Interesting perspective on religion

[thepeerreviewer]

For thousands of years humans unknowingly used religion as a coping mechanism to deal with the sadness and pain experienced while living. When family and friends die, many people need to believe they will reunite with family and friends in an afterlife, because, as many of us know, the loss of someone we love can negatively affect our functionality and make it difficult to cope with living. Religion is a vital coping mechanism for most people; however, the percentage of total humans who adhere to a religion is decreasing.

Consider this: what percentage of scientists, do you believe, use religion to cope with life? In addition, do you believe this percentage is increasing or decreasing? Moreover, whom do we look to as role models in this modern age?

TIME magazine recently featured a headline-making story “What If Hell Doesn’t Exist” by Pastor Rob Bell, a well-known religious leader who initiates congregational conversation rather than typical doctrinal teachings. Bell supports an interesting perspective and one following the lead many people and groups believe today which is: the percentage of people who still buy into Hell and Heaven is rapidly decreasing.

Some people may believe we are living in the worst of times because of dwindling allegiance to religions. However, are these really the worst of times? The way I see it: we have greater security in acquiring healthy food than in a majority of our history. We have made tremendous advances in curing and controlling diseases. We are capable of using clone organs to replace our own organs. We have advanced technology resulting in access to less-biased news. There is more transparency in how our governments and economies operate. Many countries of the world are becoming interconnected and unified, resulting in greater harmony and sympathy between diverse cultures. As a whole, there are more options available to flee prejudice and join like-minded communities. We also have improved life expectancy. Moreover, I believe my improved life expectancy is not a reward for “abandoning God”, rather I see it as a reward for being a member of a society not abandoning me.

People learn religious tolerance in the public realm, but behind the scenes religions often teach followers there is only one truth, theirs. In addition, religions indirectly preach the hundreds of other religions must therefore teach false truths. One question: what do some religions claim are the consequences of following a false truth? Most profess the loss of supposed benefits such as going to Heaven, reaching enlightenment, reuniting with a creator and loved ones etc.

Number of followers for the most populated religions in the world:

Christianity— 2,000,000,000 - 2,200,000,000
Islam —1,500,000,000 - 1,700,000,000
Hinduism— 800,000,000 - 1,000,000,000
Buddhism —800,000,000 - 1,000,000,000

Billions of people believe they are following the only truth. Let us keep in mind each religion divides into hundreds to thousands of sects. Each sect continuously makes overall changes, to their respective teachings, reflecting the changing times in modern societies. Why do religions not have unanimous support for all of their ideologies and doctrines? Even stranger: religions are conforming to their followers and the changing times. Do you believe it should be the other way around? The big question then comes into play: if religions taught the absolute truth, why is there room for compromise and/or diverse opinions?

Do you believe Gandhi is in eternal Hell for not accepting Jesus as his lord and savior? Does a murderer or rapist, who finds Jesus seconds before his execution on death row, go to Heaven? Does “God” give more favor to Catholics or Protestants? What is the difference in God’s favor between a devout Catholic and an occasional believer? What are the requirements for entry into Heaven or Hell and what is this belief based on? Regardless of your answer, you should be aware the answers to these questions lead to beliefs promoting conflicts and divisions among humanity.

Many devout practitioners of religion do not have a firm grasp on all of their beliefs and choose to label full review of their beliefs as sinful, pointless, succumbing to a lack of devotion, a sign of weakness, the work of the Devil, etc. In light of a lack of consensus and an inability to empirically-test the validity of specific claims, it is reasonable to conclude there is no Heaven or Hell and we all go to the same place when we die. That said: it takes courage to challenge supposed eternal damnation without fear.

Reasonably claiming: people who believe they can influence the type of afterlife they will go to, believe in a fantasy helping them cope with life. If there is a fair/just intelligent designer, it did not create a world where some people start life with a 0% probability of entering, a supposed, utopia at death or start life with a 100% probability of entering, a supposed, dystopia at death.

We need to move on and not allow the fear of Hell or promise of Heaven to distort our realities. We should not allow religion to damage our cultural relationships or hinder us from reaching our potential. Humans should not succumb to lifestyles dividing us, but conform to lifestyles uniting us. Faith is not only a personal issue in societies where everyone has an equal vote.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

The only things affecting concrete laws of physics are other laws of physics; based on all of the empirical evidence available. In the real world, there is no peer-reviewed evidence of a grand-decision-maker who can defy any law of physics. Even if a supernatural force created the universe, this is far different than saying a supernatural force can actively alter the laws of physics.

Even though this is so, we have not discovered and classified every law of physics. My research has led to evidence supporting the existence of what some people consider an “active God”. However, this “active God” is not a supernatural force, but is instead a conservation law affecting feelings. I call this conservation law the conservation of feelings hypothesis. This conservation law directly influences our motivations. Please review the Hard-science Summary section located ofgrandeur.com for empirical data and scholarly analysis supporting these claims.

