I have been busy with work (40 hours a week) and school (4 classes, plus a physics lab) and thus not been able to update, or sleep for that matter.  That being said, I need some help.  I am doing a research project for one of my classes, Psychology of Happiness, and want to survey enough people to see if there is at least something to my hypothesis.

I anticipate a correlation between higher levels of Transcendent and Humanity strengths with happiness, perhaps a causal relationship (although that is not what I am looking at right now).  What I will do is graph happiness as a function of each strength to see if there is a significant correlation.  Anything and everything I find will be put on here for all to see, with nice and pretty graphs (at least, as nice and pretty as I can make them).

If you want to take a look and participate, I have the file on Google Docs (since the format was not copy-paste friendly).

Survey Time!

This is a statistical approach to a psychological issue for a research paper for a humanities class at a community college, reality can be stranger than fiction sometimes I guess.

The day itself is a blur, but I distinctly remember (I could find the room if asked to) being in class in sixth grade doing long division when the announcement came that the teachers should not turn on their televisions.  I also distinctly remember not being able to focus the rest of the day out of raw curiosity over what had happened, especially as children were leaving in droves.  I watched the news when I got home, and I remember seeing the famous footage but can’t for the life of me remember how I reacted.  I probably simply did not comprehend it, even with reporters saying exactly how I should be reacting, I do not remember any strong reaction.

The years following are similarly a blur, I was too young to pay attention to all the political fallout (although I now wish that I had).  Years passed and, besides the anthrax scare shortly after, I just let it slip out of my mind.  One of my teachers was sent overseas, so most of our school made cards for him.  Mine, in some vague understanding that vengeance/punishment for those responsible was a goal, wrote to “Remember 9/11/2001″.  Did I really mean it?  No, but I thought it was ‘appropriate’.

The farther removed from the day the less it was in, at least my, consciousness.  At school we did the minutes of silence in respect and I was respectful, although these days I wonder if it was out of respect or conformity.  I still paid attention to the casualty reports on the news and heard arguments over keeping our troops in or pulling them out.  Although I retained relative neutrality, reasoning that I did not know enough about the situation, I slowly fell to mild support of removing our troops.  This was largely my preference for not having anyone in a war setting, rather than a carefully reasoned position.

When Obama was running for the presidency, his statements about the gradual removal of our troops seemed reasonable to me.  After all, removing them suddenly would leave a power vacuum and would probably only allow someone to rise to power who would subjugate the people again.  I voted for him, or rather, I voted against Palin.  Until the death of Osama Bin Laden, I had not really thought about the war at all (my reaction to his death will have to wait for a different post).

So here we are, a decade later, and what have we accomplished?  Quite a bit, I will not argue that in the slightest, but I can’t help but view it in these terms: How many lives have we improved since 9/11 and what have we sacrificed for those ‘improvements’?

And let me part with this:  Are we any safer?  Are we any less safe?

I, quite frankly, don’t know.

The overall concept of the five paragraph essay, reliable, flexible, and straightforward.

Stage 1: Format

Public school, at least where I grew up, taught a simple  five paragraph essay format.  For those of you unfamiliar with the format, merely look to the image on the right and it should provide enough background to understand as I move forward.  The five paragraph essay is, in essence, a template onto which any essay can be grafted.  Of course lengths will vary, there is no reason to give the first argument only one paragraph or use exactly three arguments, but the template remains constant.  For those new to essay writing, I recommend using this until comfortable with their own style.

Once comfortable with your own writing style, how one thought flows into another, what kind of support you use, the length and rhythm of your sentences, vocabulary, and how you approach the reader, start experimenting.  There are formats which interrupt between arguments to answer criticism or which present arguments in tandem, but for the most part I want to focus on the essay as more of a discussion.

I want you, the reader of this, to think back to a time where you kept talking and talking about something.  You were passionate about it, you had something to say and felt it vitally important to say.  Perhaps you were talking about sports, teaching your children a life lesson, persuading your significant other that you are right (as always), or even something as mundane as telling a friend about an amazing, or abysmal, restaurant you went to.  If you can remember having done something to that effect, where you spoke for minutes with minimal feedback from your audience, whoever it might have been, then you can write an essay.

The problem with the five paragraph essay is that it is clearly designed for academia.  It screams “I’m an essay!” to anyone who reads it, and not in a good way.  Instead, try to draw upon that conversational approach you use in life all the time.  Certainly, polish it for presentation purposes, but the ideal essay format is much more a discussion.  It starts with one idea and that idea’s importance then moves through a river of ideas, each drawing upon the one before it and leading inexorably to the one after it until all the ideas come together into your fully realized and expanded message.  Remember that, more than anything else, essays are supposed to communicate a message.

This approach succeeds where the five paragraph format fails simply because it is a flow of consciousness.  Reading a five paragraph essay feels like being lectured but reading a discussion-based essay feels like a conversation, even though it is clearly not.  By all means, write two essays on the same subject: one as the five paragraph essay and the other as a discussion and judge for yourself, or ask a friend to judge for you.

Stage 2: Introduction

Click the image for additional tips on starting any kind of writing.

Under either format, you have to start somewhere, and that is usually the hardest part.  Some would recommend simply doing the introduction last, and there is merit in that approach, but I recommend against it for two reasons.  First is that having the introduction first is you, as a writer, dedicating yourself to a train of thought even if later on you decide to change it.  Second is that an introduction capable of drawing in a reader will also propel you into the heart of the essay.  It is easy to do the introduction last in the five paragraph format, and it is a worthwhile strategy to attempt, but it can also frequently lead to a feeling of disconnect for the reader.  An introduction that does not lead naturally into the body of the essay is liable to lose a reader as quickly as an introduction that does not get their interest.

So what makes a good introduction?  Although it varies based on your style and approach to the particular essay in question, generally the introduction gives a some background for the reader.  As a rule of thumb, the introduction should pull the reader into the essay and say why it matters as well as what you will be talking about.  How you do this is entirely up to you.  Sometimes it is safe to assume reader interest, such as some controversial topics or when you anticipate only an interested audience being exposed to your writing (as I have with this particular post).

