The brain believes, do you?

The brain believes, do you?

Untold thinkers have written insights with varying clarity concerning the role and functionality of religion in people.
In my humble opinion all parties get stuck in ever repeating card houses of logic defending their particular conviction thereby completely ignoring the core of the matter. What is religion to more or less objective standards?

The following biological facts, simplified a lot, shed some light on the issue.

There was once a mammal. It needed a lot of little bits of operating systems in order to let all components of its body function properly. Over time they became so numerous that it needed a system to coordinate the other bits . That system became so complex that it was capable to reprogram itself in order to be able to assimilate the ever increasing flow of information. It called itself: conscience.
Objectively impossible to determine if it exists, since conscience itself determines what are the criteria defining conscience.

That conscience, in an attempt to preprogram future acts of the body, starts tell a tale to itself.
A continuous flowchart enabling it by correlating previous events and by means of extrapolation to arrive at a predefined future action.

The conscience calls that tale: reality. Again objectively impossible to determine if it exists, the conscience stipulates what is reality. The one conscience determines the tale in which a supernatural being must exist a reality, the other determines it to be unreal.

In this one can distinguish two different main categories of belief:

First. The true devout believer.
Given the biological fact that belief has a physical origin in a brain structure located somewhere in temple area one can make a good case that belief in its origin/intensity is directly related to a more or less developed structure of the brain.
Accepting this, asking for respect for a religion and it’s rituals is the same as to ask respect because someone can talk, run, eat, defecate.

Discussions involving religions, and their place in society is meaningless, the believer is forced by its brain to believe. One could compare it with homosexuality . This also finds its origin in the structure of the brain and is therefore futile to try to impose the feeling on a heterosexual, or persuade another to become likewise.

The only difference would be, as the brain structure controlling belief has no preference over one supernatural being for another, that a believer can be made to accept another religion. Whereas a homosexual has not that many options.

Second: The social believer.

The characteristics of this believer are one of educational, peer formed belief. This form of belief is just a concept created by indoctrination and as such is not really ‘felt’ to be true.
This explains why people can become apogees or atheists. An option lacking in the previous category of believers.

Unfortunately there are lots of people with a less developed notion regarding the origin and nature of conscience whom take themselves very seriously. So immensely serious that it is for them unacceptable that their existence has no meaning. And then they will look for something which will give their existence the grandeur they imagine it to have .

Old books such as the bible, koran, torah come in very handy, because just like the writings of Michel the Nostredame they can be interpreted in any which way to suit whatever you want to believe.

The simple solution that we simply are procreating little primates that exist because we exist is too humiliating to them.

We logically have an anthropocentric world view. We assume ourselves to be superior because we believe we are superior. A type of extreme ‘dubito, ergo cogito ergo sum’. Other animals doubt also, take decisions, deceive, tease, play, have feelings of love, hate, joy etc.

Their philosophy of life we do not understand just as little as they understand ours.
But by their standards they sure can feel superior over humans with good reason.

The disease FAT does not exist

Correlation and Causality ran wild

We are overrun with studies, not a day goes by or we learn another result of a study. Alcohol is good for the heart, alcohol causes cancer. Smoking is unhealthy, smoke is good against dementia. The climate warms, the climate cools, the climate does both at the same time.

Why one wonders, are so many studies contradictory?
The underlying reason for this type confusing headlines is that many scientists confuse correlation with causality. They do a study, find a link between the one and the other (correlation) and then they just assume causality.

A point in case:
Conclusion of a study: Meat causes cancer, especially red meat.

Correlation: more meat more cancer.
Causality: Almost all meat, but certainly red meat, is roasted/baked/grilled. The process of roasting/baking/grilling produces aromatic esters which are known long time to be carcinogenic. Red meat is nearly always roasted/baked/grilled therefore one sees more cancer in people who eat red meat.

The conclusion of the study would then have to be: Fried food increased the risk of cancer.
I will try to make the dangers of such correlation/causality clear by means of an example how this process takes place.

The hypothesis that obesity is detrimental to the health.

It doesn’t take much reading to discover this to be completely false but nevertheless time and time again we are brainwashed that we must be slim, be sportive, eat healthy.

So how is it nevertheless possible that we’re brainwashed to believe so, to go so far as to take cholesterol lowering medication, whose dangerous side effects far outweigh the benefits (if any) whereas there only is a correlation between CVD, but no causal relation has ever been proven.

