On the cusp once more. Off this morning to the park for constitutional. Slack wind, but I was able to eschew a hoodie or jacket so long as I was generating waste heat. Some of that heat came from mentation. I noticed yesterday – but failed to load the article – that someone has put an enormous amount of RAM on a memory stick. This led me to consider the nature of the ‘information revolution’.
Back when I was recently out of grad schule I did a bit of a blunder. There was a problem I was interested in and before I went to work on it I did a literature search. In those days literature searches involved consulting abstracting services and getting librarians to run computer searches for you. And looking through the compilations of likely journals. So I did all that and went ahead and worked the problem, which took three years from start to getting the author copies of the journal article in my hand, and then a couple of months later I got a letter pointing me to an obscure – to me – journal where the problem had ostensibly been solved. It hadn’t, not really, analytically, but it shook me.
This was how things were done then. We had a shortage of information and had to work hard to get it. Paper was the norm. Computers were rare and closeted. Searches had to be performed by trained people. And storage was minuscule. The first mainframe I programmed on had 16 Kb of RAM. All hand built with a soldering iron.
Today, it is easy to do searches, and we don’t do them. Just go ahead and do the work. That’s easier than trying to figure out what has been done before? And we can store all of this information. And Sturgeon’s rule applies to the Nth power because most of it is crap. Are there any cat photographs with captions that aren’t crap. Fundamentally? An we take photographs so we don’t have to remember the occasion. But we have dutifully recorded and saved it, probably never to look at or even recognize again. Information hoarding has become a form of denial?
Which angst brings me to a reprise of some work I commented earlier. I ran across a new article [Link] that put a bit of a different spin on things. I quote:
A new study found ‘no significant difference’ in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants.
The researchers found only one difference – Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.
That first part is repetitive. It is and was telling that religion has no impact on immorality. So the claims that religionists are moral and atheists and secularists are immoral is so much propagandist stercus tauri. But the second is new and equally damning. It goes very far to explain the reason for religionists: guilt.
Guilt is a common thing. It is in the kitbag of almost every mother and not a few fathers. It is widely used by incompetent managers, and the parents are probably as well. And it works but not because it is used, it’s effective because it brings a chemical rush when the deed that generated the guilt is forgiven. Guilt, simply put, is an opiate, at least metaphorically. But it is chemical. Not moral, not spiritual, but purely physical. Religion, at least this aspect, is all about the effect of chemicals in the brain.
Which explains the commonality of religion. It’s programmed into humans.
So are humans an appliance of religion? More cogitation is required.