The thesis, a vital part of any introduction, is also tricky to do well.  This is because you have to strike that delicate balance between adequate forecast but without over-telling.  A good thesis lets the reader know specifically what your point is in brief.  You want them to know what to be looking for as your overarching message even as you lend support to your message through the body.  A thesis is extremely helpful in giving your essay flow and cohesion if done properly.  A poorly done thesis, on the other hand, stops an otherwise wonderful introduction in its tracks.  Always make sure it fits with the rest of your paragraph.  If it doesn’t, consider rewriting the thesis, the sentences around it, or perhaps even the entire paragraph.

Stage 3: Body

The body is the most straightforward section of any given essay, but also the most prone to losing interest.  There are a few different problems that can arise, some of which are sometimes fundamental difficulties in someone’s writing style.

Calvin and Hobbes on essays- What not to do!

Magniloquence- Some people like to use big words, and I will admit to being among them. However, it is important to remember two things about vocabulary.  The first is that not everyone has the same vocabulary and that if you use an uncommon word it has to have sufficient context for the reader to figure out what it means.  The second is that using words with more syllables than necessary to convey your message bogs down the reader.  Academia is notorious for this kind of error, you practically need to be an English major to decipher any ‘properly academic’ writing.  Esoteric words offer a precision that most common words lack, but every word has to be chosen to ensure your point is conveyed properly.  As always, remember that the point of an essay is to convey a message.

Repetition- Repetition is a difficult literary device to use effectively.  In most cases, it results in the impression that you as the author are not saying anything of worth.  Or, even if you are, that you are taking far longer to say it than necessary.  By all means, indulge in parallel structure and limited repetition, they make for more interesting prose.  However, also carefully avoid using the same word or expression too many times, lest it lose its significance.  This includes sentence structure.  If all your sentences look the same it is almost as bad as using the same word five times in two sentences.

Paragraph divisions- This is one of the hardest parts of writing an essay, breaking from one idea and moving onto the next.  No, I am not talking about transitions (although they are very important), but simply the size of paragraphs.  A paragraph that is too small sticks out in an essay, for better or for worst.  A paragraph that is too large will cause the reader’s eyes to bleed just looking at it, if not scare them off outright.  The larger a paragraph, the more easily a reader gets lost in it.  I have found that paragraphs of around 100 words each are a good size.  Large enough to reach a natural point to move on but also small enough to not be intimidating.  Up to this point, these paragraphs average just a little over 100 words each.

Poetic devices- By all means, make your prose poetic where you can.  It is far more interesting than the analytical text typical of academia.  That being said, be very careful when using it.  Too much poetry and you lose the focus and credibility that analytical prose brings.  You have to introduce it sparingly and carefully, when describing something dramatic.  Used judiciously, poetic elements in the prose can keep the reader actively paying attention instead of just reading through with their mind on everything but what you are trying to communicate.

Quotes- First, a note of the utmost importance: Cite your sources!!  I can not begin to stress how important it is that you give credit to those whose ideas and quotes you use.  Punishment aside, it improves your credibility if you have a clear indicator of what material is yours and what is not.  The difficult part about using quotes is using them sparingly enough that the essay is still your work but also often enough to lend support wherever necessary.  What I have found is that using smaller quotes to support the point you just made is more effective than introducing the quote then your point after it.  If your ideas come first then the quotes are seen for what they should be: support.

Person and tense- Of the most technical pitfalls an essay writer can encounter, the two most likely are errors in person and tense.  Errors in person are errors where the essay slips into the first person “I, me, us, we” or second person “you, yours”.  In informal essays this can be acceptable, but the more formal the writing the less permitted it is.  Always remain in third person “he, she, it, they”, use the passive voice if necessary to avoid second person.  There is also the issue of changing tense.  This happens whenever the essay shifts from past, to present or future, or visa versa.  This can throw off the reader and rob the essay of its continuity.

Stage 4: Conclusion

The conclusion is where, if the rest of the essay is logically or naturally constructed, all your thoughts flow into one cohesive message.  If you have been writing to persuade, you restate your point.  If you have been writing to analyse, all the aspects of your analysis should come together in this paragraph.  No matter what your subject or intent, the entire essay should lead to your conclusion and your conclusion should be the core of whatever you were talking about.  More than just restate your focus, a good conclusion will leave the reader with the desire for more, be it action, information, or just your writing.  The introduction and conclusion will be those parts most remembered by your audience, so make sure you have the reader leaving with what you want them to leave with.

Stage 5: Revision

Editing is the most important part of any essay.  If you write an essay and do not read over it for errors or possible improvements, you have not done the best work you could, or even necessarily good work (depending on how much natural talent you have).  Always read over what you write to make sure it flows the way you want it to, conveys the message you want it to, and is interesting.  Failing to look over and at least consider revisions is one of the most frequent pitfalls of any essay writer.  It is so easy and so tempting to simply write it and be done, but doing that robs you of the chance to make possibly vital improvements.

I promise, the last time I will say this in this post:

A good essay communicates a point clearly and effectively, and how you accomplish that is entirely up to you.

Philosophers are trying to use intuitive definitions of good, and evil without really explaining objectively what each one is.  I can’t say I blame them for shying away from such a definition.  It would have to be objective enough that everyone agrees while simultaneously satisfying every person’s own intuition about good and evil.  Some philosophies sidestep the issue by using different terms, such as pleasure, but then there is the logical question of why is what is pleasurable (for example) good?  It is something people want, but that does not necessarily make it good in the ethical sense.  We need new standards.

The roots of ethics

The root of the issue is that philosophy has removed itself from the motivations and intuitions of people, even in simply observing that they exist.  It assumes that we are perfectly rational all the time, which is one of the gravest mistakes any field can make.  No, we are not rational all the time, we use a mixture of emotions and logic to navigate our ways through life and that mix has worked quite well for most of our history so I am inclined to promote it.

With that in mind, I suggest we change our ethical system to virtue ethics.  Virtue ethics, for those new to the concept, basically proposes that we praise certain virtues or traits as desirable and that actions made in accordance with those traits, such as acting compassionately or courageously, are morally correct.  It also contains a concept called the Golden mean which says that a virtue can turn into a vice if held insufficiently or in excess, such as too little courage or too much compassion.  Virtue ethics is an intuitive framework in which we can function easily.  It allows for the shades of grey that do exist in the world while simultaneously giving a vantage point to make value judgements, once we agree on which virtues to espouse.

