mood-brightening and intellectually invigorating effects. Adrafinil,like its chemical cousin modafinil (Provigil),promotes alertness, vigilance and mental focus; and its more-or-less pure CNSaction ensures it doesn't cause unwanted peripheral sympathetic stimulation.

Unfortunately the lay public iscurrently ill-served, a few shining exceptions aside, by the professionals. A conditionof ignorance and dependence is actively fostered where it isn't just connivedat in the wider population. So there's often relatively little point in advisinganyone contemplating acting on DMF's book to consult their physician first. Forit's likely their physician won't want to know, or want them to know, in the firstinstance.

As traditional formsof censorship, news-management and governmental information-control break down,however, and the Net insinuates itself into ever more areas of daily life, moreand more people are stumbling upon - initially - and then exploring,the variety of drugs and combination therapies which leading-edge pharmaceuticalresearch puts on offer. They are increasingly doing so as customers,and not as patronisingly labelled role-bound "patients". Those outside the charmed circle havepreviously been cast in the obligatory role of humble supplicants. The more jaundicedor libertarian among the excluded may have felt themselves at the mercy of prescription-wielding,or -withholding,agents of one arm of the licensed drugcartels. So when the control of the cartels and their agents falters, thereis an especially urgent need for incisive and high-quality information to be madereadily accessible. Do DMF fulfil it?

SmartDrugs 2 lays itself wide open to criticism; but then it takes on an impossibletask. In the perennial trade-off between accessibility and scholarly rigour, compromisesare made on both sides. Ritual disclaimers aside, DMF's tone can at times seemtoo uncritically gung-ho. Their drug-profiles and cited studies don't always givedue weight to the variations in sample size and the quality of controls. Nor dothey highlight the uncertain calibre of the scholarly journals in which some ofthe most interesting results are published. DMFs inclusion of anecdote-studdedpersonal testimonials is almost calculated to inflame medical orthodoxy. Moreoverit should be stressed that the scientific gold-standard of large, placebo-controlled,double-blind cross-over prospective trialsare still quite rare in this field as a whole.

Looking ahead, this century'smood-boosting, intellect-sharpening,empathy-enhancingand personality-enriching drugs arethemselves likely to prove only stopgaps. This is because invincible, life-longhappiness and supergeniusintellect may one day be geneticallypre-programmed and possibly ubiquitous in our transhuman successors.Taking drugs to repair Nature's deficiencies may eventually become redundant.Memory- and intelligence-boosting gene therapies are already imminent.But in repairing the deficiencies of an educational system geared to producingdysthymic pharmacological illiterates, SmartDrugs 1 and 2 offers a warmly welcome start.

DP (1998, 2017).

Continued here:

nootropics / smart drugs

HPE Automation :: Automation Specialists

Posted on by

About HPE Automation

Serving all of Florida, the Caribbean, and Central & South America since 1980!

HPE Automation originally started in business as Hydraulic & Pneumatic Engineering in 1980. Our primary mission at that time was helping customers design advanced hydraulic systems for heavy duty equipment.

Over the years we have selectively added additional lines: Intelligent Actuator, manufacturer of electric actuators and robots; Mitsubishi, one of the world leaders in robotics and motion control; and 80/20, manufacturer of aluminum extrusions used to build machine frames and guarding systems. HPE is proud to additionally represent a number of other fine companies that allow us to bring a complete automation solution to our customers.

It is our belief that having a thorough knowledge on a reasonable number of product lines serves our customers much better than having little knowledge on a long list of lines.

Thats what you get when you call HPE. Real people answer the phones, not machines, and we strive to answer your questions quickly. HPE Automation was founded on personal customer service. We know your time is valuable. Our knowledgeable staff can typically answer your technical questions without calling the factory.

Need part numbers or a pdf on a certain component? Our Inside Sales people are here for you. Have a custom project in mind? Our Outside Sales people will be happy to visit your facility to personally review your requirements. They will work with you during the entire project and not turn you over to other people after your order is placed.

Follow this link:

HPE Automation :: Automation Specialists

Darwin’s Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism

Posted on by

Introduction

The Darwinian worldview was critical, not only in influencing the development of Nazism and communism, but also in the rise of the ruthless capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Morris and Morris, 1996). A key aspect of this brand of capitalism was its extreme individualism which indicated that other persons count for little, and that it is both natural and proper to exploit "weaker" companies. The socalled robber barons often concluded that their behavior was justified by natural law and was the inevitable outcome of history (Josephson, 1934). Many were raised as Christians, but rejected their Christianity or modified it to include their socialist/Darwinian ideas. Gertrude Himmelfarb noted that Darwinism may have been accepted in England in part because it justified the greed of certain people.

Rachels noted that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was quickly interpreted by capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition" (1990, p. 63, see also Hs, 1986, p. 10). Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell even concluded that social Darwinism "led to the glorification of free enterprise, laissez-faire economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology" (in Huxley and Kittlewell, 1965, p. 81).

