I recently had an extended argument with someone who is pro-life/anti-abortion. The argument was not satisfactory, in part because of possibly irreconcilable starting assumptions about what constitutes a person1.) I was not able to convince this person to see the position in a new way, nor was I informed of any new arguments that could lead me to re-evaluate my own position, so I consider the discussion a failure. This does not, however, mean it was a waste of time - I will now use this material to state my case for why abortion is a morally acceptable choice for unwanted pregnancy. It involves a line of reasoning that is, to the best of my knowledge, relatively novel (certainly not one that exists in the popular debate about the subject.)
Let us start with the evidence. First, it is absolutely certain that a fetus is a human being. At the moment of conception, it is genetically a human organism, a member of our species. But does this mean that a fetus is automatically a person? Should we afford a fetus the same rights as we do an adult human (in particular, the mother)?
As far as personhood is concerned, I agree with Derek Parfit's modernization of Lock's definition of what it means to be a person: a thinking, rational being, capable of considering itself as such. In humans, this being appears to be a subset of the human animal, the functioning of the upper brain. This is the part of the brain that, as far as we know, has conscious experience, feels pain, and has all the characteristics we consider important in other people. This is also the part of the brain that is undeveloped in the first part of human development in the womb.
Does a fetus feel pain? A brief2 survey of the evidence suggests not. Those who are against abortion will often argue that this is the case, and point to evidence that a fetus will actively struggle for life during an abortion. However, this appears to me only to be evidence that a fetus can detect "noxious stimuli". It does not mean that a fetus feels pain - an emotional, subjective experience - the same way that an adult or even child human does. A fetus has this behavior in common with almost all life - humans, yes, but also insects, bacteria, trees, fish, etc. I want stress I am not saying that a fetus is no better than an ant, only that the fact that struggling for life is not unique to a fetus, and if it were grounds for moral consideration, we would have to apply the same to almost all living things or be grossly inconsistent.
One objection to this type of argument is that it resembles arguments made to perpetuate the idea of racial inferiority. After all, southern slave owners would probably have said that their slaves are not persons in the same way white persons are. If we find this reasoning unconvincing - nay, even abhorrent - why should we entertain a similar argument from pro-choice/pro-abortion groups?
First, this objection does not counter the central problem the argument raises. If all living things deserve life and protection, regardless of their capacity to feel emotional pain or be persons, we are grossly inconsistent in our treatment of other life. More importantly, the objection fails to account for the real problem with arguments for racial inferiority - such arguments rely on false evidence. We know that there is no significant difference in a human being's capacity to be a person based only on their skin color. Furthermore, even if that were the case, and slaves were not fully people, their position as slaves and their treatment would still be cruel - we would today consider treating certain species like that (such as dogs, cats, etc) as animal cruelty.
We very clearly treat individuals (humans and animals alike) differently according to their capacity to be a person. Children are not afforded the full rights of adults, for their own protection. The same is true for the elderly who have lost major brain functioning and those with developmental challenges. We treat them with compassion, we treat them kindly (or should anyway) but we do treat them differently.
One last objection, which I will not spend too much time on, is that the science we use to determine how capable an individual is of being a person is biased and unreliable. The Nazi's had their scientists, after all. I am going to guess that such claims do not usually come from those genuinely concerned about scientific methodology but are instead seeking a reason to discount evidence they disagree with. This is based on my informal observation that these objections are almost never followed with alternative scientific explanations. I do not believe that there is some conspiracy by scientists to encourage mothers to "murder their babies", as I do not see what anyone could gain by this (whereas, for example, Nazis and slave owners had much to gain). However, if you have any evidence regarding this I would entertain it.
In the next part I will address a much stronger objection to these arguments - that it is not life in general but human life specifically that ought to be protected, and thus the slippery slope to protecting all life does not follow.
1: And in part because I believe the other party did not wish to participate in a rational debate. I hate to sound so conceited, but in my defense I do not use the word "rational" when I merely mean "agrees with me."
2: Very brief: please feel free to point me to more, supporting either position.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Physical 03: The Co-opting of Disgust
For a while now I have been plotting a blog post about my thoughts on the emotion of offense (that is, taking offense to something someone else says or does.) However, I realized that before I could do that, I would first need to lay some groundwork down about another, related emotion, disgust, and its psychological and cultural origins.
From psychology.wikia.com: "Disgust is an emotion that is typically associated with things that are unclean, inedible, or infectious." It is thought to be a uniquely human emotion - we are not aware of any other animals that feel revulsion in the same way we do.
Why might we develop such an unpleasant-feeling emotion? It seems common-sense enough: many of the things we find disgusting are quite harmful to us. Feces, mucus, blood, urine, vomit, raw and decomposing meats - all of these things can potentially carry infectious diseases or could otherwise make us ill. The feeling of disgust is akin to the feeling of nausea, and the facial expressions we make when we are extremely disgusted mimic those expressions we have if we are about to vomit. No coincidence there - getting sick by these things often leads us to feel sick and throw up!
Disgust is not just a genetic phenomenon, however. In one of my classes in which we talked about Freud, the teacher remarked that in infant's and toddler's "anal stage" they frequently play with their own feces. It is the parents that express their disgust at the child's action. The parent's disgust for the early child's natural body functions translates into a sense of shame on the part of the child, which as they grow older helps reinforces specific rituals for that body function. The child is potty trained.
You might be starting to see where I'm going here. So far, we've only talked about issues for which there is a clear health hazard. However, the fact that feelings of disgust are intertwined with some of our social norms leads us to ask what effect disgust plays with moral judgments. Psychological studies have shown there to be a strong connection between these - in "Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment," Schnall shows that inducing the feeling of disgust in participants lead them to make harsher moral judgments. People who claim that, for instance, sodomy or especially homosexuality is sinful frequently express themselves in terms of disgust towards the act, even though it has been scientifically established that these acts are not more intrinsically harmful than procreative heterosexual sex1.
The point I want to make here, and that I will make in my post about offense, is that while it is clear why disgust was a useful emotion in the development of our species, the fact is we have much better methods of determining what is and is not healthy. You might still rely on standard potty training techniques when the child is little, but you don't need to teach them that their bodies are inherently shameful when they come to the age of reason - simply explain that feces can carry infectious diseases, and that unprotected sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases.
1: Actually, procreative sex can be a more risky proposition than sodomy. What if the parents do not have the resources to support a child at that point in their lives?
From psychology.wikia.com: "Disgust is an emotion that is typically associated with things that are unclean, inedible, or infectious." It is thought to be a uniquely human emotion - we are not aware of any other animals that feel revulsion in the same way we do.
Why might we develop such an unpleasant-feeling emotion? It seems common-sense enough: many of the things we find disgusting are quite harmful to us. Feces, mucus, blood, urine, vomit, raw and decomposing meats - all of these things can potentially carry infectious diseases or could otherwise make us ill. The feeling of disgust is akin to the feeling of nausea, and the facial expressions we make when we are extremely disgusted mimic those expressions we have if we are about to vomit. No coincidence there - getting sick by these things often leads us to feel sick and throw up!
Disgust is not just a genetic phenomenon, however. In one of my classes in which we talked about Freud, the teacher remarked that in infant's and toddler's "anal stage" they frequently play with their own feces. It is the parents that express their disgust at the child's action. The parent's disgust for the early child's natural body functions translates into a sense of shame on the part of the child, which as they grow older helps reinforces specific rituals for that body function. The child is potty trained.
You might be starting to see where I'm going here. So far, we've only talked about issues for which there is a clear health hazard. However, the fact that feelings of disgust are intertwined with some of our social norms leads us to ask what effect disgust plays with moral judgments. Psychological studies have shown there to be a strong connection between these - in "Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment," Schnall shows that inducing the feeling of disgust in participants lead them to make harsher moral judgments. People who claim that, for instance, sodomy or especially homosexuality is sinful frequently express themselves in terms of disgust towards the act, even though it has been scientifically established that these acts are not more intrinsically harmful than procreative heterosexual sex1.
The point I want to make here, and that I will make in my post about offense, is that while it is clear why disgust was a useful emotion in the development of our species, the fact is we have much better methods of determining what is and is not healthy. You might still rely on standard potty training techniques when the child is little, but you don't need to teach them that their bodies are inherently shameful when they come to the age of reason - simply explain that feces can carry infectious diseases, and that unprotected sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases.
1: Actually, procreative sex can be a more risky proposition than sodomy. What if the parents do not have the resources to support a child at that point in their lives?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Mental 05: What We Know about God through Evolution
I've had a number of conversations with a friend of mine (let's call him V) about the possible existence of a creator or god, and the evidence/lack thereof. I will frequently say, for instance, that vestigial body parts, harmful errors in duplicating the genetic code, natural disasters, and the like, would not be something we would expect from a beneficent or omniscient god. Similarly, since I am a computer programmer, I am used to working with artifacts created by intelligences (other programmers) and these artifacts tend to have certain properties in common (especially the ones by the most intelligent creators): clean interfaces and parts with readily distinguishable purposes, logically independent functions implemented independently of each other, etc. Biological life is not like this, and so I'm lead to conclude it was not created by an intelligent designer.
V's counter-argument is almost always a variant of "God works in mysterious ways." God, if it existed, would be so great and so intelligent that we would have no hope of being able to discern the thought patterns (if we could even say such existed) that went behind making the Universe, so I cannot, he claims, conjecture on what creating might be like by comparing it to artifacts of human intelligence. I find this rather line of reasoning rather irritating, since my friend only seems to apply this level of radical skepticism on claims others make.
One such of these claims is the possibility that the Universe is a simulation that god is running "for funzies", since it presumably knows what would happen anyway. I was going to ask him why he felt comfortable attributing a human psychological trait (doing something for fun), but I realized that was easily countered. No matter - a much more interesting line of approach opened for me.
As a programmer, I know a few things about evolutionary algorithms. Specifically, we most often use evolutionary algorithms for situations where we have only a vague idea of what the solution could be. For many problems, the evolutionary algorithm is inefficient and can be sub-optimal - we almost always prefer a direct calculation of the solution, if one is available (or tractable).
If the Universe is a simulation that some god programmed, the fact that this creator god is using an evolutionary algorithm tells us (if it tells us anything at all) that while god would have to be incredibly intelligent, such a god would not be omniscient, since otherwise it would not rely on an imperfect algorithm. The syllogism runs as follows.
1) God exists and the Universe is a computer simulation that it is running for some purpose, hyp
2) The processes governing the development of life are significant to the simulation in some way, hyp
3) The development of life is almost entirely governed by evolutionary algorithms, obs
4) When we solve a problem in computer science using an evolutionary algorithm, it usually means we don't know how to directly calculate the solution, obs
C) There is a significant possibility that god does not know the direct way to calculate whatever it has in mind by running this simulation, and is therefore not omniscient
Of course, if god were omniscient, it's possible it wouldn't need to run a simulation or calculation either way, so there'd be no reason to prefer one method of calculation over another. Or any reason to run the simulation at all (that we could discern). Sigh
V's counter-argument is almost always a variant of "God works in mysterious ways." God, if it existed, would be so great and so intelligent that we would have no hope of being able to discern the thought patterns (if we could even say such existed) that went behind making the Universe, so I cannot, he claims, conjecture on what creating might be like by comparing it to artifacts of human intelligence. I find this rather line of reasoning rather irritating, since my friend only seems to apply this level of radical skepticism on claims others make.
One such of these claims is the possibility that the Universe is a simulation that god is running "for funzies", since it presumably knows what would happen anyway. I was going to ask him why he felt comfortable attributing a human psychological trait (doing something for fun), but I realized that was easily countered. No matter - a much more interesting line of approach opened for me.
As a programmer, I know a few things about evolutionary algorithms. Specifically, we most often use evolutionary algorithms for situations where we have only a vague idea of what the solution could be. For many problems, the evolutionary algorithm is inefficient and can be sub-optimal - we almost always prefer a direct calculation of the solution, if one is available (or tractable).
If the Universe is a simulation that some god programmed, the fact that this creator god is using an evolutionary algorithm tells us (if it tells us anything at all) that while god would have to be incredibly intelligent, such a god would not be omniscient, since otherwise it would not rely on an imperfect algorithm. The syllogism runs as follows.
1) God exists and the Universe is a computer simulation that it is running for some purpose, hyp
2) The processes governing the development of life are significant to the simulation in some way, hyp
3) The development of life is almost entirely governed by evolutionary algorithms, obs
4) When we solve a problem in computer science using an evolutionary algorithm, it usually means we don't know how to directly calculate the solution, obs
C) There is a significant possibility that god does not know the direct way to calculate whatever it has in mind by running this simulation, and is therefore not omniscient
Of course, if god were omniscient, it's possible it wouldn't need to run a simulation or calculation either way, so there'd be no reason to prefer one method of calculation over another. Or any reason to run the simulation at all (that we could discern). Sigh
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Meta 04: Introducing "Ego"; Where We've Been & Where We're Going
When I started this blog, I hadn't intended for it to be publicly viewable. Instead, I had planned on using it as alternative to journal writing to collect broad trends in my thinking and philosophy. When I journal, I tend to focus on sequences of events and my feelings in the moment, and I realized at some point that I would like to have another form of expression which had a broader and more synthetic focus.
There were however a few people whom I wanted to read this blog. When I showed it to one of them, they asked me why I had made it private. After some internal debate, I decided what I had to say might possibly be of benefit to others, so I made it publicly viewable.
My initial schema, and my early posts, don't really reflect this change of focus from the private to the more public, and so I've decided to rewrite some of the earlier posts and introduce a new tag, "Ego", to denote things that are just about myself, such as the posts about my resolutions. While I think these kinds of posts might still be useful for others to read, I am acutely aware that topics like the effects of sugar on the liver, or the problem of identity through time, are much more general than why I've decided to practice meditation three times a day. I'd like for people who don't really care about the later to be able to easily skip past it, if they so desire1.
So, what's next for this blog? There are a few topics that have been sitting on the back-burner for me for a while. For "Physical," I plan on writing about confirmation bias, and the effects that religion has on cognitive capacity (and vice-versa, what effect rational thought has on religious feeling). For "Mental" there is still the big one I haven't touched yet - the pre-suppositional "un-argument" - as well as summaries of a philosopher's critique of the New Atheist movement. For "Symbol", you can expect me to gush about "Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask" as being one of the greatest pieces of interactive fiction of all time, as well as post some of my essay over Romantic literature that I wrote in University (when I'm not feeling lazy, I'll even try to address some issues the professor cited when she returned the work to me!). I will also want to write a review of the first "Neon Genesis: Evangelion" rebuild movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Hope I've given you something to look forward too!
1: Of course, it doesn't really matter, since as of this moment I could only say I have about 5 other people reading this blog, at maximum. In fact, humorously enough, one of my friends has even implied that he is more interested in a blog another of my friends has not written, and does not plan to, than he is in this blog. If I'm competing against all the non-existent blogs out there, then no wonder I have such a small readership!
There were however a few people whom I wanted to read this blog. When I showed it to one of them, they asked me why I had made it private. After some internal debate, I decided what I had to say might possibly be of benefit to others, so I made it publicly viewable.
My initial schema, and my early posts, don't really reflect this change of focus from the private to the more public, and so I've decided to rewrite some of the earlier posts and introduce a new tag, "Ego", to denote things that are just about myself, such as the posts about my resolutions. While I think these kinds of posts might still be useful for others to read, I am acutely aware that topics like the effects of sugar on the liver, or the problem of identity through time, are much more general than why I've decided to practice meditation three times a day. I'd like for people who don't really care about the later to be able to easily skip past it, if they so desire1.
So, what's next for this blog? There are a few topics that have been sitting on the back-burner for me for a while. For "Physical," I plan on writing about confirmation bias, and the effects that religion has on cognitive capacity (and vice-versa, what effect rational thought has on religious feeling). For "Mental" there is still the big one I haven't touched yet - the pre-suppositional "un-argument" - as well as summaries of a philosopher's critique of the New Atheist movement. For "Symbol", you can expect me to gush about "Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask" as being one of the greatest pieces of interactive fiction of all time, as well as post some of my essay over Romantic literature that I wrote in University (when I'm not feeling lazy, I'll even try to address some issues the professor cited when she returned the work to me!). I will also want to write a review of the first "Neon Genesis: Evangelion" rebuild movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Hope I've given you something to look forward too!
1: Of course, it doesn't really matter, since as of this moment I could only say I have about 5 other people reading this blog, at maximum. In fact, humorously enough, one of my friends has even implied that he is more interested in a blog another of my friends has not written, and does not plan to, than he is in this blog. If I'm competing against all the non-existent blogs out there, then no wonder I have such a small readership!
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Mental 04: Labels for Belief (and Lack thereof)
Around the time I began this blog, I was talking to a friend one evening about religion &tc when we got around to the topic of what it means to be an atheist. He, like many others I've talked to (and perhaps even myself, at one point) believed that an atheist was someone who believed God did not exist. I fear this misconception is rather widespread, and since I'm too lazy to write anything productive at the moment, I will address it in this blog post, starting with
Deism
Deism is a form of theism v1, but unlike v2, deism does holds neither that god is of a personal nature nor that god interferes with the natural world. Instead, this god could be known through reasoning about nature. Many Christina deists did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible. and most distrusted organized religion. Fun fact: the founding fathers of America were mostly deists!
Deism are also classified under a broader category of
Nontheism
Non-theism is specifically "not theism v2". So, while deists are a form of theism v1, they are also non-theists. There are plenty of other religious non-theists, but of course that's not why I'm writing this, so I'll move on to one that isn't inherently religious or nonreligious,
Agnosticism
Agnosticism, in regards to the existence of a deity, is the position of "not knowing." It can be weak, as in such a claim as "No one knows whether a god exists," or strong, in "It is impossible for us to know whether a god exists." Someone who holds this claim, however, can still be a theist (this is called agnostic theism). How is this possible?
We enter into an important distinction. Up until this point, we have been talking about belief in a god. Agnosticism, however, is a position about knowledge of god. The two are not the same, even though we often conflate them. Although this distinction deserves its own blog post, suffice it to say that no matter how much I believe something to be true, it is questionable for me to claim I know it if I can't provide reasons for my belief. An agnostic theist is just such a person - they believe a god exists, but they know they don't know this. While possible to do this, I think it's much more common for an agnosticism to coincide with
Atheism
That's right. Most people use the term agnostic to distinguish themselves from atheists, but in truth they are also atheists, because atheism is "without theism," or the lack of belief in a god. This confusion, I think, is largely due to extremists in both camps: evangelicals for making a false dichotomy of "you need just as much faith to think that God certainly does not exist", and atheists for claiming that they do in fact know a god doesn't exist. But note, you can be religious and also atheist. Ancestor worship, Shintoism, etc, are all religious even though they don't believe in a god. What most people think of as atheism, they are actually thinking of strong atheism, which is the positive claim that no gods exist (this is also contrasted to weak atheism, which is the previous, most-inclusive definition of atheism given). Finally, there's
Antitheism
This term has two very different meanings. If you're an antitheist atheist, you are against organized religion and/or any belief in a god at all. Many of the popular "New Atheists" are atheist anti-theists, whereas the Yawists of ancient Hebrew were more probably theist anti-theists. (They condemned the worship of Ba'al, one of the three Hebrew gods.)
So with all that, what am I? Definitely I am at least a weak atheist - I lack belief in every god of every religion I know of. For some specific gods - like the god of the Creationist movement - I am a gnostic atheist; we know that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old, and that there was never a global flood, so the god that caused all these could not exist3.
More generally, for claims about untestable supernatural phenomenon, I would most often consider myself a weak atheist. The difference is in degree, though, and not kind. I know very certainly that there is no shark in my room, because of the limited scope of my room and my ability to investigate large objects (like sharks) in it. With a god, it's more like looking for keys and only staring at one small corner of the room. I could say that "the keys are not in this room," only if I did not really know there was much more room to look in. But I would not believe that the keys were in this room unless I had good reason to - such as actually finding them.
1: All definitions from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nontheism
2: I'm using this term interchangeably with deity, though some monotheists may object.
3: But the god who caused all these and then re-arranged all the evidence to make it look otherwise could possibly exist - I'm looking at you, Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Theism1
Broadly, "theism" is the belief in the existence of at least one or more god2 or goddess. A monotheist believes in one god; a polytheist believes in several, and an atheist believes in none. More recently (during the 17th century) the term came to mean something more specific: in the context of monotheism, being a theist meant you believed in a personal which you could come to know through divine revelation and which interacted with the natural world. I will refer to this distinction by calling the first "theism v1" and "theism v1". People developed theism v2 so that they could contrast their belief withDeism
Deism is a form of theism v1, but unlike v2, deism does holds neither that god is of a personal nature nor that god interferes with the natural world. Instead, this god could be known through reasoning about nature. Many Christina deists did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible. and most distrusted organized religion. Fun fact: the founding fathers of America were mostly deists!
Deism are also classified under a broader category of
Nontheism
Non-theism is specifically "not theism v2". So, while deists are a form of theism v1, they are also non-theists. There are plenty of other religious non-theists, but of course that's not why I'm writing this, so I'll move on to one that isn't inherently religious or nonreligious,
Agnosticism
Agnosticism, in regards to the existence of a deity, is the position of "not knowing." It can be weak, as in such a claim as "No one knows whether a god exists," or strong, in "It is impossible for us to know whether a god exists." Someone who holds this claim, however, can still be a theist (this is called agnostic theism). How is this possible?
We enter into an important distinction. Up until this point, we have been talking about belief in a god. Agnosticism, however, is a position about knowledge of god. The two are not the same, even though we often conflate them. Although this distinction deserves its own blog post, suffice it to say that no matter how much I believe something to be true, it is questionable for me to claim I know it if I can't provide reasons for my belief. An agnostic theist is just such a person - they believe a god exists, but they know they don't know this. While possible to do this, I think it's much more common for an agnosticism to coincide with
Atheism
That's right. Most people use the term agnostic to distinguish themselves from atheists, but in truth they are also atheists, because atheism is "without theism," or the lack of belief in a god. This confusion, I think, is largely due to extremists in both camps: evangelicals for making a false dichotomy of "you need just as much faith to think that God certainly does not exist", and atheists for claiming that they do in fact know a god doesn't exist. But note, you can be religious and also atheist. Ancestor worship, Shintoism, etc, are all religious even though they don't believe in a god. What most people think of as atheism, they are actually thinking of strong atheism, which is the positive claim that no gods exist (this is also contrasted to weak atheism, which is the previous, most-inclusive definition of atheism given). Finally, there's
Antitheism
This term has two very different meanings. If you're an antitheist atheist, you are against organized religion and/or any belief in a god at all. Many of the popular "New Atheists" are atheist anti-theists, whereas the Yawists of ancient Hebrew were more probably theist anti-theists. (They condemned the worship of Ba'al, one of the three Hebrew gods.)
So with all that, what am I? Definitely I am at least a weak atheist - I lack belief in every god of every religion I know of. For some specific gods - like the god of the Creationist movement - I am a gnostic atheist; we know that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old, and that there was never a global flood, so the god that caused all these could not exist3.
More generally, for claims about untestable supernatural phenomenon, I would most often consider myself a weak atheist. The difference is in degree, though, and not kind. I know very certainly that there is no shark in my room, because of the limited scope of my room and my ability to investigate large objects (like sharks) in it. With a god, it's more like looking for keys and only staring at one small corner of the room. I could say that "the keys are not in this room," only if I did not really know there was much more room to look in. But I would not believe that the keys were in this room unless I had good reason to - such as actually finding them.
1: All definitions from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nontheism
2: I'm using this term interchangeably with deity, though some monotheists may object.
3: But the god who caused all these and then re-arranged all the evidence to make it look otherwise could possibly exist - I'm looking at you, Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Ego 02: New Year's Resolutions
It's that time of the year again. The end of the year serves as a little reminder for the end of our lives. We reflect over the time that has passed, and frequently decide we are not satisfied with what we have done: "I should exercise more"; "I should eat healthier"; etc. We look at the new year as an opportunity for self-betterment and transformation, and resolve to do the things we think we should have done...
...and then after maybe a month, give up. Why? My thoughts are that in these situations, we're just making a wishlist, much like the one you would make for family and friends for Christmas gifts. We want external changes, but we don't often know how to find the resources for the internal changes needed. You don't (usually) just exercise every day because you decide to. That happens because you really want to exercise, either because you are doing something you enjoy or because you really internalize the need to be healthy.
I am also making a list of resolutions, and the new year seems like a good time to implement them - after the holidays and the chaos of family, eating, and drinking that comes with it. As before, I list a brief justification of each.
Diet
Activity
Religious
Productivity
We'll see if I have what it takes to maintain this. I hope to have a more general post up soon!
...and then after maybe a month, give up. Why? My thoughts are that in these situations, we're just making a wishlist, much like the one you would make for family and friends for Christmas gifts. We want external changes, but we don't often know how to find the resources for the internal changes needed. You don't (usually) just exercise every day because you decide to. That happens because you really want to exercise, either because you are doing something you enjoy or because you really internalize the need to be healthy.
I am also making a list of resolutions, and the new year seems like a good time to implement them - after the holidays and the chaos of family, eating, and drinking that comes with it. As before, I list a brief justification of each.
Diet
- I will maintain a low-carbohydrate, adequate protein diet (that's less than 20% carbs, and +20% or at least 65 grams of protein, per day)
- Of the carbs I eat, almost all of them should be complex (dietary fiber)
- On the Sunday and Wednesday of each week, I will fast during the day (no more than 300 calories, mostly protein), and have a normal evening meal.
- I will consume +2000 calories per day when not fasting. I will do this by trying to eat at least 3 largish meals a day.
Activity
- On Tuesday and Friday afternoon, I will try to get about an hour of mixed cardio/calisthenics.
- On Monday and Thursday afternoon, I will try to get about an hour of running with some calisthenics.
- Everyday, I when I wake I will do 10 minutes of stretching, and after the exercises on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, I will do another 10 minutes of stretching.
- On Sunday and Wednesday afternoon, I will do at least 30 minutes of yoga.
- On Sunday, I will spend 30-60 minutes walking in nature.
Religious
- Every day, I will do three 15-minute meditations: when I rise in the morning (breathing), in the afternoon (attending to music), and before I go to bed (free association).
- Every night, I will spend 30 minutes reading from a religious text (currently, Buddhism).
- Every Sunday, I will attend a Buddhist gathering.
- At least once a week, I will volunteer at least an hour of my time to service for the community.
Productivity
- I will keep a log hours I spend on certain activities
- I will keep a To-do list
- I will make and maintain an if-then list.
We'll see if I have what it takes to maintain this. I hope to have a more general post up soon!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Physical 02: "Sugar: The Bitter Truth"
I came across this video about 3 years ago. I cannot remember what lead me to it, except for a general interest in health (at the time, I was most interested in radioactive heavy metals in tobacco). Now that I have begun experimenting with my diet (a low carbohydrate, high fat, adequate protein diet with intermittent fasting - more on that in future Physical posts) I would like to share some of the important pieces of information about diet and nutrition I've come across the way, and this video was what started me on my intellectual journey.
The conventional wisdom is that eating fat is bad for you, so if you want to lose weight, eat less of it. Even if you have never had this said to you, you are probably aware of it - on food packaging, "low fat" is marketed as if it were synonymous with "healthy," and the same is true on most restaurant menus. And vaguely, it makes some sense - if you have too much fat on you, you should put less fat in you, right?
How did this come to be? In the early ’70s, we discovered LDLs. In the mid ’70s, we learned that dietary fat raised your LDLs. In late ’70s, we learned that LDL correlated to CVD (Cardiovascular Disease). The thought process was that dietary fats led to heart disease, but this premise is incorrect. The logic is faulty.1
Dietary fats raises your large buoyant Pattern A LDL (VLDL) and carbs raise small, dense Pattern B LDL.2
Essentially, scientists made a mistake, and we haven't realized it yet. The result? An increase in obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other related diseases.2
It's not just increases in carbohydrates, however, which are contributing to these ill health effects. We've also all been told that we should eat more complex carbohydrates from whole grains and avoid simple ones like sugars. However, just like you you might be surprised to know that there are two types of LDL, with one of them being unhealthy and the other benign, there are also two types of sugars, and one of them is much worse than the other.
It's been two strikes against conventional wisdom, but it redeems itself here: HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is bad for you, and the reason is for it's second term, "fructose." Food processing companies and the agricultural industry would have you believe HFCS is no worse for you than regular table sugar or cane sugar - and they're right! Both are bad for you! The reason is that whereas HFCS consists mostly of monosaccharides (little glucoses and fructoses floating around), sucrose consists of disaccharides (little glucoses and fructoses bonded together). The very first thing your body does to sucrose is to split the bond between the two sugar molecules, meaning the body perceives them as essentially the same thing.
The way your body metabolizes fructose is very different from what it does to glucose. It doesn't trigger the release of insulin, which means that leptin doesn't get released, either, and this is the body's "I've eaten enough" chemical. It also doesn't suppress grehlin, which is the body's "I'm hungry" chemical. It gets worse - when your body goes to store fructose as fat, it can only be metabolized in the liver, and in doing so the liver suffers several ill effects.
In comparing chronic ethanol exposure to chronic fructose consumption, they share 8 out of 12 phenomenon. Why? Because they do the same thing. They are metabolized the same way. They ARE the same because they come from the same place. Alcohol is made by fermenting sugar. They have all the same properties because it’s taken care of by the liver in exactly the same way and for the same reason because sugar and ethanol ARE the same.2
To wrap this up, it's worth mentioning that while HFCS and sucrose are about the same in terms of health impact, HFCS is much more insidious for economical reasons. Corn is subsidized by the America government, making corn products very cheap. As a consequence, HFCS is in a ridiculous number of processed foods, and so cheap that it's hard for families of lower incomes to avoid eating.
1: I'm not going to go through the details here. The video and the website do much better than I could.
2: http://www.live-pure.com/2012/01/sugar-the-bitter-truth-by-dr-lustig-a-summary/
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Physical 01: You wouldn't steal a book...
Actually I would, if the circumstances were right. Let me explain:
There's been a lot of hoopla about copyright law, copyright infringement, pirating, etc. One of the common arguments I hear from the other camp is that infringing copyright is the same as stealing. Now, there are several problems with this, but in this post I will focus on just one: Google Books, specifically those books which it allows you to see the full book online through their application, but doesn't allow you to download the text for offline viewing.1
Some might argue that this policy of allowing you to view the work, without letting you keep it, makes Google Books like a library. Let's go with this analogy for a bit. A library has one or more copies of a book in its possession. When you borrow a book from the library, that is one less copy of the book that they have. Books cost money, and there are lots of them, so in all probability the library has only a few copies of a single book relative to the possible number of people who would be interested in reading it.
If after borrowing a book from the library I decided not to return it, I am depriving the library of one of its relatively scare resources. Either I have cut short others people's access to the same book, or I have cost the library money because they had to buy the book again. If a significant sub-population of people did this sort of thing2, the library would at some point have to close down, and the net good for everybody would be significantly diminished.
Here's the thing, however: strong proponents of copyright law might make this argument, which I completely agree with, and then say this is exactly the same thing as what I would be doing if I found a way to download full preview copies of Google Books, and this I strongly disagree with. This analogy is either very misinformed, or very, very dishonest. Equating these two actions - stealing a book from the library and downloading a copy of a full-preview book which Google and the book's publishers don't want me to have except through the online application - only works if the person you are describing this to doesn't really understand how computers and the Internet work3. Thankfully, I am a student in the field of Computer Science, and while I am not an expert on the subject of networking, I am smarter than the average citizen/bear about how these things work.
If Google Books were a library, this is how it would operate: this library would maybe have about one copy of each book it possesses4. When you go to this library and check out a book, instead of handing you their one and only version of this book, they instantly create a copy of this book for basically nothing. Seriously. In this analogy, act of making a new copy of the book and handing you this copy is essentially the same act, and probably costs even less than it would to pay a minimum wage hourly worker for the time they went to the shelf and brought back the book5. The librarian then instructs you to destroy this copy of the book once the allotted time for viewing has passed.
Yes, you read me right. But that's not quite right, because just like it's improbable that you would actually destroy the book in this scenario, you probably wouldn't delete a pdf of the same book, either. So instead, the library makes self-destroying books. Not only this, but it's actually much harder and much more expensive to add and enforce this self-destroying feature than it is to just give the copy of the book to you! And best of all, it's almost impossible to perfect - someone like me, who in this case is an expert on bookmaking, is almost always going to be able to find a way to preserve a copy of the book6.
What's the purpose of all this, then? A library usually serves the purpose of a public good; the reason you feel wrong about stealing their books is that lots of people would be negatively affected by your actions. In contrast, these limitations do not apply to Google Books and its partner publishers. The only purpose I can perceive in their actions is the desire to control a resource7, for the purposes of making a profit from it.
Returning to the first statement in this post: if the people who owned the content were actively trying to limit access to information and eradicate certain books/ideas from the world, you had better believe I would steal a physical book. I would then make as many copies as I could, and distribute them to as many people as I could, without demanding charge. For the greater good of society.
1: I discovered this while I was looking for an online version of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Why was I looking for this? I could tell you "intellectual curiosity," but the truth is far less noble - I have a bad habit of debating with Creationists and other Christians online.
2: In game theory, we call actors who behave like this defectors, and those who behave altruistically cooperators.
3: I'm of the opinion that at least some content holders know this, and are therefore guilty of deceiving the public. This is a well-observed consequence of ignorance - getting duped
4: OK, probably more, what with backups and other redundant copies
5: UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM ALERT (based on an educated guess)
6: Needless to say, this is not an admission of guilt and I am not condoning any actions which lead to copyright infringement. |:-|
7: There are of course objections you might make: "How will the authors of these works be paid if this isn't enforced?" Needless to say, I believe there are plenty of satisfactory alternatives, which I will talk about in later posts. The only people who are harmed by these are the publishers and content owners, not the authors and content creators.
There's been a lot of hoopla about copyright law, copyright infringement, pirating, etc. One of the common arguments I hear from the other camp is that infringing copyright is the same as stealing. Now, there are several problems with this, but in this post I will focus on just one: Google Books, specifically those books which it allows you to see the full book online through their application, but doesn't allow you to download the text for offline viewing.1
Some might argue that this policy of allowing you to view the work, without letting you keep it, makes Google Books like a library. Let's go with this analogy for a bit. A library has one or more copies of a book in its possession. When you borrow a book from the library, that is one less copy of the book that they have. Books cost money, and there are lots of them, so in all probability the library has only a few copies of a single book relative to the possible number of people who would be interested in reading it.
If after borrowing a book from the library I decided not to return it, I am depriving the library of one of its relatively scare resources. Either I have cut short others people's access to the same book, or I have cost the library money because they had to buy the book again. If a significant sub-population of people did this sort of thing2, the library would at some point have to close down, and the net good for everybody would be significantly diminished.
Here's the thing, however: strong proponents of copyright law might make this argument, which I completely agree with, and then say this is exactly the same thing as what I would be doing if I found a way to download full preview copies of Google Books, and this I strongly disagree with. This analogy is either very misinformed, or very, very dishonest. Equating these two actions - stealing a book from the library and downloading a copy of a full-preview book which Google and the book's publishers don't want me to have except through the online application - only works if the person you are describing this to doesn't really understand how computers and the Internet work3. Thankfully, I am a student in the field of Computer Science, and while I am not an expert on the subject of networking, I am smarter than the average citizen/bear about how these things work.
If Google Books were a library, this is how it would operate: this library would maybe have about one copy of each book it possesses4. When you go to this library and check out a book, instead of handing you their one and only version of this book, they instantly create a copy of this book for basically nothing. Seriously. In this analogy, act of making a new copy of the book and handing you this copy is essentially the same act, and probably costs even less than it would to pay a minimum wage hourly worker for the time they went to the shelf and brought back the book5. The librarian then instructs you to destroy this copy of the book once the allotted time for viewing has passed.
Yes, you read me right. But that's not quite right, because just like it's improbable that you would actually destroy the book in this scenario, you probably wouldn't delete a pdf of the same book, either. So instead, the library makes self-destroying books. Not only this, but it's actually much harder and much more expensive to add and enforce this self-destroying feature than it is to just give the copy of the book to you! And best of all, it's almost impossible to perfect - someone like me, who in this case is an expert on bookmaking, is almost always going to be able to find a way to preserve a copy of the book6.
What's the purpose of all this, then? A library usually serves the purpose of a public good; the reason you feel wrong about stealing their books is that lots of people would be negatively affected by your actions. In contrast, these limitations do not apply to Google Books and its partner publishers. The only purpose I can perceive in their actions is the desire to control a resource7, for the purposes of making a profit from it.
Returning to the first statement in this post: if the people who owned the content were actively trying to limit access to information and eradicate certain books/ideas from the world, you had better believe I would steal a physical book. I would then make as many copies as I could, and distribute them to as many people as I could, without demanding charge. For the greater good of society.
1: I discovered this while I was looking for an online version of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Why was I looking for this? I could tell you "intellectual curiosity," but the truth is far less noble - I have a bad habit of debating with Creationists and other Christians online.
2: In game theory, we call actors who behave like this defectors, and those who behave altruistically cooperators.
3: I'm of the opinion that at least some content holders know this, and are therefore guilty of deceiving the public. This is a well-observed consequence of ignorance - getting duped
4: OK, probably more, what with backups and other redundant copies
5: UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM ALERT (based on an educated guess)
6: Needless to say, this is not an admission of guilt and I am not condoning any actions which lead to copyright infringement. |:-|
7: There are of course objections you might make: "How will the authors of these works be paid if this isn't enforced?" Needless to say, I believe there are plenty of satisfactory alternatives, which I will talk about in later posts. The only people who are harmed by these are the publishers and content owners, not the authors and content creators.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Symbol 00: "Emily" by Joanna Newsom
This past summer, some good friends of mine introduced me to the music of Joanna Newsom. Her style is difficult to pin down - baroque 'n' roll, psy folk1. Her voice is something else altogether, sometimes sweet and melodious, often warbly and shrill, and in my opinion, always absolutely beautiful.2 I could tell on my first listen that I loved her music.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason it takes quite a long time for me to actually sit down and listen to something once I already know about it. Because of this, even though I knew about her for the entire summer, I did not get around to listening to "Ys" until nearly midway through October. You may recall that this is about the same time my grandmother died. Naturally, for this reason this album has taken on a completely different dimension of emotional significance to me.
I am not fond of going to "song meaning" websites because I dislike reading entries which are based entirely on the person's projection of personal significance onto a work, with little or no justification or even logical connection. There are some passages in "Emily" that move me deeply entirely for the external meanings I associate with them, but elaborating them contributes nothing to someone else's understanding of the song. Therefore, I will concentrate only on themes I think Joanna develops within the work. It would be too ambitious for me to say I know what "Emily" means. But I will say this: throughout the song, Joanna seems suggest that language is inadequate for dealing with certain experiences.3
To lay the groundwork, we might first notice the image-rich language of the song. Descriptions are in some sense clear, told in the language of physical objects and sensory impressions.
In the song, Joanna dreams that Emily, her sister who is an astrophysicist, is "skipping little stones across the surface of the water." What's of interest to me is this next bit: "Frowning at the angles where they were lost and slipped under forever." Though talking about insignificant stones, the image suggests a troubling sense of loss. In the second stanza, Emily tries to teach Joanna "the names of the stars overhead." Joanna, for her part, seems conscious of her own limited understanding of the subject, and eager to hold onto the pieces of knowledge her sister is sharing with her. ("Though all I knew of the rote universe were those Pleiades loosed in December / I promised you I'd set them to verse so I'd always remember.") Another way of saying this: she turns what her sister says into a song so that she won't forget or lose it. It's seems to me that whether or not she retains everything her sister said is in question; though Emily is an expert in the subject, Joanna's versification is rather simplistic (as far as astronomical facts go, anyway.)
Faced with the contemplation of the Universe and the prospect of our eventual death, we again seem to have words: "Told take this / And eat this." The words of someone concerned with our health, who loves us, maybe, but not words which help us "come to grips with a sky that is gaping and yawning." Even more poignant, Joanna leaves us with the simplistic words of someone who struggled to remember the basic facts of astronomy, and this verse, this effort, doesn't even begin to address the issues she's just brought up, sounding childishly simple.
1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/oct/15/folk
2: To be fair, I have a real soft spot for unusual female vocals.
3: An ironic, though not uncommon, claim for a writer to make, given the medium.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason it takes quite a long time for me to actually sit down and listen to something once I already know about it. Because of this, even though I knew about her for the entire summer, I did not get around to listening to "Ys" until nearly midway through October. You may recall that this is about the same time my grandmother died. Naturally, for this reason this album has taken on a completely different dimension of emotional significance to me.
I am not fond of going to "song meaning" websites because I dislike reading entries which are based entirely on the person's projection of personal significance onto a work, with little or no justification or even logical connection. There are some passages in "Emily" that move me deeply entirely for the external meanings I associate with them, but elaborating them contributes nothing to someone else's understanding of the song. Therefore, I will concentrate only on themes I think Joanna develops within the work. It would be too ambitious for me to say I know what "Emily" means. But I will say this: throughout the song, Joanna seems suggest that language is inadequate for dealing with certain experiences.3
To lay the groundwork, we might first notice the image-rich language of the song. Descriptions are in some sense clear, told in the language of physical objects and sensory impressions.
There is a rusty light on the pines tonightWhile the objects themselves are described directly, what they mean and how things relate to each other, is much less clear. What, for example, were the Pharisees doing when they "dragged a comb through the meadow?" How would your heart "up and melt away"(warmth) from "that snow in the nightime"(chill)? Joanna has stated that everything, every bit of imagery, has some personal symbolic meaning,1 and I take that statement in good faith. However, she also seems to admit that it's not necessarily the case listeners will understand what she means from the words alone. This is much softer than the claim I've made - let's turn from the general to some specific instances.
Sun pouring wine, lord, or marrow
Down into the bones of the birches
And the spires of the churches
Jutting out from the shadows
In the song, Joanna dreams that Emily, her sister who is an astrophysicist, is "skipping little stones across the surface of the water." What's of interest to me is this next bit: "Frowning at the angles where they were lost and slipped under forever." Though talking about insignificant stones, the image suggests a troubling sense of loss. In the second stanza, Emily tries to teach Joanna "the names of the stars overhead." Joanna, for her part, seems conscious of her own limited understanding of the subject, and eager to hold onto the pieces of knowledge her sister is sharing with her. ("Though all I knew of the rote universe were those Pleiades loosed in December / I promised you I'd set them to verse so I'd always remember.") Another way of saying this: she turns what her sister says into a song so that she won't forget or lose it. It's seems to me that whether or not she retains everything her sister said is in question; though Emily is an expert in the subject, Joanna's versification is rather simplistic (as far as astronomical facts go, anyway.)
That the meteorite is a source of the light
And the meteor's just what we see
And the meteoroid is a stone that's devoid of the fire that propelled it to thee
And the meteorite's just what causes the light
And the meteor's how it's perceived
And the meteoroid's a bone thrown from the void that lies quiet in offering to thee
This casts the reference to a century in a much darker light - this is of course the approximate amount of time we humans are expected to live. It's not "could" in the sense of a hypothetical; it's also "could" in the sense of this is what is physically possible, and not longer.
Faced with the contemplation of the Universe and the prospect of our eventual death, we again seem to have words: "Told take this / And eat this." The words of someone concerned with our health, who loves us, maybe, but not words which help us "come to grips with a sky that is gaping and yawning." Even more poignant, Joanna leaves us with the simplistic words of someone who struggled to remember the basic facts of astronomy, and this verse, this effort, doesn't even begin to address the issues she's just brought up, sounding childishly simple.
ToldI can't help when listening to this but to think of how my own words fall helpless and empty when when it comes to the hole the death of my grandmother has left in my family.
The meteorite is the source of the light
And the meteor's just what we see
And the meteoroid is a stone that's devoid of the fire that propelled it to thee
And the meteorite's just what causes the light
And the meteor's how it's perceived
And the meteoroid's a bone thrown from the void that lies quiet in offering to thee
1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/oct/15/folk
2: To be fair, I have a real soft spot for unusual female vocals.
3: An ironic, though not uncommon, claim for a writer to make, given the medium.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Meta 03: Introducing "Symbol"
For anyone out there who has been reading my blog (besides myself, of course)1 one unanswered question must still bother them: what the hell is this blog about? Unfortunately, the short answer is "me." Not only is this a terrible way to get people to read my blog (for one thing, it sounds really egotistical, if not extremely boring) but it's also not entirely true, or at the very least misleading. This blog serves mostly as a platform for me to formalize my thoughts on topics which interest me, and (when I made it public) open myself to possible criticism or additional points of fact. This does very little to cohere the themes of the blog, and now I am going to make the problem worse, by adding an additional theme: Symbol
"Symbol" will consist of critiques of art, most often probably music and literature, since these are the art forms I know most about. If you recall, in a previous "Meta" post I described my use of "Symbolism" in making up my fundamental worldview as valuing the ability to make abstractions, and to use one particular abstraction - language - to communicate. It seems to me that language is not the only form of communication, that all or almost all forms of art express something, link to something, represent something or intentionally fail to be a representation.
This greatly interests me; the experiencing of a piece of artistic work, the internalizing of its use of symbols and the expression of meaning inside the mind of the audience. Earlier in my life, I had intended on becoming a fiction writer. The more I learned of the craft, however, the more I felt I was not nearly well versed enough to contribute anything meaningful to the field. There is still a story I wish to write, however, and so I am glad for the opportunity to cut my critical chops on other works of art as I learn the tools of the trade from bits of articles that I've read.
You can expect the following soon: an analysis of the song "Emily" by Joana Newsom, and the highly ambitious and controversial claim that in the "Legend of Zelda" video game series, "Majora's Mask" is a better work of interactive fiction than "Ocarina of Time."2 Maybe talking about my generation's favorite game in such an unpopular way will generate some comments for me?
1: The empty set?
2: Some of you will not be surprised to hear that I've actually gotten into shouting matches with people about this topic!
"Symbol" will consist of critiques of art, most often probably music and literature, since these are the art forms I know most about. If you recall, in a previous "Meta" post I described my use of "Symbolism" in making up my fundamental worldview as valuing the ability to make abstractions, and to use one particular abstraction - language - to communicate. It seems to me that language is not the only form of communication, that all or almost all forms of art express something, link to something, represent something or intentionally fail to be a representation.
This greatly interests me; the experiencing of a piece of artistic work, the internalizing of its use of symbols and the expression of meaning inside the mind of the audience. Earlier in my life, I had intended on becoming a fiction writer. The more I learned of the craft, however, the more I felt I was not nearly well versed enough to contribute anything meaningful to the field. There is still a story I wish to write, however, and so I am glad for the opportunity to cut my critical chops on other works of art as I learn the tools of the trade from bits of articles that I've read.
You can expect the following soon: an analysis of the song "Emily" by Joana Newsom, and the highly ambitious and controversial claim that in the "Legend of Zelda" video game series, "Majora's Mask" is a better work of interactive fiction than "Ocarina of Time."2 Maybe talking about my generation's favorite game in such an unpopular way will generate some comments for me?
1: The empty set?
2: Some of you will not be surprised to hear that I've actually gotten into shouting matches with people about this topic!
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Mental 03: The Anxiety Unto Death
On 14 October, 2012, my mother returned home from running some brief errands to find my grandmother, her mother, fallen outside. She suffered severe brain trauma; she was 90 years old. My mother did everything she thought to do - called the ambulance, stayed by her side, notified family (including me) as she rode with my grandmother in the ambulance to the hospital, etc. 2.5 traumatic days later, Beatrice Weiss passed away, never having regained consciousness, surrounded by family.
I'm not very ashamed to say it - I fear death. Most of us do. It is a final, inevitable end to our subjective experience. Many of us deal with this fear by turning to our religious beliefs - heaven, reincarnation, spirits, etc. I however can have no recourse in these beliefs - I have vowed for myself the ideal of a rationalist, evidence-based world philosophy, and so far I have been presented with no compelling evidence for any here-after. These arguments have been beaten to death, as it were, and I feel no need to get into them here. Similarly, I will not take up space justifying the nonsense question of "why do you live, then, since you don't believe in a higher power?".1
My beliefs have been a source of contention between my mother and me, and so far I am glad that we have not fought over the details in the time since my grandmother passed. But, as a humanist, interested in what the effects of something as traumatic as death has on our psyche, and always curious about the belief systems people create to contextualize themselves in the larger universe, I cannot help but speculate about the relationship between death and religion. Especially in the light of the events I mentioned, pondering humanity's relationship with death has become the next best thing to a consolation for the deaths of my loved ones and my own death.
I am of the opinion that religion serves partly as a coping mechanism for our fears of death. I have heard it speculated that, at some point in our evolutionary history, we became sufficiently cognizant to forecast our own death. The anxiety this caused must have been great. Religion, whenever it developed, came to serve, among other functions, a way of identifying our ego, our sense of self, with something eternal, thereby relieving us our fear of death, of ourselves and of others.
Whether or not this is true historically, something of it seems to be true today. A recent study implies that, when primed with thoughts of their own death, non-believers are unconsciously less certain of their own disbelief, even when they are consciously more adamant about it.2 For religious folks however, this prompting increases both conscious and unconscious conviction of their belief.
This, of course, is no evidence for any religious claims, much like the claim that "there are no atheists in fox-holes" fails to be rationally convincing. A good friend whose opinions I highly value once told me that he most resists adopting those beliefs which he is most emotionally inclined to agree with. Emotion is no substitute for reason in deciding what you believe is true.
As an atheist, what greater, lasting purpose(s) do I identify with, if any? I don't actually think it is necessary that we identify ourselves with some eternal project - religion, fame, lasting benefit to mankind - in order to deal with our anxiety about death. For myself, I take some comfort in the fact that I appear to be made of the same matter, the same cosmic star-stuff, as everything around me; that I am "the Universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while,"3 looking into and reflecting on itself. When I die, I am returning to being diffused into the whole of existence.
Contemplating death does not just make you more religious; it can also makes you more considerate of others, and more likely to engage in healthy behaviors.4 Far from devaluing life, death seems to make us find it more precious, and care about the lives of ourselves and others. This is why I found my grandmother's funeral service somewhat disturbing. My mother wrote the only work celebrating her life and her experiences - her compassion for others, loyalty to family, and yes her quirks and faults. This reading contrasts sharply to the sermon give by the pastor, the message of which seemed mostly to be that life only exists so that we prepare for death, and that Beatrice was an example to us for preparing her funeral before hand, just as she had prepared her immortal soul for the afterlife. I was reminded of why Nietzsche considered Christianity nihilistic.
Preparing for death is important, of course. My mother is already making plans to walk myself and my brother through the medical and legal procedures we will need to know when she passes away. To do otherwise is to ignore reality, something which I fear my brother may prefer (he has expressed strong reservations to learning this process). However, I see this process as a wake up call to really take control of my life, to take better care of my physical and mental self, to love and cherish those around me, to move on from a recent and somewhat painful end to a relationship and just throw myself into the things I love - programming, music, art, food, etc.
We are very brief, very small, very beautiful improbable things. Let's make the most of it together.
1: If you're interested, however, here's a start
2: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402094322.htm
3: Eckhart Tolle
4: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419102516.htm
I'm not very ashamed to say it - I fear death. Most of us do. It is a final, inevitable end to our subjective experience. Many of us deal with this fear by turning to our religious beliefs - heaven, reincarnation, spirits, etc. I however can have no recourse in these beliefs - I have vowed for myself the ideal of a rationalist, evidence-based world philosophy, and so far I have been presented with no compelling evidence for any here-after. These arguments have been beaten to death, as it were, and I feel no need to get into them here. Similarly, I will not take up space justifying the nonsense question of "why do you live, then, since you don't believe in a higher power?".1
My beliefs have been a source of contention between my mother and me, and so far I am glad that we have not fought over the details in the time since my grandmother passed. But, as a humanist, interested in what the effects of something as traumatic as death has on our psyche, and always curious about the belief systems people create to contextualize themselves in the larger universe, I cannot help but speculate about the relationship between death and religion. Especially in the light of the events I mentioned, pondering humanity's relationship with death has become the next best thing to a consolation for the deaths of my loved ones and my own death.
I am of the opinion that religion serves partly as a coping mechanism for our fears of death. I have heard it speculated that, at some point in our evolutionary history, we became sufficiently cognizant to forecast our own death. The anxiety this caused must have been great. Religion, whenever it developed, came to serve, among other functions, a way of identifying our ego, our sense of self, with something eternal, thereby relieving us our fear of death, of ourselves and of others.
Whether or not this is true historically, something of it seems to be true today. A recent study implies that, when primed with thoughts of their own death, non-believers are unconsciously less certain of their own disbelief, even when they are consciously more adamant about it.2 For religious folks however, this prompting increases both conscious and unconscious conviction of their belief.
This, of course, is no evidence for any religious claims, much like the claim that "there are no atheists in fox-holes" fails to be rationally convincing. A good friend whose opinions I highly value once told me that he most resists adopting those beliefs which he is most emotionally inclined to agree with. Emotion is no substitute for reason in deciding what you believe is true.
As an atheist, what greater, lasting purpose(s) do I identify with, if any? I don't actually think it is necessary that we identify ourselves with some eternal project - religion, fame, lasting benefit to mankind - in order to deal with our anxiety about death. For myself, I take some comfort in the fact that I appear to be made of the same matter, the same cosmic star-stuff, as everything around me; that I am "the Universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while,"3 looking into and reflecting on itself. When I die, I am returning to being diffused into the whole of existence.