That, of course, is what has been causing the problems with virtue ethics: which virtues do we espouse and why?  I think that, instead of answering the which first, we should figure out why.  Why should we, as a species, support certain virtues?  My argument is that we already do it intuitively.  There are three virtues that all of humanity (brain damage and psychosis aside) share: Compassion, Empathy, and Respect.  Why?  These are the virtues which, through reasonable practice, have allowed our species to survive.  Every social interaction requires each of these, remove one and suddenly every interaction becomes harder, or at least less amiable.  Without these three virtues practised in moderation, our species would quickly destroy itself.

An extreme excess of all of the core attributes results in those visionaries of humanitarian efforts, although they also can frequently fall prey to their own excesses of humanity.  Too much of any given one puts someone at a social disadvantage, they can be trampled over by those with even a slight lacking of one of the attributes.  Too little of any given one results in someone willing to trample over people to get what they want.  An extreme lack of any of them results in behaviour that is anti-social in the worst sense of the term, not necessarily criminal but not exactly wholesome either.

Now we have our standards, and our system.  Moral behaviour (note, I will not use the word good or evil) is behaviour in accordance with the Golden means of compassion, empathy, and respect.  Immoral behaviour violates those means, either by excess or absence.  I know that it seems a little odd to call someone who is too nice to others immoral, but consider one thing: aren’t they hurting themselves through their excess of compassion for others?

As per usual, any and all feedback is much appreciated.

Dear Ian,

Many humans consider that ignorance is bliss, so remain blissful.

Best regards,
Victor

This is probably the deepest insult I have received in a long time, hence why I have waited a little while before posting this.

How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it. ~Marcus Aurelius

First, let me make one thing abundantly clear, ignorance is not a good thing.  Ignorance is not bliss.  Ignorance is the poison of humanity that infects and festers within minds, turning them sour and hateful.  Ignorance erodes the souls of humanity, causing otherwise good people to commit acts of unspeakable cruelty.  Ignorance is not even blissful for the ignorant, their own ignorance is a curse upon their lives that forbids them from living to their potential.  For someone to encourage another to live in ignorance is to condemn them in the most uncertain of terms.

That Mr. Senchenko has ended our conversation in this way has lead me to conclude three things:

 1) He does not hold the respect for knowledge he claims to.  If you are right, secure in that knowledge, and meet someone who shows no hostility in their disagreement, why not show them why you are right?  Even they disagree to the end, you will discover whatever key piece of information or reasoning that keeps them from accepting your ideas.  With that in mind, you can refine your position or, depending on the reason, agree to disagree.  There are amiable ways to end such debates, but calling the other person ignorant and wishing them to remain as such is not.

2) He, by default, thinks less of anyone who disagrees with him.  He assumes, as a matter of course, that those who disagree are wilfully ignorant, incapable of understanding him, or hostile.  To assume this is to close yourself off to any possible faults in your views or their presentation.  It also cuts those who disagree with you off from what you are trying to persuade them of, only making it harder for them to rationally accept it.

3) He lacks intellectual rigour.  I have debated with many people in the past on many different subjects, but not once did someone ignore an entire set of questions and challenges so early in a debate.  Every time they stood by their ideas even under assault by multiple people and responded to every (or at least most) challenges.  I have never seen someone back down in such a way, he clearly is not willing to argue  his ideas or even critically examine them.

All this being said, it is now time for me to withdraw from debate with him.  Clearly nothing will be gained since he refuses to divulge his evidence or reasoning or even treat me like some semblance of an equal.  Equally clear is that he is not interested in arguing in favour of his own ideas at length, I should accept them readily and without question.

Remember how all this started.  He sent me an unsolicited message about his book, and I investigated to see if it would be a good read.  I figured that it would not be but was willing to give him a chance to persuade me and those who read this blog (all two of you) that it would be worth reading.  In that regard, this has been an abominable failure.  At least he got more traffic on his site.

With that explained, unto the show!

This email was sent to me Wednesday 27 July:

Dear Ian,

Thanks for your efforts. I skimmed quickly over your commentary, and have
two point to make:

A. It is so predictable of many people to pass judgments without first 
having examined the contents for themselves. So read the book, then 
see how wrong I am in presenting the actual reality of all physical 
existence. Just because you we taught that something exists, be that 
god or 'time', it does not mean that these entities actually 
physically exist.

B. I'm not sure where you've gained links that you speak of, because 
they seem to lead to non-existent pages. I've asked my media team guys 
to look into that. My site has five or six pages only. Perhaps you 
should recheck the same. I suspect some naughty business from someone.

Best Regards,
Victor

Point A-

You do not have to read a book to know if it, more or less, will be worth reading.  You can determine a lot of a book’s quality by looking at its publication, author, and reviews.  Best of all are samples of the book which allow you to actually acquaint yourself with the writing style.  It is true that just because I have been taught and shown the evidence that something is true does not mean it necessarily is.  I accept that I could be wrong and that I do not know anything with 100% certainty.  That being said, we have to use evidence to weigh different claims against each other.  In the excerpts provided electronically not a stitch of evidence was provided to support the claims advanced.  However, all of the physics I have been taught has strong evidence, even quantum mechanics.

I have examined the contents of the book, those that do not require a full download at least, and have found them wanting.  Not only was a single shred of evidence provided, but the extraordinary claims go against views for which there is abundant evidence.  That is why I have passed judgement on the book, same as the dozens I do not read every time I go to the library or book store.  Life is not long enough to read everything, as I have said before, so we must pick and choose the material that is worth our time.

Point B-

They very well may be from someone else, but I am now confident that such is not the case (more on that later).  The links I provided are indeed nonfunctional right now, but thanks to the magic of Google, they have been preserved, cached.

I actually found a page I did not see earlier, which I have read and found quite entertaining: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:llaB7nRsKBsJ:www.victorsenchenko.com/victorsPage1.html+VictorSenchenko.com&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

In the event that link fails to produce a page, I have also taken a screenshot of me looking at that page (in the event anyone has doubts at any time).  The text of that page are quite illuminating, as Mr. Senchenko posts the text of a letter to Richard Dawkins attempting to enlighten him.  It is fascinating to read this because every instance of the word time includes quotation marks, which tends to indicate a term that the author is not using as people would typically think.  He also finally reveals some of the evidence and reasoning I have been wanting to see.