Darwinism helped to justify not only the ruthless exploits of the communists, but also the ruthless practices of capitalist monopolists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Kenneth Hs (1986, p. 534) noted:

Like Stalin, Marx, Lenin, and Hitler, Carnegie also once accepted Christianity, but abandoned it for Darwinism and became a close friend of the famous social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer. Carnegie stated in his autobiography that when he and several of his friends came to doubt the teachings of Christianity,

Carnegie's conclusions were best summarized when he said:

John D. Rockefeller reportedly once said that the "growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest . . . the working out of a law of nature . . ." (Ghent, 1902, p. 29). The Rockefellers, while maintaining a Christian front, fully embraced evolution and dismissed the Bible's early books as mythology (Taylor, 1991, p. 386). When a philanthropist pledged ,000 to help found a university named after William Jennings Bryan, John D. Rockefeller Jr. retaliated the very same day with a ,000,000 donation to the openly anticreationist University of Chicago Divinity School (Larson, 1997, p. 183). Morris and Morris noted that the philosophy expressed by Rockefeller also was embraced not only by railroad magnate James Hill, but probably most other capitalists of his day (1996, p. 87). Morris and Morris have suggested that many modern evolutionists:

Morris and Morris also noted that both the left wing MarxistLeninism and the right wing ruthless capitalists were anticreationists and "even when they fight with each other, they remain united in opposition to creationism . . ." (p. 82). Many capitalists did not discard their Christianity, but instead tried to blend it with Darwinism. The result was a compromise somewhat like theistic evolution. Although most American businessmen were probably not consciously social Darwinists,

Several studies have documented the important contribution of Darwin to laissezfaire capitalism: An analysis of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission (1902-1903) hearings found:

Rosenthal (1997) showed that, historically, biogenetic doctrines had the effect of promoting an attitude of acceptance of the problems of racism, sexism, war, and capitalism. The field of biogenetics has offered no new scientific evidence that human social behavior has a biogenetic basis, or that business/social competition, male dominance, aggression, territoriality, xenophobia, and even patriotism, warfare, and genocide are genetically based human universals. Yet biogenetic doctrines have occupied a prominent place throughout most of American sociological history. Rosenthal noted that Cooley, Sorokin, Sumner, Ross, and even Park adhered to biological racist doctrines that in the past have signaled and encouraged reactionary social policy.

The Darwinian concept, applied to business, still is very much with us today. Robert Blake and his coauthors in their 1996 book, Corporate Darwinism, attempted to apply modern Darwinism to business. They concluded that business evolves in very predictable ways, specifically in defined stages very much like the stages of human evolution. This "business evolution" is natural; business in keeping with Darwinian principles either swallows the competition, or finds that it will be swallowed by that competition.

Darwin's ideas played a critically important role in the development and growth, not only of Nazism and communism, but also of the ruthless form of capitalism as best illustrated by the robber barons. While it is difficult to conclude confidently that ruthless capitalism would not have blossomed as it did if Darwin had not developed his evolution theory, it is clear that if Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others had continued to embrace the unadulterated JudeoChristian worldview of their youth and had not become Darwinists, capitalism would not have become as ruthless as it did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Morris and Morris (p. 84) have suggested that other motivations (including greed, ambition, even a type of a missionary zeal) stimulated the fierce, unprincipled robber baron business practices long before Darwin. Darwinism, however, gave capitalism an apparent scientific rationale that allowed it to be taken to the extremes that were so evident in the early parts of last century.

Blake, Robert, Warren Avis and Jane Mouton. 1966. Corporate Darwinism. Houston, TX: Gulf Pub. Carnegie, Andrew. 1920. Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, ed. John C. Van Dyke. 1986; reprint, Boston: Northeastern University Press. Doukas, Dimitra. 1997. "Corporate Capitalism on Trial: The Hearings of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, 1902-1903." Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 3(3):367-398. Ghent, William. 1902. Our Benevolent Feudalism. New York: Macmillan. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1962. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton. Hs, Kenneth. June 1986. "Darwin's Three Mistakes," Geology, (vol. 14), p. 532-534. Hs, Kenneth. 1986. The Great Dying: Cosmic Catastrophe, Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Huxley, Julian and H.B.D. Kittlewell. 1965. Charles Darwin and His World. New York: Viking Press. Josephson, Matthew. 1934. The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt and Brace. Larson, Edward J. 1997. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books. Morris, Henry and John D. Morris. 1996. The Modern Creation Trilogy. vol. 3. Society and Creation. Green Forrest, AR: Master Books. Oldroyd, D.R. 1980. Darwinian Impacts. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Rachels, James. 1990. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenthal, Steven J. 1977. Sociobiology: New Synthesis or Old Ideology? American Sociological Association. Taylor, Ian T. 1991. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Minneapolis: TFE Publishing.

* Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Continue reading here:

Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism