Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Are Republicans Getting Desperate? | Main | "I Don't Really Feel Like a Member of the Human Race." [UPDATED] »



Oh, Amba, I wish I could agree with you but tend not to because my dreams are boring, boring, and defy any amount of interpretation. I love your imagery, however, about the trees reflecting in puddles after a rain. Occasionally, I have a humdinger, however, but have trouble remembering it.

But, on a related subject, have you ever thought about the first thoughts a person has on waking up in the morning? The clarity of them, so that it seems some problem has been resolved.

I hope I make sense.


You do. Certainly the brain does many essential things in sleep -- organize its files, for one? -- which includes whatever dreaming does: work on stuff with poetic rather than mundane logic, maybe. The clarity in the morning is somehow the product of those trustworthy processes.


Amba please, no, don't hate science because of this silly article!

This statement is entirely untrue. In other words, a complete lie. All these years of brain research has shown that scientists still know hardly anything about how the darn thing works!

It's a total myth that science has figured this stuff out. Please please please don't believe that silly myth.

" after so many years of brain research showing that most of our everyday cognitions result from a complex but observable interaction of proteins and neurons and other mostly uncontrolled cellular activity, how can so many otherwise rational people think dreams should be taken seriously? After all, brain activity isn't mystical but — for the most part — highly predictable."


"brain activity isn't mystical but — for the most part — highly predictable."

WHAT????? That statement is entirely false. But that is what materialist scientist has been promoting -- they have all the mysteries figured out, so just trust them and do everything they say. Don't trust your own common sense, or ancient wisdom, or anything at all except your doctor and all the infallible information he gets from scientific research.

The reporter has bought the myth. It's all explained, it's all predictable, under control.

I am a scientist. I know that the brain has not been figured out. It's just one of the mysteries science has been stuck on for decades.

And don't forget about Sheldrake and other non-materialist scientists -- the brain is more like a receiver than a computer. Or includes many of both. Or whatever, no one knows.

Tom Strong

In this case, I think the reporter is more at fault than the scientists, whose claims are considerably more restrained.


No, there are a lot of extreme materialist scientists who make this kind of claim. They know they don't know how the brain works, but are sure it is possible to know, and that they are on the right track. They are sure the brain is a machine sort of like a computer, that it generates our illusion of consciousness. It should be possible, given that model, to analyze and completely understand the brain.

But the model and its assumptions are wrong, and that is one reason progress has not occurred. Yes imaging technology keeps improving and more details can be observed. But observing details in no way implies any kind of understanding.

I think the reporter is just reflecting the prevailing mythology among materialist brain scientists.

Donna B.

"I think the reporter is just reflecting the prevailing mythology among materialist brain scientists." --realpc

I'm more inclined to agree with Tom Strong. The reporter is reflecting what science reporters feel are the prevailing mythologies among science reporters.

What irritates me the most is someone waking me up while I'm having an interesting dream.


Science ceases to be science when it transcends a description of physical realities and their mechanisms and starts to presume to tell us what to think about it, how to feel about it, what to do about it. Then it becomes something else -- politics, religion, whatever.

E.g.: global warming.

Donna B.

Exactly right, Callimachus. And that is where the science journalists are most at fault, IMHO.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004