His entire argument seems to boil down to that time is not physical.  My only response can only be “of course not, so what?”.  The passage of time is determined by the change in the physical universe, time is how we describe the fact that things change.  This quote perfectly captures what it is he is trying to say:

To give a simplistic explanation to what is inferred: were ‘time’ to physically exist, then that ‘time’ would need to physically influence simultaneously, and at the same rate of speed, two similar objects, or bodies, located few centimetres from each other, despite the possibility of the two being separated by different physical environments. This would mean that if two successive leaves, obtained from the same branch of a tree, were separated: where one leaf was placed into confines of a functioning refrigerating freezer – that whole appliance exposed to the sun – while the other leaf was placed on top of that refrigerating appliance, and therefore, itself being exposed to the sun, then, according to current human perception of ‘time’, these two leaves would need to decay at the same rate, as they would be sharing the same region of ‘time’. But because ‘time’ does not exist, the physical result of such experiment would be that the leaf on top of a refrigerating unit, exposed to the sun and the elements, shall deteriorate, dry out, and disintegrate months – if not years – before the leaf located within the refrigerating freezer has experienced any physical deterioration.

This is a wonderful example because it shows exactly where Mr. Senchenko disagrees with modern physics.  First, I am not aware of anyone who would predict the same rate of decay for the two leaves.  Cold inhibits the micro-organisms that would cause a leaf to decay and rot, where direct sunlight has its own damaging effects to a leaf that is no longer attached to a tree.  Time is not what causes them to decay, but rather the function of a multitude of different factors over time causes it.  The passage of time causes nothing inherently, it is those changing within the universe over time that cause the visible changes we use to mark time.

The rest of the page is basically saying how modern physics is deluded, promoting his book, pointing out how scientific luminaries of the past have been labelled as crazy or ignored and that it would not be fair to not read his book.

The book samples have also disappeared from accessibility, but here is the cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buJAyR0BkNkJ:victorsenchenko.com/samples.html+site:victorsenchenko.com+VictorSenchenko.com&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Again, I have taken a screen shot as evidence.

There are quite a few cached pages that I found very interesting, I suggest that you, the reader of this post, take a look at a few that are not available any more.  I recommend using the query

site:victorsenchenko.com VictorSenchenko.com

I did not respond to the first email, the rest of my life had demands on my time.

This is the email sent to me Friday 29 July:

Dear Ian,

I’m not sure if you had received my earlier short email, because our 
server had been compromised by some naughty people who had caused a 
bit of havoc to our sites, corrupting our POP emails, resulting in 
their failure to reach their destinations. Still, it is not the fist 
or the last occasion this will happen. Meanwhile, I’ve been assured 
that my little five-paged site is restored. You may, therefore, find 
that many nonexistent links attributed to my site are just that: 
nonexistent.

Which, to those of you paying attention to such things, admits that he and his team has control over them.  This is why I have gone to such lengths here to highlight the utility of Google and its cache function.

Now that my end is operational again, allow me to respond to your 
invitation more thoroughly.

In the first place, if you were expecting me to defend the book to 
which you were sent our media release of a free download, you’ll be 
disappointed. After all, how can I begin to do that when you’ve not 
read it.

Simple, you can give a reason to read it.  Every other book in the world is fighting to be read, yours is not exempt from that combat.

Not surprisingly, you had preferred to post you opinions of me and the 
book based not on the book itself, but from pre-judging what the book 
is about, judging the book by the cover, so to speak, something that’s 
never recommended.  And, of course, in doing so, you had resorted to 
ridicule that which you don’t know, simply because you think that this 
makes you seem more astute and perceptive.

No, actually.  Yes, I made jokes, sarcastic comments, and in general had fun with writing the post.  However, as mentioned above, that is part entertainment purposes and part simply me trying to enjoy myself.

You make assertions that I know little of physics and chemistry. But 
while I actually know of your perceptions of them you do not know of 
my knowledge of physics and chemistry.

I know you show no regard or even feel the need to show how they are faulty.  If physics and chemistry were not relatively accurate in their current forms, they would not produce the technology they do.  I at least do you the consideration of saying why I think you are wrong in a way that anyone can see easily.  This is an age where we must make our information accessible to people as quickly as possible, especially the more esoteric and novel.

For instance: you do not know the real reasons for the so-called 
gravitation (as neither did Einstein – to whom you give this credit) 
but I do. I even present a diagram showing how this physically occurs. 

  I know and show this because I know that gravitation is the result 
of what I call ‘boundaries of influence’ of individual objects, which 
produce not just attractions but also simultaneous repulsions. It is 
these attractions and repulsions that hold together bodies in vacuum 
space at a distance from each other, preventing them from merging with 
each other while preventing their release of one another. And how do I 
know this? Well, you’ll have to read the explanation, which easily 
shows how unfounded and even silly Einstein’s notions were, and are.

It is one thing to say someone is wrong, another to say they are silly.  Not even I call religion silly.  Remember, you are talking about one of the people who helped cause the world to be as it is.

That being said, what evidence do you have that these “boundaries of influence” are anything that modern physics is not already aware of?  Is it possible they are the strong and/or weak nuclear forces?

Even the title of the book represents a physical fact that applies to 
each and every living human: we are all human space navigators. You 
may not know this but I do, and say so. So while you may think that 
you know a lot, in physical reality you know very little of yourself 
and all that physically surrounds you.

Yet, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case, nor have you even produced a challenging thought experiment to illustrate what you mean.  You are flourishing with terms that have no significance outside of your book.

I can’t help but smile when I receive email suggestions that I should: 
“Shut up and die”.  The amazing thing is that such sentiments also 
come from those who claim to uphold science. But in presenting me with 
such kind wished do these people make such comments having read the 
book? Never. Like you, Ian, they prefer to lay into me in ignorance 
rather than doing so after having read the book. Why? Because they 
prefer to defend their presumptions – taught to them by earlier 
generations of humans – rather than facing the possibility that their 
perceptions will be shattered. They (like you) prefer to share the 
flaws of popular beliefs rather than expose themselves to the shock of 
the physical reality.