Many scientists believe adherence to a religion is the result of ignorance, but if a conservation law governs feelings, then religion plays a hard-science function in preventing the violation of this conservation law.

Introducing the conservation of feelings hypothesis into the equation makes a decreasing percentage, of adherents to religion, alarming.

Throughout human history, science alone did not serve as a suitable coping mechanism for most humans. For example, science alone is not always the best motivator for keeping a farmer, who hates his life circumstances, alive. However, the belief in going to a utopia after death, and the requirement of not committing suicide to reach that utopia, is the ideal motivator for keeping a farmer alive and willing to cope with life circumstances. If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid, religion has served as the “training wheels” keeping human civilization intact until we were ready to understand this conservation law.

Consider this: the strength of a person’s motivation to adhere to a specific belief or faith depends on the feelings he will experience while following this belief or faith.

When a religious person prays all night for an improbable, but favorable, outcome to occur and it occurs, it is reasonable to understand why he believes there must be some “entity” listening and causing miracles to occur. Might it be possible miracles are, in reality, the result of laws of physics functioning normally and motivation compelling people to focus on improbable results? Aside from what people read or learned by some other means, has anyone witnessed a miracle or had a super natural experience this proposed reality cannot explain?

A conservation law affecting feelings may seem supernatural, but if you follow the hard-science data and scholarly analysis at ofgrandeur.com, you will see justification for this conclusion. It is reasonable to assume selective analysis or empirical data contributed to the conclusions presented in this book, at that site, especially when most people only have enough motivation to read a few pages. However, if the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid, this lack of motivation does not come from a lack of time, but instead is the result of an inability to cope with understanding the rules governing our lives. This inability to cope with the truth, removes a person’s motivation to understand the truth or travel a path leading to the truth. In this proposed reality, people do not have control over their motivation, but instead their motivation is subject to upholding this conservation law.

It is also reasonable for some hard-science academics to see the words “feeling” or “motivation” and flee because of the stigma associated with these topics as unscientific due to an inability to measure either. However, one of the main functions of consulting with thousands of prestigious scholars, in every relevant field of expertise, was to perform the due diligence required to uphold the standards promoted by the hard-science academic community.

If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid, our motivations guarantee we will cope with life circumstances. If a person would lose the ability to cope with her life circumstances by rejecting non-empirical backed beliefs, and only accepting empirical fact, then she would find no motivation to change her non-empirically backed beliefs for empirical fact. Even if the scientific community invalidates a specific belief, if people depend on this belief to cope with life, they will find the motivation and selective evidence to support this belief. Motivation forces people to change their beliefs regardless of their desires. Without full control over our motivations, we do not have what many people consider free will. If a conservation law governs motivations, is it just for humans to have different afterlives with different surpluses of pleasure and pain?

 

[thepeerreviewer]

As a recap: what many people have come to label as God or a “power of God” is in reality a conservation law. Taken further, God does not have a free will and God does not choose how to respond. Life is impartial. God does not choose who will suffer and who will not based on their religion. God cannot levitate a rock in a way violating any valid scientific law, but God could motivate you to be at a specific location where a rock is falling naturally, due to the laws of physics, and as a result, you have an emotional response to this rock falling. If a conservation law governs motivation, then observance of improbable circumstances can be demystified.

Gradually people need to transition away from beliefs in a supernatural force actively violating laws of physics. These beliefs result in conflicts among humanity and elude peer-reviewed verification.

If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid, one religion is suited for one person, and a different religion can be more suitable for another person. The suitability of a religion depends on if its teachings help a person cope with life.

People do not face eternal damnation for being devout followers of the “wrong” religion, or the “wrong” sect in the “right” religion.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… seeing you have this on a new thread , i’ll repost here and continue dialogue solving the problems as we seek trut here dearest friend …

… my dear friend ,

… you make some good pointts but have the overall pic completely wrong , and your conclusions are err , are you declaring dogma or open to discussion ??? , and why so much at once , it’s take forever to answer all you say ??? , i’ll try later for sure , but can you tell me what advantages i get from being atheist instead of cathilic please ??? , and not just talking about your speculation i’m deluded and superstitious , but really get into the meat and potatoes of all the wonderful blessings you receive from your atheism , i can tell you about mine later too …

… if atheisnm is so great tell me every benefit if you can , and i’ll do same later dear friend …

… tell me pls : do you try to convert believers to atheism out of your need for confirmation and validation your belief atheism is true ??? , think hard , because i think you guys do this , otherwise if people are happy and causing no harm and actually the ones doing the most to help man and our world why bother them ??? , your thoughts pls ??? ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[RyanK]

Actually the majority of our faith tells us not to base things off of “feelings.” Plus there’s also the numerous miracles that science has been unable to explain. It also sounds like you’re telling us what to do rather than open things up for discussion, I suggest a different approach, a shorter one too. lol. That way people will feel more apt to actually discuss things with you rather than just read half way through and blow this off as a waste of time. Not trying to be harsh or anything just letting you know how to go about things better.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

We need to unite our world and stop the bickering. The conflicts among religions and sects are leading us nowhere. Science can support the existence of God, but religion fractures our relationships and divides us.

The conservation of feelings hypothesis doesn’t promote Atheism. The conservation of feelings hypothesis scientifically proves God’s existence. We don’t need religion to have a relationship with God. Our relationship with God exists regardless of our actions.

We only label some people good and some people bad to cope with our own lives and harmonize our societies. If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid humanity can move on and unite together.

The first step to unite this world: Stream live, over the internet, and record all world leaders, from every angle, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. All world leaders need to conduct their affairs in a centralized location, in their respective countries, and never leave this location. These leaders will conduct all of their business with other world leaders’ via video conference. Upon full integration of this strategy, hundreds of thousands of people will become motivated to follow, report, and analyze leaders’ actions. If the President of the United States implemented this full transparency strategy, other world leaders will have no choice but to follow this strategy. The strategy should start with world leaders and move down the chain of command and to other branches of government. The leaders of developing nations will not enjoy such transparency and lack of corruption. Unfortunately, in these countries there will be massive revolution. This is the only solution to unite the world.

 

[RyanK]

We need to unite our world and stop the bickering. The conflicts among religions and sects are leading us nowhere. Science can support the existence of God, but religion fractures our relationships and divides us.

The conservation of feelings hypothesis doesn’t promote Atheism. The conservation of feelings hypothesis scientifically proves God’s existence. We don’t need religion to have a relationship with God. Our relationship with God exists regardless of our actions.

We only label some people good and some people bad to cope with our own lives and harmonize our societies. If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid humanity can move on and unite together.

The first step to unite this world: Stream live, over the internet, and record all world leaders, from every angle, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. All world leaders need to conduct their affairs in a centralized location, in their respective countries, and never leave this location. These leaders will conduct all of their business with other world leaders’ via video conference. Upon full integration of this strategy, hundreds of thousands of people will become motivated to follow, report, and analyze leaders’ actions. If the President of the United States implemented this full transparency strategy, other world leaders will have no choice but to follow this strategy. The strategy should start with world leaders and move down the chain of command and to other branches of government. The leaders of developing nations will not enjoy such transparency and lack of corruption. Unfortunately, in these countries there will be massive revolution. This is the only solution to unite the world.

I hear what you’re saying but I don’t really know what you’re trying to do by posting this stuff.

 

[SGWessells]

We need to unite our world and stop the bickering. The conflicts among religions and sects are leading us nowhere. Science can support the existence of God, but religion fractures our relationships and divides us.

The conservation of feelings hypothesis doesn’t promote Atheism. The conservation of feelings hypothesis scientifically proves God’s existence. We don’t need religion to have a relationship with God. Our relationship with God exists regardless of our actions.

We only label some people good and some people bad to cope with our own lives and harmonize our societies. If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid humanity can move on and unite together.

The first step to unite this world: Stream live, over the internet, and record all world leaders, from every angle, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. All world leaders need to conduct their affairs in a centralized location, in their respective countries, and never leave this location. These leaders will conduct all of their business with other world leaders’ via video conference. Upon full integration of this strategy, hundreds of thousands of people will become motivated to follow, report, and analyze leaders’ actions. If the President of the United States implemented this full transparency strategy, other world leaders will have no choice but to follow this strategy. The strategy should start with world leaders and move down the chain of command and to other branches of government. The leaders of developing nations will not enjoy such transparency and lack of corruption. Unfortunately, in these countries there will be massive revolution. This is the only solution to unite the world.

You know as well as I do that this will never happen. Human nature is against it. Time to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that has a chance of working.

Meanwhile, can you summarize briefly how the “conservation of feelings” hypothesis proves God’s existence? Thanks.

 

[SGWessells]

Friends, I just browsed through the “of grandeur” site that thepeerreviewer recommended, and all his long posts are merely excerpts from a book on that site promoting a theory that everyone must experience the same amount of happiness and sadness before they die, and if there is too much imbalance, each of us will be moved, presumably against our will, to do things which will produce whatever feelings we are short of. This idea, which seems dubious to me, is based on the notion that there is one gene in one cell of every body which is the unifying “mind cell” – which, if I remember rightly, is incorrect, because the same DNA exists in all our cells, and every cell in our bodies is replaced after about seven years.
In any case, this person is presenting a private agenda contained in a 192 page book on this website. I thought everyone should know this before spending a lot of time replying. Read the book if you want; I am disinclined.

 

[Xntrik]

OP, some religions might well be nothing more than a security blanket, or (as Marx said) a form of opium. But Christianity contains a lot of really disturbing teachings, like the one about hell: that does not fit in with the opium theory.

No, those of us who believe in the Biblical way do so because He is worthy of worship, first and foremost. Whatever comfort we derive from worshipping Him is secondary. (Worshipping the One who made us and died for us is to the soul what oxygen is to the lungs and brain, or what food is to the stomach.)

 

[thepeerreviewer]

If the conservation of feeling hypothesis is valid, the universe and life is fair. The only way the universe and life can be fair is if the conservation of feelings hypothesis exists and affects all living organisms without prejudice or convenience. If you believe life is fair, you must believe in the conservation of feelings hypothesis. It is plausible for life to be fair.

From a religious perspective, if an intelligent designer created our universe, then this designer would likely know the role of feelings and would include this conservation law in its creation as a failsafe to ensure life will be fair for all living organisms. Above any other law or rule, if there were an option to incorporate a law into the creation of the universe, a benevolent designer would include this law into the universe. There is a difference between a benevolent designer and a benevolent human designer. If humans had the technology to create a new universe, it would be immoral to recreate this universe without incorporating this conservation law. If you had the option to incorporate this law into a universe and you did not incorporate it into that universe, you are not completely benevolent.

A real-life application of the conservation of feelings hypothesis: a person develops cancer at the age of 75 and suffers excruciating pain for 5 years from this cancer; however, he finds the motivation, in his early adulthood, to seek excess pleasure. This motivation exists so he experiences the surplus happiness/pleasure needed to balance the surplus sadness/pain he will experience from cancer.

There are positive feelings, aka pleasureful ones, and there are negative feelings, aka painful ones. The smallest unit of positive feelings is one HFE and the smallest unit of negative feelings is one SFE. Feelings come from fluctuations in feeling electricity. At the death of mind, each human must have experienced as much happiness/pleasure/HFE as sadness/pain/SFE. There is no free happiness. Feeling electricity balance maintains over the entire lifespan for the mind of each human.

Selective memory and biased analysis can cause friction when considering these ideas. Watch this video of a lecture by a Nobel laureate for further perspective:
ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html

There are large-enough gaps in our understanding about life and death to make way for the ideas introduced in this book. The conservation of feelings hypothesis also addresses cookie-cutter gaps in our understanding of life.

The conservation of feelings hypothesis is compatible with the real world and explains why things occur in a specific way as opposed to appealing to luck or chance. For example, the currently accepted model of evolution invokes random changes in genetic makeup between generations as the source of variations in species giving rise to new and differing varieties, the fittest of which survive. The random changes in genetic makeup between generations are not random. Rather, they depend on the conservation of feelings hypothesis.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

The conservation of feelings hypothesis is a failsafe law in place to ensure every living organism will experience as much HFE as SFE before the death of mind. Based on the feedback from a number of astute scholars, if the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid, then you can call it the Law of Feeling Balance.

There is a consensus and big assumption when it comes to feelings. This consensus and big assumption is some people seem to be just plain “lucky” and experience a life filled with an abundance of experienced happiness. Other people seem doomed to be “unlucky” and struggle through a life filled with exaggerated misfortune and experienced sadness. People generally believe that by performing certain actions, the result will be a life filled with more happiness or more sadness.

If the conservation of feelings hypothesis is valid this consensus is incorrect. Rather each person must have an equal ratio of experienced happiness to experienced sadness before the death of his or her human mind.

In terms from this book, each person must have an equal ratio of HFE to SFE before the death of his or her human mind. The total quantity of feelings experienced can vary with some people experiencing large amounts of HFE and SFE and other people experiencing very little HFE and SFE. If you experience happiness and pleasure, you must experience an equal ratio of sadness and pain.

Most times, it is difficult to analyze the true range of feelings humans’ experience, good to bad, because we lack the technology to precisely measure feelings. In addition, a majority of people have become accustomed to hiding their true feelings from everyone, including their selves.

People tend to compare their lives to the lives of others to gauge happiness, sadness, success, and failure. Unfortunately, that rarely if ever produces an accurate point of reference. People may appear to have the world at their feet, and outsiders may see it as “everything going their way.” However, what do outsiders know about what other people have gone through in the past, or more to the point, what is in store for them in their future. In reality, outsiders do not know enough.

Michael Jackson is an excellent example. It appeared to most outsiders he had a great life growing up: superstardom, money, and fans all over the world who loved him. To an outsider, Jackson’s life seemed filled with many of the trappings we generally associate with happiness. Now that Michael Jackson has died, it has become apparent he experienced a larger surplus of sadness, than most people believed, behind the scenes. There are thousands of examples like this. We see them more easily in celebrities because their lives are in the public eye. However, the gap is widespread between how people view a specific person and how that specific person views her own life. What appears to be one person’s heaven may actually be her hell. Assumptions are not truth.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

There is no way to know, for certain, if another person has a better life than yours. If you are struggling financially, you may think of all of the happiness you would experience if you were a billionaire. Then consider this: is the actual experience of billionaires what you might believe it to be? In reality, an assumption about another’s life may not accurately represent the life of that person.

Understanding the conservation of feelings hypothesis better equips us to understand our lives. With proper application of the conservation of feelings hypothesis, it is possible to understand why certain variables of “luck” occur in life and why periods of “bad luck” must follow, and vice versa. Early life experiences skewed in either the HFE or SFE direction can affect the direction and intensity of later life experience. For example, experienced sadness stemming from depression, anxiety, and fear, early on in life, can ensure a surplus of experienced happiness or a reduction in surpluses of experienced sadness in later years. Alternatively, experiencing a terminal illness and other life-altering ailments, later in life, can be the result of the need to balance an early life of pleasure. Many scientists focus on the causal chain of events leading up to a disease, but the reason why the disease occurred in the first place deserves additional attention. Science cannot accurately determine reason, so it only looks where the light shines (causal chain of events).

People search endlessly to get as much experienced happiness, or their perception of what experienced happiness is, into their lives. People also do whatever they can to suppress or delay experienced sadness. A problem arises when people fail to realize there is no free HFE. If you experience HFE, you must experience an equal amount of SFE before the death of your mind. The balancing SFE can come all at once, or it can be broken up into smaller pieces and experienced at different points throughout life. Life is all about experiencing SFE in one way so we can experience HFE in another way. The message: choose wisely, when it comes to experiencing happiness and do not waste the sadness you worked hard to accrue.

According to the conservation of feelings hypothesis, at the time of the death of a human’s mind, the amount of HFE experienced by the human’s mind must equal the amount of SFE experienced by the human’s mind. Throughout life, most living organisms are motivated to balance their “surpluses of feelings” to avoid becoming very unbalanced. The more unbalanced a living organism is, the greater the threat it can die and violate the conservation of feelings hypothesis. The mechanisms, ensuring every living organism dies feeling neutral, “God” aka the Queue System in this book, must assign value to organisms based on their likelihood to violate the conservation off feelings hypothesis. The mechanisms will override our motivations or the motivations of other living organisms, to prevent a violation of the conservation of feelings hypothesis. The mechanisms will always take the reins of our motivations to steer us away from dying with a surplus of HFE or SFE. Humans cannot have true free will without full control over their motivations.

Some people are motivated to experience extra HFE or SFE, as they grow, because they are going to experience extra HFE or SFE at a later point in their lives from, for example, an abusive relationship, a natural disaster, a physical disability, the death of a family member, winning the lottery, finding true love, or accomplishing a life goal. Consider this: as we experience one type of feeling, we position ourselves to experience an equal ratio of the balancing feeling. Humans are only motivated to perform specific actions guarantying their minds die feeling neutral.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

Love and fear appear to cause strong feelings, but they are also motivators. Motivators are helpful at maintaining the feeling balance in many people. Love, fear, and addiction are very useful ways of compelling living organism to experience balancing feelings from specific sources ensuring their feeling balance. Love is a coping mechanism generally providing HFE to balance excess SFE derived from other sources.

If a person experiences a surplus of HFE, then he will become motivated, at some point, to do specific actions resulting in him experiencing an equal surplus of SFE. People become motivated to do specific actions because of the feelings they will experience from those actions. It is accurate to label motivation as a universal sense preventing living organisms from violating the conservation of feelings hypothesis.

Accomplishing a goal will generally cause a person to experience a surplus of HFE. Therefore, to accomplish a goal causing HFE, a person has to experience SFE by working hard, and/or has to experience a necessary amount of surplus SFE in the future, and/or had to experience in the past a surplus of unbalanced SFE. Without SFE, there is no HFE. Balancing feelings exist in either the past and/or the future.

Life is suffering in one way so we experience happiness in another way. The only way people can experience HFE is either to have already experienced an equal amount of SFE in the past, and/or there is a guarantee in place, at some point in the future, they will experience an equal amount of SFE.

Many people believe money always brings HFE. However, according to the conservation of feelings hypothesis, this is not true. The surplus of HFE experienced from using money must neutralize by an equal surplus of SFE either in connection with the money or otherwise, before the death of mind. For example, if someone gave 100 million dollars to a person, the money may enable her to experience a surplus of HFE; but if she experiences a surplus of HFE, she will have to experience an equal surplus of SFE at some point in her life. She could experience this SFE in the past and/or in the future. While it is not true money equals HFE, the idea money equals HFE motivates most people to do specific actions helping to balance their feelings by the death of mind.

Learning how to maintain feeling balance in a desired environment is central to staying in that environment. Some environments exist to provide people with a surplus of one type of feeling because they experienced and/or will experience an equal surplus of the other type of feeling.

There will never be a person who has an endless supply of money at birth and can experience surplus HFE with this money without balancing it by the death of his mind. Consider this: if the conservation of feelings hypothesis did not exist, humans would have found at least one lifelong lifestyle generally providing practitioners with more lifelong HFE than SFE. We learned how to increase the average lifespan of humans, but we have not found a lifestyle ensuring surplus HFE by the death of the mind for a person or for an average of people.

Whatever people do, the conservation of feelings hypothesis motivates them to create an environment ensuring each living organism dies feeling neutral.

A traumatic event or the loss of a family member could cause a person to experience surplus SFE, but leave her unwilling to experience surplus HFE from another source. Religions help maintain feeling balance in these situations.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

For most people, the thought of endless pleasure or reuniting with loved ones in an afterlife brings joy or a comforting feeling on a regular basis. The belief in a utopian afterlife is an example of how the Queue System motivated humans to create a belief structure ensuring their feeling balance. Unfortunately, for many humans, there are no suitable replacement beliefs for a utopian afterlife because most of these people cannot change parts of their lives.

Without the belief in a utopian afterlife and the requirement of not committing suicide to reach this afterlife, society as we know it would dramatically change.
Strong daily fears caused by the thought going to an afterlife filled with sadness and punishment, can accompany people whose surpluses of HFE far exceed the norm. A person can remove these fears by maintaining her feeling balance.

Some people experience surplus SFE when they think about the death of family members. The belief in reuniting with these family members, in an afterlife, can bring about peace and happiness for many people; there are large amounts of balancing feelings attached to this peace and happiness. The belief in a specific afterlife can also stop the accrual of surplus SFE. The continual surplus feeling for its balance feeling experience, throughout life, brings about balance.

The laws and rules of religions and governments affectively keep people balanced. A couple may experience surplus HFE when engaged in premarital sex, yet their religious beliefs cause them to experience an equal surplus of SFE because of a fear of punishment in the afterlife. Guilt from committing a sin, fear of going to hell, anger from having to pay a fine, or depression caused by staying in jail, are examples of sources that may cause a person to experience surplus SFE. People can avoid the feelings associated with breaking a law or rule by maintaining balance.

The motto: “enjoy yourself because you never know when your life might end” is inaccurate. A person’s life cannot end if he is in a state of imbalance. If a person experiences SFE from attending school or working in a job, she will not die until she experiences an equal surplus of HFE. No surplus HFE or SFE exists without neutralizing by the death of mind. Therefore, people should be selective about where, how, and when they decide to experience surplus HFE or SFE. Children need to learn the surplus HFE experienced from drugs and drinking neutralizes the surplus SFE experienced from work or school. Any surplus SFE children experience from school or work should contribute towards balancing the surplus HFE they want to experience when they accomplish their goals. Without surplus SFE there is no surplus HFE when accomplishing a goal.

The notion that a person will lose surplus HFE by passing up an opportunity to experience surplus HFE is not true unless the opportunity to do so also guarantees to cause the person to experience an equal surplus of SFE. A failure to recognize this reality can result in an inability to accomplish goals resulting in surplus HFE.

The conservation of feelings hypothesis is not part of any religion, sect, or cultural circumstance, and is scientific in nature. This book is an introduction to the conservation of feelings hypothesis and not an in-depth analysis of all relevant topics associated with the conservation of feelings hypothesis.

In theory, according to the conservation of feelings hypothesis, people should be able to prolong their lives by remaining unbalanced. It also seems possible for people to prolong their lives by maintaining their own feeling electricity balance and coping with their environment without threatening a violation of the conservation of feelings hypothesis.

In reality, people will not be able to prolong their lives indefinitely because they will eventually lose the motivation to do so. We do not have enough control over our motivations to manipulate the conservation of feelings hypothesis in a way resulting in a violation of the conservation of feelings hypothesis. The conservation of feelings hypothesis is one law humans will never break.

 

[thepeerreviewer]

QUOTES FROM SCHOLARS WHO READ OF GRANDEUR

“Interesting idea.”
Alan Booth, Penn State University

“Interesting biological hypothesis and experiments.”
Andrei Lebed, University of Arizona

“I am impressed with your efforts to reach out and engage top-notch psychologists. Good luck with the project, but don’t let its success make you too happy.”
Barry Cohen, New York University

“Interesting idea.”
Bruce Conklin, University of California, San Francisco

“I read your book with interest. I am in substantial agreement with the thrust of it.”
Clint Sprott, University of Wisconsin, Madison

“A truly fascinating link.”
David Perley, University of Toronto

“The data you mention and the questions you raise are fascinating.”
David S Holmes, University of Kansas

“Your idea is interesting.”
Don Donderi, McGill University

“I don’t think it is much at odds with what some think in the field.”
Ellen Langer, Harvard University

“Your plans are worthy.”
Essie Meisami, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

“It is certainly different and relates, in a strange way, to some of my long-held ideas.”
Gordon Burghardt, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

“Interesting ideas.”
Holger Bech Nielsen, Niels Bohr Institute

“Interesting and plausible.”
Holland Ford, Johns Hopkins University

“It looks very interesting and plausible and worth airing and well put together.”
Ian Clark, Australian National University

“Seemed interesting and encouraging to me.”
Jack Zipes, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

“I’m impressed.”
Jess H. Brewer, University of British Columbia

“Extraordinary hypothesis. I found the ideas & approach to be very interesting.”
Jim Clegg, University of California, Davis