The complete Fat is unhealthy tale started with the discovery of a remote village where the inhabitants suffered less frequently CVD then average for the rest of the population. After much research a correlation was found:
The majority of the inhabitants had a genetic condition causing low cholesterol levels.

This correlation instantly became a causal relation in the eyes of the scientists. The conclusion was quickly made high cholesterol is the cause of CVD .

Having decided that, it became a small step to conclude that being Fat is unhealthy is because fatter people have on average higher cholesterol levels.

The disease FAT was born.

A lot of studies were undertaken especially to prove that it was really a causal relation, and where there’s vested interest anything can be proven Be wary of studies

By now it is widely accepted that BMI is an idiotic way of measuring weight, where a highly trained heavyweight boxer has a higher BMI than your average couch potato. But since all studies to date use BMI as an indicator, I’ll use that here as well.

These kinds of newspaper headlines out of many like it you’ll never see:

Fat protects against diabetes

Doesn’t matter which kind of fat, it’s all the same

Obese people live longer, and are less prone to fall ill

If one just glances at the abstract briefly one gets the impression that FAT indeed is not good for you. But if one reads it well and adds up the mortality rate it is obvious that in fact allcause mortality amongst people with BMI greater than 25 is an amazing 100,000 less in the same time period than people with a BMI smaller than 25.

Even more amazing still, fatal CVD was 17000 less at a BMI larger than 25 in comparison with BMI smaller than 25.

If you actually buy the study, you’ll see stunning numbers completely contradicting the FAT is Bad thesis.

Take this research: Why don’t they die, dammit?

The first sentence is immediately clear: Obesity is an established cardiovascular risk factor.

Really? Mmm, that’s open for debate

We read on:

Conclusions: Poststroke mortality is inversely related to BMI: overweight and obese stroke patient have a lower poststroke mortality rate than normal-weight and underweight patient.

The researchers assumed as a definite fact that FAT is Bad and increases your risks for fatal CVD only to conclude how skinnier you are how greater the risk of dying.

In science this is called the Obesity Paradox. What is paradoxical? Well, since medical science is 100% convinced that FAT is Bad, but studies do show conclusively the inverse is the case it is a paradox.
Anyone else would realize that the hypothesis is false and adapt it to reflect the findings, but here it is a paradox.

It must be a paradox because there huge amounts spent on weight control. The billions of profits for the pharmaceutical industry, what an invention, you sell a pill to people who have absolutely no health problems which they must take for the rest of their natural lives and which has so many detrimental side effects that you are assured of an ever ongoing flow of income from other illnesses but of which can never be determined if it was effective or not.
Win/win situation.

The medical industry profits also, because if FAT is a malady they also have an enormous source of income remedy that. And if people on average become skinnier, then adjust you simply the`good BMI‘ down (Again).
The paramedical industry would have never existed in its current size without the illness FAT.For this reason the illness FAT has become of vital economic importance.

a) Billions of tax revenues from the pharmaceutical/medical industry.
b) Employment for hundreds of thousands healthcare workers.
c) Billions spent on `healthy’ food.
d) Billions spent on the sport cults, moving is healthy, or is it? Perhaps not?

Here we see a clear example how confusing correlation with causality rendered the lives of millions of people miserable and wasted years of research, money and energy.

Various recent releases:

BMI and Mortality: Results From a National Longitudinal Study of Canadian Adults

Obesity paradox at work (pdf alert)

Cholesterol dislodged as important CVD marker

BMI under scrutiny

BMI under scrutiny part 2

The real reason for CVD? (pdf alert)

All CVD markers pretty useless

Statins have no benefits for the majority of users.

Diet has no effect on overall disease risk.

Its the inflammation, not the fat.

Just in, funny and sad
Exercise major cause of heart attacks.

The very latest:
Genetic Study Shows That Low Body Fat May Not Lower Risk for Heart Disease and Diabetes

Also funny
Low Salt diet kills

And finally even the BMJ chimes in
Fat not bad

Yet another study disproving the Fat is Bad
Fat is really not bad

Gnashing of teeth with anti-fat cult
Substudy Examines Effects of Obesity on STEMI Outcomes

New Insights into the Statin-Cholesterol Controversy (yes they are hazardous to your health)
New Insights into the Statin-Cholesterol Controversy