Let the record state that I, for one, never said you should shut up or die.  I never said those words at all.  I have been wrong in the past, I have had my entire worldview shaken (I was not always an atheist) and redefined because I realized I was wrong.  I engage in the beliefs I do because I think they are firmly founded in evidence.  Evidence which, again, you have not countered.

You also make fun of the reason for the book. So allow me to ask you a 
question: How long would you have human species exist on this planet? 
No, not how long you think they may exist, but how long would you have 
them exist, if you could? Ten thousand years? Fifty thousand? Hundred 
thousand? While many people wouldn’t care beyond their children or 
grandchildren, I would have human species survive into millions years 
from now. I acknowledge this openly, with no modesty but also with no 
conceit or sanctimony.

I would love to see humankind thrive for as long as it is able, as I would with any species.  I would love for many of the species that have or almost have died out to still be around, I want every creature and species to live to the best of its ability.  I think the only way we humans can succeed in our potential is to critically analyse the information we are exposed to, rather than gulping down anyone who claims to be right.  I would rather have to prove myself a hundred times over than have one person accept my views without question.

Please, never assume that those to whom you speak are wilfully ignorant, short-sighted, or otherwise lacking in any way.  The moment you assume defect in your opposition is when you move from pride to arrogance.  If they demonstrate a shortcoming then keep it in mind an attempt to keep it from impacting your

Sure, Ian, its easy to be condescending to those with higher ideals. 
But unlike singers who imagine and sing mellow songs about it, I’m 
doing what I need to do. There may be those in distant future who 
appreciate my efforts. And if I come up short, so what? There is no 
shame in failure. Besides, as Taoists used to say: A river begins with 
a single droplet; a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single 
step. So no matter how you snipe at my purpose for producing the book, 
the first milestones are already behind me.

I do not criticize your efforts, I merely think you are mistaken.  My intent is dual: 1) Expose my readers to your ideas and our discussion on them to enlighten them to both sides and 2) understand your ideas better, even if it means changing my ideas or firmly rejecting yours.  I do not imagine I could persuade you of anything, but I love to explore ideas and find where they have merit and where they lack merit.  For what it is worth, I think your goals and intentions are noble, although I am beginning to seriously doubt your means.

There is yet another old saying you may be familiar with: You can lead 
a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink. In a manner of 
speaking this is what we’ve done with you. We laid the pearl before 
you and that’s all we can do.

Pot calling the kettle black.  We can exchange fun little sayings as much as we want, but saying one of us is being wilfully ignorant only closes off discussion, which is not something I wish to do.  I have debated with people whose ideas were so antithetical to mine that I had to learn an entire new language (essentially).  Not once did I insult them in any way, shape, or form.  Yes, I made jokes, yes I said things sarcastically, but never did I treat them as anything but an equal.  I was even in a position of power at the time and you know what, when circumstances forced me to remove them from the forum, I actually felt a sense of loss.

And, yet, your attitude displayed in your post discloses one thing 
about you: you talk-the-talk but you don’t walk-the-walk. There are 
many like you who present a facade of reason, claiming of wanting to 
know the answers to all the mysteries of the Universe, but who, once 
presented with that opportunity, hide behind their erroneous opinions 
and excuses.

Again, we could trade fun sayings as long as we want, but it will get us nowhere.  At no point have you provided any reason why anyone who doesn’t have an infinite amount of spare time would read your book.  I do want to know the secrets of the world, but I also have no reason to believe that you offer any of them.

So, Ian, prove to me – and all your readers – that you’re not like 
that. Post this communique, read the book then show us all that I know 
nothing. Read the book then show us all where I am deluded. Read the 
book then tell us all that everything in it is not the full physical 
truth.

‘Til then, best regards,
Victor

As I have said several times, I do not have time to read your book, especially with all the others I have that I want to read.  I have well over 50 books right next to me that I have not read yet but think will be worth the time reading them, yours has not shown anything worth further investigation.

His last email to me.

MEDIA RELEASE to Ian Raugh
(Please note: This is a Media Release, not spam. There is a difference.)

Just published ‘Revelations of a Human Space Navigator’ Second Edition is now available for FREE DOWNLOADS.

The Second Edition explains more precisely:
• Exactly from what everything is physically made of, and why.
• Exactly what gravity is, and why.
• Exactly who and what humans are, and why they behave as they do.
• Why god and gods do not physically exist.
• Why ‘time’ does not physically exist.
• Why there is homosexuality in humans.
• What ‘happiness’ actually is and how it can be obtained.
PLUS there is much, much more of what humans never knew – or misunderstood – about themselves and all that physically surrounds them. This includes, Ian, an explanation of what it means to be a physicalist (“I am also a materialist (more accurately, a physicalist)”, for to be a physicalist has at all nothing to do with the selfishness of materialism.

These claims may appear to be far-fetched to all those who have not read this book. It may also appear as highly improbable that a mere book can contain information that had never before been assessed by human intelligence.

But here’s a puzzle… what is intelligence in the first place? Where does intelligence originate? What does intelligence comprise of?

While current humans and their science may wonder about intelligence, they actually know neither what intelligence represents nor how it is derived. And yet, the source of intelligence – as many other unknowns – is revealed and explained in the book.

STILL DOUBTFUL?
Make a FREE Download of this book and judge it for yourself. You have nothing to lose but the future of humanity!

HOW TO MAKE A FREE DOWNLOAD
Click on the link below:
http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClass=0&fSearch=senchenko

OR:
Visit the website of Victor Senchenko
http://www.victorsenchenko.com

OR:
Visit the website of the publisher Lulu
http://www.lulu.com
Enter Victor Senchenko (as author) or
Revelations of a Human Space Navigator (as a book title)
in the FIND field.

In my absence, this comment was made on my About page.  I looked into it a bit and I must say, it is a quite interesting exercise in critical thinking and it would help train anyone’s bullshit meter.  My first tip off that this is not genuine is that it claims to explain several things as they “Actually” are, which indicates a net dismissal of current scientific knowledge.  This single book is supposedly able to adequately explain happiness, psychology, human origins, atheism, and physics.  I find that doubtful primarily because, as someone who owns and has read a multitude of books on each of the aforementioned areas of study, there is a lot to say on each subject.  I would argue that there is not enough room in any book shorter than the Bible (around two thousand pages, depending on the translation) to explore all those areas properly.  I would also argue that it is very rare to find someone who can appropriately be called an expert in psychology, biology, philosophy, and physics.  Certainly he could be quite knowledgeable about a few of them, but an authority on all of them?  Doubtful, especially since a Google search reveals nothing flattering.