“The material is fascinating.”
Joe Berry, Stanford University

“Intuitively, I can empathize with the Conservation of Feelings Hypothesis as the key to everything.”
John Crossley, University of Southern California

“The thesis of the book is interesting.”
John Holland, University of Michigan

“It’s an interesting hypothesis.”
John J. Rehr, University of Washington

“The conclusion is good.”
John Sulston, University of Manchester

“What an excellent commentary you shared with me. Simply superb in its clarity, and, from what I know, its accuracy.”
Joseph Campos, University of California, Berkeley

 

[thepeerreviewer]

“Very interesting ideas.”
Judah LEVINE, University of Colorado, Boulder

“Wow! This is much more than a hypothesis.”
Justin Barrett, University of Oxford

“I read a fair amount of what you sent me and it seems pretty reasonable.”
Karen Dobkins, University of California, San Diego

“It does look like a reasonable hypothesis.”
Keith McCrae, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

“The hypothesis looks interesting.”
Kit Wu, Imperial College London

“That’s an interesting hypothesis.”
Larry Swanson, University of Southern California

“I’ve read your book. I think there are many interesting insights contained within it.”
Lee Bynum, Caritas Francis Hsu College

“I appreciate knowing it exists.”
Marion Nestle, New York University

“I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on emotional balance.”
Michael E. Fisher, University of Maryland, Bursar

“Interesting document.”
Michael Morris, Columbia University

“The subject matter is extremely interesting and current for a very wide readership.” Munir H. Nayfeh, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

“Please keep it going. Upgrades thought in important areas. Fully support Grandeur project.”
Nathan Caplan, University of Michigan

“Thanks for sending this…I admire your desire to shake up academic debate and develop broad new ways of thinking.”
Neil L. Whitehead, University of Wisconsin, Madison

“The hypothesis seems to be a very intriguing one.”
Pardis Sabeti, Broad Institute

“Many of the proposed experiments concerning the Conservations of Feelings hypothesis and Single-Cell-Mind hypothesis seem solid as a first attempt to ground the proposals in empirical science. From a philosophical perspective, the ideas seem sound as a potentially coherent scheme for understanding human behavior.”
Praveen Shanbhag, Stanford University

“Intriguing book.”
Robert L. Jeanne, University of Wisconsin, Madison

“Frankly, I’m impressed. The world isn’t always ready for interesting ideas such as these. What you’re talking/thinking/writing about is too fascinating to be watered down by measurement.”
Samuel M. Richards, Penn State University

 

[thepeerreviewer]

“A fascinating read.”
Sara Seager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“It does contain some interesting ideas.”
Stanley Krippner, Saybrook University

“I think it is admirable of you to try to consult with Professors who teach in this area to get their opinion of the work.”
Stephanie Tristram-Nagle, Carnegie Mellon University

“Interesting theory.”
Steven Hollon, Vanderbilt University

“The project looks very interesting.”
Steven Pinker, Harvard University

“Interesting work.”
Susan Carey, Harvard University

“I find the hypothesis very interesting.”
William Merigan, University of Rochester

INTERESTING QUOTES:

“There are natural biological forces at work that tend to create emotional balance. One of the key observations is that there is a system in the brain that spreads a neurotransmitter called dopamine to a range of brain areas. The output of this system—measured as activation of dopamine neurons—is believed to correspond to a reward signal. Of relevance here is the fact that the activity of dopamine neurons does not increase when a positive (name removed by moderator)ut that was expected is presented, but only on the occurrence of a positive (name removed by moderator)ut that was not expected. Also, if an expected reward is not received, the dopamine signal actually decreases. What this means is that when you receive something positive that you were expecting (think of your paycheck), there is no dopamine signal. However, if you are suddenly informed you will receive a raise, this should generate a positive reward signal; and if you suddenly lose your job or receive a cut in pay, this should generate a negative reward signal. Just how closely tied these reward signals are to experienced emotions is an important issue; what is clear is that animals (usually laboratory rats) will work to the point of starvation just to receive artificial electrical stimulation of the dopamine neurons. Cocaine and some other drugs act on the reward system, and so there is reason to believe that the positive rush people experience on taking cocaine is an emotional signal. Interestingly, this rush can be followed by a dip in emotional state; and overstimulation of the dopamine system can lead to strong negative after-effects. The usual explanation for this is that there are systems in the brain that try to keep the dopamine neurons’ activation in balance. This tendency to maintain balance in biological systems is called ‘homeostasis’ and is widespread (we regulate our blood sugar, salt levels, etc, as well as many aspects of our neural activity, including activity of dopamine neurons). When the neurons are over stimulated, these balancing systems become activated; this leads to an overshoot after the stimulation has been withdrawn. There is of course a lot more to emotional balance than just the above. One further scientific fact worth mentioning is that, on a statistical basis, there is a continuous positive relationship between socio-economic status, reported well-being, and longevity. Those of higher SES [socio-economic status] report greater well-being and live longer. However, even though this is so, there are huge variations around this— at any given level of status, there is a huge range of variation, so that there are plenty of rich and well educated people who are less happy than plenty of people who are poor and less well educated. Based on your analysis on cells, it is perfectly reasonable to view cells as homeostatic systems—as such, a law of physiological balance might be proposed. Balancing physiology in the right subset of cells within the brain (and in organs that are connected to the brain, including the stomach, lungs, etc) is part of the maintenance of emotional balance which is an example of the broader concept of homeostasis or physiological balance.”
Jay McClelland, Stanford University