But all those are just suspicions, I could easily have been wrong on every count.  He could (and no, I am not being sarcastic here) could be some undiscovered genius in all these fields who has been saving their big revelations over several years and who chose to avoid the peer review process.  Could have, but I am glad I did not take that possibility seriously.

I went to his site and found a few very interesting details.  First stop on any evaluation of if someone is credible or not is, of course, the about page.  This is what his said, verbatim (http://www.victorsenchenko.com/author.html):

While Victor Senchenko – as a legal representative of that identity – takes responsibility for the writing of the book, he acknowledges that the actual information of everything revealed in the book was provided by the same intelligence that maintains his identity. (This explanation – which is a physical truth – will only make sense after the reading of the book).

He currently lives in Australia, which is not his country of birth, but which has given him much to be thankful for.

He is also thankful to Lulu.com, a US organisation that makes it possible for so-called radical ideas to be freely published, when no conventional publishers (all of whom had been approached) would even contemplate an author who discloses that not only are the religious deluded but also those who represent current science; the very same deluded scientists who call religions delusional.

Absorb that for just a moment before I go over the numerous things it reveals.  Most distinctive is how it references the book for an explanation of his introduction.  What this says, to me at least, is that the book is more than just some ideas he wants to share or research he has done, but rather part of his very identity.  That book is his revelation, it is what has made him distinctive.  I also can’t help but note that he goes out of his way to give an introduction that confuses the reader.  He is basically saying that the mind associated with the name Victor Senchenko is somehow a distinct entity from that name.  It is also revealing that his reason for using Lulu.com, which I will be fair in saying I know nothing about them, is because no one else would even consider publishing his material.  Although this does not necessarily mean he presents incoherent ideas in mishandled prose, it does indicate it.

I also looked at the contact page, which contains this hilarious nugget (http://www.victorsenchenko.com/contact.html):

For those who may desire to send hateful and ignorant vitriol, be made aware that it is precisely for the likes of you that the Revelations of a Human Space Navigator had been made available for FREE download. Now there is no excuse to express your ignorant loathing without having first read the book. Read it, and if you are still angry and displeased, read again chapter 8, Living to Fear, page 163, where ‘anger’ and ‘displeasure’ are explained for what they are, without any modern psychological mumbo-jumbo. Do that and note how your desire for hateful expression shall diminish when confronted by physical truth. (emphasis mine)

Who knows, maybe this is my ignorance caused by modern psychology (which seems to do an excellent job at helping people despite being wrong… think on that one), but anger and displeasure are pretty straightforward.  I also do not see how reading more of a book that made someone angry or displeased would alleviate those emotions.  Granted, I am pretty sure his book would not evoke either.  If anything, it seems probably to induce fits of laughter and mild concussions (from face-palming).

From there, I did a Google search on him.  Not to spoil the results too much, but I am not the only person to have been approached by him on this same subject.  Interestingly, there are parts of his site that are no longer accessible from the pages you can get to using his navigation menu.  I could not help but wonder why they were taken down, and then I read them.

The first is a page about his promotional efforts which does not have an internal link anywhere I could find.  Here are few of my favourite parts, and my commentary (http://www.victorsenchenko.com/promoEfforts.html):

In the first stage of the book promotion, an email Press Release was issued directly to individuals representing national and local societies, associations, and organizations associated with antitheism. These included the Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Secularists, and Skeptics across USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

[three statistics snipped]

• Approximately 90% of individual recipients visited the VictorSenchenko.com website.
• Of those visitors, approximately 70% had examined the site for more than 5 minutes.
• Approximately10% had bookmarked the site.
• Not a single book had been purchased.

Surprise, it takes more than a grand sales pitch to get the sceptical community to buy your book.

This had been expected. There were, and are, no illusions that to have humans examine a book that explains all of their fabrications and fallacies – both in their flawed sciences and in their erroneous perceptions, with which they had structured their societies – would be anything but a long-term project.

Translation: I didn’t think that anyone would take me seriously, but I really want them to because they are all so deluded.

As it is stated in the ‘Revelations of a Human Space Navigator’:
“…when humans are presented with notions familiar to them, they at least make an effort to listen, even if mentally they may have already dismissed the concepts; while upon being presented with innovative thinking, most of them do not even bother to listen before making a rejection…”

Congratulations, earlier he dismissed modern psychology only to agree with one of its findings on attention and judgement.  Also, there is always something suspicious about quoting your own book as evidence.

So the outcome of humans dismissing an offer to acquire the knowledge-of-all, preferring instead to continue wallowing in the arrogant ignorance of their own opinions – despite their overall assertions of being seekers of knowledge and truth – is reflected in the subtitle of the book: ‘What humans fear to know: the physical truth of everything in existence, including themselves’.

He claims to have found the truth of everything and that everyone else is too ignorant and fixed to realize it, that sounds uncomfortably like all the other pseudo-scientists and pedlars of the supernatural I have spoken to over the years.

Of course, those not believing in gods defend their beliefs with physical existence of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid, that performs a fuction of a genetic information-carrier in most living organisms), and the conclusions of Charles Darwin. What these humans fail to know, however, is why DNA exists? What was responsible for implementation of DNA in the first place? What is life? What was the intelligence that was capable of implementing DNA? What is intelligence?

“What was the intelligence that was capable of implementing DNA?”  DNA is not “implemented” by an intelligence, it acts on its own as a chemical reaction.  There is no sentience controlling it, DNA evolved from more rudimentary forms that all boil down to one chemical reaction starting another, and another, and another until you have life forms that reproduce.  As for why DNA exists, that assumes some guiding intelligence for the universe.  Oh, that evidence is probably in his book (if that is even what he is claiming).

While no current scientist has an answer to these, and hundreds of similar questions…

Because they are inane.

… the ‘Revelations of a Human Space Navigator’ explains it all, including that the evolution of life has nothing to do with a “natural selection”, as upheld by Darwinists. Were natural selection to be true, then humans, by now, would have all become geniuses, and would have learnt long ago all that the ‘Revelations of a Human Space Navigator’ reveal.

Nope, sorry, you have failed to grasp evolution by natural selection.  Evolution predicts only that traits which increase survival rates before procreation will be passed on, it says nothing about the traits that would best serve the species or those unrelated to survival.  We don’t need to be that smart to survive.  If you watch any reality television, you know just how little intelligence it takes to function in society.

Sadly, this did not happen, because it could never happen. Life is not an ongoing process delivering the very best traits for better adaptation…

Correct, natural selection does not select the “best” traits, it selects those that happen to evolve and are not a hindrance.

… but a precise and highly calculated process of high intelligence with random intent, which has nothing to do with any fictitious gods, or any alience, or any human mumbo-jumbo. All life, anywhere, is governed by physical principles that current humans are not ever aware of. To know these is to know everything, including what gravity actually is.

Yes, and we already know a significant portion of the physical principles behind the universe (including gravity, thank Einstein).  However, best we can tell, there is no intelligence guiding those forces.

The reason that the initial promotional activity was directed at those professing not to believe in god, was not because they were a “target market” who would be expected to purchase a book that claims to prove the non-existence of god, but because of the need to historically confirm that atheist – and the like – are no less dismissively ignorant to those who accept human fiction of gods.

So his entire marketing ploy (of which I am now a part) was to show that atheists are ignorant of his grand truth.  Because of course that sends his credibility for everyone else sky-rocketing.  He was basically doing it for the “lolz” (how I loathe that term, but it applies here).

When given an opportunity to have their belief confirmed (without proof atheists cannot “know” for certain that gods do not exist, but only “believe” that they do not exist), in ignoring that which was offered – by rejecting it without any examination…

Excuse me, his own statistics reveal that most people did examine it before rejecting it.

…– no atheists can ever say of themselves that they, as non-believers in god, are fearless pursuers of knowledge and truth, and from that are more enlightened and astute to that of theists – as they currently imply.

Even if atheists as an entire group did claim that, that no one bought his book is hardly an indication that they are not.  What it means is that no one found it credible, and I can’t say I blame them.

What the expected – and confirmed – atheist response to our press release had shown, is that one set of ignorant attitudes from theists is set against another set of ignorant attitudes from atheists, with both sides preferring their familiar opinions and notions, all based on personal “beliefs” rather than physical truth of physical reality. This shall continue until humans learn who and what they are, as the book reveals. Only then shall humans be rid of their arrogant ignorance, and with that, their fictitious gods.

I have been over this before, but feel the need to mention it again.  Because of how the brain functions, it is impossible for us to know with 100% certainty anything factual outside of our own minds.  Truth based on axioms, yes, but nothing empirical.

After having my laughs with that page, I moved on to examining the purpose of his book (http://www.victorsenchenko.com/purpose.html), which he is basically billing as the saviour of humanity.  In far more words than this, he claims that we are destroying ourselves (which is a fair statement) but that if we all just knew the truth he presents in his book, we could save ourselves.  I don’t know about you, but this is the point where I was firmly convinced he has nothing of merit, but I kept looking.

My next stop was his excerpts page, where I got to actually look over a few of his claims (http://www.victorsenchenko.com/samples.html).  This page, and those subsequent say, in the handy summary, that brains use bodies to navigate the world.  Brains control life and are the unit of reproduction.  The body doesn’t matter so long as a brain exists, they will create a body for their needs.  I just want to say one thing about that: the brain is part of the body, and many organisms function without anything we would call a brain.  The very first organisms would not have even had them.  Remember that life is defined by metabolism, reproduction, and having a distinctive physical entity (a protective membrane for individual cells).

The pages he has following, through page 175, continue until this gem on page 175: “All the responsibility for physical body change belongs to the brains, and no one else.”  Last I checked, brains also evolved over time, different variations include the reptilian, mammalian, and human (distinctive in that it has a few areas that no other animal has).  Brains have been evolving and, last I checked, are unable to alter the body in any inheritable way.  To cite Richard Dawkins and my high school biology textbook, evolution is conducted through the random variation then natural selection of genes.

At this point, I gave up.  He clearly doesn’t know biology, physics, or psychology but cleanly dismisses all of them.  His statements reflect a possibly disturbed individual thinking he is out to save the world and that he has some grand insight.  Not once in the eight pages he has samples for is there a shred of evidence for his claims.  Like many creationists, he just spouts claims without any backing whatsoever.

I would probably read his book one afternoon, but unfortunately, I have other demands on my time.  There are thousands of books out there I would want to read if I could, but we all have to prioritize which books are worth the time and effort of reading.  Even for free, I do not think his book will be worth the effort of reading.  There is nothing to indicate that his book is anything besides the random assertions of a man with a messiah complex.  I would love to think otherwise, but there is no reason to.

I will email this entire post to him, welcome him to demonstrate an error in understanding on my part and an opportunity to provide his evidence, because right now, I feel like I just wasted my time in writing all this (fun though it was).

His reply

From the moment I picked up that blue book, with its blank and well-worn spine, I should have known something was wrong. Its silver title, “The Voice,” caught my eye. The book looked ancient, with some odd writing on the metal clasp holding it shut. I had a lot of trouble opening it, but I also really wanted it even if just for how it looked. I found it in the used book store off Maine Street, the owner did not even remember getting it, and there was no price sticker, so he let me have it for five dollars. He gave me a perplexed look on my way out and pointed out how rare it was for me to only get one book. I was a little confused by this as well, but I tried to casually pass off the feeling, “I get paid in a few days, until then this is all I can really get. See you Friday!” With that I started on my way home, eager to open and get started on the mysterious tome clasped tight in my hands.

“Damen!” Jess was running up to me with a broad smile on her face. Her smiles really only come in two varieties, humoured and mischievous, and this was without doubt the latter.

With a stern face but humour in my eyes, “Okay Jess, what in the world do you have planned?” I gave her a friendly hug, book still in hand, it was rare for her to have that kind of smile without something planned. She made a joke about me always having a book in hand; it felt like any other Sunday afternoon.