 

[thepeerreviewer]

“Both information and physical substrate problems point to one solution; that consciousness is a property of a cell, not a group of cells. No one special cell is implicated. It is proposed that all neurons are conscious, or sentient, to a degree; that the single subjective ‘soul’ is a confabulation.” ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm
Jonathan CW Edwards, University College London

“By most accounts, the mind is assumed to correlate with the integrated activity of large populations of neurons distributed across multiple cortical and subcortical brain regions. Nonlinear dynamic mechanisms are then invoked to provide for the “binding” of the dispersed neuronal activity into a unified stream of consciousness. By this view, activity within any single neuron correlates with merely a fragment of the total conscious experience; it is only through the integration of these fragments that a single whole-brain consciousness is assumed to emerge. The most immediate implication of the single-neuron theory is that it provides a novel way of tackling the “binding problem,” the problem of accounting for the apparent unity of conscious experience.” cogprints.org/3891/1/snt-9html.htm
Steven Sevush, University of Miami

“My opinions about single cell cognition and computational ability are partially stated in my 2007 article shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf. Cognition and decision-making are widely recognized in many types of cells, not just neurons. For example, the August 10, 2010, issue of Nature Immunology was devoted to “decision-making in the immune system.” You might also look into decision-making in programmed cell death (apoptosis). Cell differentiation would be impossible if all cell divisions were equal. There is a large and growing literature on asymmetric cell divisions and the role they play in differentiation and tissue development. Even bacteria have asymmetric cell divisions when they form specialized cells, such as spores and nitrogen-fixing heterocysts."
James A. Shapiro, University of Chicago

“The idea that one acclimates to one’s circumstances and that happiness and sadness result only from changes in those circumstances including the effects of expectations was advanced and defended in my 2005 paper. It is not surprising to hear that there is a neurochemical mechanism for that simple observation.”
Julien Clinton Sprott, University of Wisconsin

“Here is a citation relevant to the “C. elegans” part of the hypothesis:”
“Halfway along each posterior excretory canal is a small cell, probably secretory in function, that sends processes anteriorly and posteriorly along the canal: Laser ablation of these cells in young L1’s has an unexpectedly dramatic effect: the animals take on a starved appearance, and die before becoming adult. Although the excretory canals are interrupted at the site of ablation, and consequently their posterior sections disappear, they can be seen to regenerate in the course of the next 24 hours. In any case, it is known that individuals in which the excretory system has been destroyed are capable of becoming adults (Singh and Sulston, Nematologica, 24, 63-71,1978). Similarly, the other adjacent cells (V3, P5/6, hsn) can be ablated without killing the animal. Therefore, it appears that the canal associated cells are essential to the survival of C. elegans. The mutant vab-87 (E1017) matures into an adult whose anterior half appears normal but whose posterior half is thin, pale and uncoordinated. Nomarski examination shows that all the tissues of the posterior half look starved; the canal associated cells are displaced into the head, and sometimes one of them seems to be missing. These cells are difficult to distinguish from neurons in L1’s, but in older larvae they enlarge and can be recognized. One animal was found whose posterior half was of normal size; subsequent Nomarski examination showed that one of the canal associated cells was in the wild type position. Although various other cells are displaced in E1017, these observations suggest that its principal character results from the abnormal position of the canal associated cells.” wormbase.org/db/misc/paper?name=WBPaper00016001;class=Paper
Cori Bargmann, Rockefeller University

“My general take on “Of Grandeur” is that the initial philosophical/psychological thoughts that motivate this are very reasonable. The single-cell-mind biological hypothesis could conceivably be true… Think it would not be a bad thing for someone to try the suggested experiments.”
Jane S. Richardson, Duke University

 

[babylonsfalling]

The first step to unite this world: Stream live, over the internet, and record all world leaders, from every angle, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. All world leaders need to conduct their affairs in a centralized location, in their respective countries, and never leave this location. These leaders will conduct all of their business with other world leaders’ via video conference. Upon full integration of this strategy, hundreds of thousands of people will become motivated to follow, report, and analyze leaders’ actions. If the President of the United States implemented this full transparency strategy, other world leaders will have no choice but to follow this strategy. The strategy should start with world leaders and move down the chain of command and to other branches of government. The leaders of developing nations will not enjoy such transparency and lack of corruption. Unfortunately, in these countries there will be massive revolution. This is the only solution to unite the world.

That’s easily the most ridiculous thing I’ve every heard in my life.