We were walking to my house, her still with that mischievous smile on her face, “I was thinking, when was the last time we had fun with old man McCombs?” I shot her the best chastising look I could muster, but her exuberance and impossibly happy manner made it hard to actually disapprove, “No, whatever you are thinking, just no. He stopped teaching so he could get some peace from your ‘fun’.”

“Oh, come on, just a small prank, for old time’s sake? I am heading out in two weeks and want to give him something to remember me by,” she grabbed my arm, as if somehow wrapping herself around it would provide incentive, that mischievous smile wider than ever.

I gently pushed her off, just to drive my point home, “you and I both know no one here could forget you, your pranks are practically legend. I don’t think there is a single person in town you haven’t pranked yet…” My sentence faded as I realized that I was wrong, there was someone she had not pranked yet. Me.

My heart skipped a beat as I saw her realize that same thing. “I guess you’re right, well, I am going to go pack a little, see you later.” With a wink and a smile she was clearly trying to hide, I knew I had just made myself her next target.

As usual, stayed up reading until it felt like my eyes were bleeding, the glaring red of my bedside alarm clock said it was midnight, and I had to be up for work in five hours. With a quick massage of my temples I set the book down and got to bed, knowing I would hate myself in the morning. I had graduated last spring and was taking a year off to figure out what I wanted to do. The local dentist’s office had been hiring and I got the job before it dawned on me just what I would be doing: Filing, sorting, and dispensing paperwork eight hours a day, five days a week.

It was the most boring thing I had ever done, sitting through a monotone lecture would have been more interesting. Probably the best part of any given day was hunting down a form that had not been filled out properly for me to file or that I had been too tired to file properly. That, and the occasional fit from someone else whose job was as tedious and boring as mine because they could not find what they needed. Or an overpaid doctor whose time was, as I have been told more times than I want to count, “worth more than you get paid in a month.”

Today, that was Jason, who came to me looking for the insurance information for a new patient.
“What do you mean you can’t find it, I know I handed it to you not even ten minutes ago!” It amazes me how these people can yell and yet not draw any attention from the dozen patients waiting around.
I ask him, as calmly as I can, “What is the last name?”

“Fredricks.”

So, I look through all the F’s and find nothing, besides a couple amusing last names.

He gives me a glare that, I am sure he thought was quite potent, but it really just made me notice how bad his comb-over was.

I sigh as quietly as I can, but I am pretty sure I know what happened. “What is the first name?”

He snaps back at me “What does it matter?” Anyone else would have hit him already, but I just take a deep breath and remind him that things can be misfiled by the first name.

“Geane,” coming from him it almost sounds like a curse. So I look silently through the G’s, hearing his angry breath right over my shoulder. I go past the file a couple times and on the third time he notices and snatches it away.

“Fat lot of help you were,” he spits and storms away. The names were in the wrong places, the file read “Geane, Fredricks.”

Part 1- The Diary

The article (click the image to read it) is a confession of sorts by a man who is paid to write academic papers for students from all fields and situations.  He talks about churning out as many as fifty pages a day, easily 5000 pages this year.  He has been doing this for years, he started when he was a college student due to his own frustration with the college ‘education’ he received.  His article highlights a plethora of problems with the current methods of teaching employed by high schools and most colleges and universities.

The approach to education in this day and age seems to be to churn out as many degrees as possible in as little time as possible, while milking students for as much money as possible along the way.  This is done through massive lecture halls, fitting more than 100 students at a time and going through the material as quickly as possible, barely pausing at all to assess understanding or retention of skills.  This spawns useless degrees in the hands of graduates who have no clue how to use them and who lack any marketable skills besides that useless piece of paper.

This is the face of the education’s failure: the lecture hall.  How are you supposed to ask clarifying questions in that setting?  How are you supposed to get to know your professor, and them get to know you, when you are one of 100 or more in just one class.  We can only know well about 150 people, and when you are contending with several other hundred to be known, your chances of getting in are slim.  How is the teacher supposed to help you learn in a setting where they barely remember your face, much less how you learn?

The fault of this kind of setting is the impersonal value of it.  The student is merely a receiver, a voice recorder capable of little more than spouting back what the professor has already said.  Little or no synthesis is possible in this classroom, where students do not get to discuss, play with, or even consider the ideas too long before more ideas are pushed upon them.  Students rarely grasp the material in this kind of setting.  They can state back to you the lectures, sometimes in their own words, but application of the concepts rarely occurs.

Perhaps the saddest part of this is that primary and secondary schools model themselves off this.  It is the dominant teaching philosophy that it is the student’s responsibility to learn rather than the teacher’s to teach.  It is the dominant teaching philosophy that a teacher is above their class, removed from it, delivering wisdom and knowledge from on high.  It is this dominant teaching philosophy that produces adults capable only of sitting in cubicles day after day, miserable, as degrees gather dust on their wall at home.

The solution is to shrink the classes down.  Instead of the teacher as a distant source of knowledge, the teacher becomes the leader of a discussion.  The students, instead of merely receivers, become active participants in their own, each others’, and even the teacher’s education.  These classes can dive into the material with a passion and vigor lacking in a lecture hall.  Here, the teacher’s passion can be infectious as it pulls out the potential within the students, driving them to independent, creative, and academic thought.

A student in this setting flourishes in ways that prepare them for the rest of their lives.  They learn leadership, communication, teamwork, as well as techniques of brainstorming and avoiding group think.  After graduation, these students have everything they need to succeed in life.  They have the a command of the knowledge, an ability to apply it in ways others never imagined and even when their knowledge is inapplicable, they have the techniques and skills to acquire new knowledge or handle a situation where they know nothing.  This setting naturally allows for students to draw interdisciplinary connections and create a knowledge base far exceeding that of their lectured peers.

The article is mostly about academic ethics and writing skills, but I think those are symptoms of a deeper issue.  The deeper issue lies in reaching each student as an individual.  The issue lies in motivation and involvement.  A motivated and involved student will take steps to shore up any weaknesses, a motivated and involved teacher will take steps to bring out the best in every student.  We can not continue to progress as a society if we do not encourage smaller classes and more comprehensive education.  In modern society, the informed citizen needs a far wider knowledge base than ever before and needs to be able to think on a level greater than that of previous generations.  To all of you out there, educator, student, citizen, please fight for a better future.