Contemplating death does not just make you more religious; it can also makes you more considerate of others, and more likely to engage in healthy behaviors.4 Far from devaluing life, death seems to make us find it more precious, and care about the lives of ourselves and others. This is why I found my grandmother's funeral service somewhat disturbing. My mother wrote the only work celebrating her life and her experiences - her compassion for others, loyalty to family, and yes her quirks and faults. This reading contrasts sharply to the sermon give by the pastor, the message of which seemed mostly to be that life only exists so that we prepare for death, and that Beatrice was an example to us for preparing her funeral before hand, just as she had prepared her immortal soul for the afterlife. I was reminded of why Nietzsche considered Christianity nihilistic.
Preparing for death is important, of course. My mother is already making plans to walk myself and my brother through the medical and legal procedures we will need to know when she passes away. To do otherwise is to ignore reality, something which I fear my brother may prefer (he has expressed strong reservations to learning this process). However, I see this process as a wake up call to really take control of my life, to take better care of my physical and mental self, to love and cherish those around me, to move on from a recent and somewhat painful end to a relationship and just throw myself into the things I love - programming, music, art, food, etc.
We are very brief, very small, very beautiful improbable things. Let's make the most of it together.
1: If you're interested, however, here's a start
2: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402094322.htm
3: Eckhart Tolle
4: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419102516.htm
Monday, November 19, 2012
Meta 02: The Semantics of "Symbols for Secular Humanism"
Let me begin by discussing a phrase that's popular with my generation: When asked what they believe, people often respond, "Oh, I'm spiritual but not religious." I said this once, without really thinking much of it, to a good friend of mine to (who happens to be religious) when she asked me about my beliefs. I was quite surprised to get a response along these lines: "Chris, please don't tell me you're just another cliche!"
I was quite taken aback (and thought this was a little rude), and muttered something back in my usual, flustered1 way whenever I'm surprised. It's been a moment that's stuck with me for 2.5 years now, for a while because I thought it was a moment of uncharacteristic unpleasantness from an otherwise good friend. Lately however, as I've been thinking about this blog, I've realized that the reason I haven't forgotten this exchange is part of me thinks she's right - that is a rather cliched answer.
It's not that I think there's anything wrong with being spiritual without religion, but the problem is that this is given as an answer when it answers nothing. It's a short, accessible, and generic meme2 for a very personal question. Were I in her shoes, my current self would have asked this earlier version of me, "OK, but what do you believe?" And here is how I might respond if asked that today.
I have three isms which make up my foundational beliefs: humanism, skepticism3, and symbolism. Let's look at each of these in turn.
Humanism: in its simplest terms, this is simply a belief in the value of human life and dignity. Everything about humans fascinates me - human interactions, achievements, intelligence, love, social organizations, and even just the experience of being human. This is a highly biased position to take - I am, after all, human myself. This does not mean I approve of everything humans do - for instance, groups are often very quick to "de-humanize" other groups, and use this to justify war, violence, and genocide. I do find the psychological mechanisms by which we are able to do so fascinating, but the actions themselves, which deny the human nature of the "Other", misguided and appalling.
Skepticism: this is an attitude of doubt or caution when assembling new knowledge. This includes "strong skepticism", which is the denial that we can know anything about reality at all. While we must be able to entertain this point of view if necessary (bearing resemblance to the the position of "philosophical absurdity"), practically it is very unsatisfying and epistemologically it is a dead-end. I therefore often entertain the empirical assumption (the idea that our senses are valuable methods of discovering truth, and are sometimes correct) again because I am strongly biased for it. Taken together, this means that I try my best to make the strength of my belief in the trueness or falseness of some proposition proportionate to the evidence I have for my position.
Notice a consequence of this: I do not believe Humanism or Skepticism or Empiricism themselves to be true. I pull either Skepticism or Empiricism to truth-hood by pulling them up by their bootstraps (aka circular logic). Similarly, no amount of evidence can ever support the claims "Mustard is objectively delicious" or "Humans are objectively valuable." I can make persuasive arguments - describe the tastes of mustard and occasions for use, or argue that Humanism is a natural philosophical extension of human empathy - but these cannot be 100% logically satisfying for a consistent4 yet resistant opponent.
Symbolism: my favourite, since this is, as far as I'm aware, my own personal philosophy, and not one already established. At some point in our development, the human species gained an unprecedented ability - the ability to communicate using the abstraction of language. We developed other abstractions - logic, mathematics, scientific theory yes, but also art, literature, and music. We are creative analogy makers, over-active pattern recognizers. It is not simply that we draw truth from our senses - we are able to generalize, notice patterns, and make predictions. These abstractions let us touch the infinite, the eternal, the total. Our ability to contemplate these through the use of abstraction is transcendental, and is (bringing us back to my original answer, those years ago) the source of my spiritual feeling.
Throughout our history, we have looked to some higher power - religious, familiar, social, etc - to give our lives meaning, but it is always our own self which crafts this meaning. I believe that this ability of abstraction lead us to contemplate our own death, and the anxiety this caused prompted proto-religious feelings of identifying your own self somehow with something eternal. But I do not think this is the only response - mine, for instance, is the realization that I am just bits of the universe, expressing itself as a human for a while, and the values I hold and the meaning I give to my life are human, tempered with respect for and interest in that which I am a small part of, and filled with awe about what we know, what we do not yet know, and what we can never know.
This is how I am spiritual without religion.
1: I'm often not nearly as eloquent "live" as I am "rehearsed", like these blog posts.
2: I have a theory about memes and thoughts. Briefly, the effects of the former on the latter can be both good and bad, and this would be an example of bad.
3: So why not "Symbols for Skeptical Humanism"? I wanted to emphasize my non-religiosity and my belief that magical thinking has negative consequences. Plus, I wasn't sure if it would come across that I was skeptical of humanism, which is not what I mean.
4: It's a different matter if you present a perfectly logical syllogism, but your opponent fails to grasp the logic of your argument, or denies logic altogether. Either of these would make the individual rationally inconsistent.
5: Don't think this is the only form of communication - many mamals, like dogs, have "body language" just like us.
I was quite taken aback (and thought this was a little rude), and muttered something back in my usual, flustered1 way whenever I'm surprised. It's been a moment that's stuck with me for 2.5 years now, for a while because I thought it was a moment of uncharacteristic unpleasantness from an otherwise good friend. Lately however, as I've been thinking about this blog, I've realized that the reason I haven't forgotten this exchange is part of me thinks she's right - that is a rather cliched answer.
It's not that I think there's anything wrong with being spiritual without religion, but the problem is that this is given as an answer when it answers nothing. It's a short, accessible, and generic meme2 for a very personal question. Were I in her shoes, my current self would have asked this earlier version of me, "OK, but what do you believe?" And here is how I might respond if asked that today.
I have three isms which make up my foundational beliefs: humanism, skepticism3, and symbolism. Let's look at each of these in turn.
Humanism: in its simplest terms, this is simply a belief in the value of human life and dignity. Everything about humans fascinates me - human interactions, achievements, intelligence, love, social organizations, and even just the experience of being human. This is a highly biased position to take - I am, after all, human myself. This does not mean I approve of everything humans do - for instance, groups are often very quick to "de-humanize" other groups, and use this to justify war, violence, and genocide. I do find the psychological mechanisms by which we are able to do so fascinating, but the actions themselves, which deny the human nature of the "Other", misguided and appalling.
Skepticism: this is an attitude of doubt or caution when assembling new knowledge. This includes "strong skepticism", which is the denial that we can know anything about reality at all. While we must be able to entertain this point of view if necessary (bearing resemblance to the the position of "philosophical absurdity"), practically it is very unsatisfying and epistemologically it is a dead-end. I therefore often entertain the empirical assumption (the idea that our senses are valuable methods of discovering truth, and are sometimes correct) again because I am strongly biased for it. Taken together, this means that I try my best to make the strength of my belief in the trueness or falseness of some proposition proportionate to the evidence I have for my position.
Notice a consequence of this: I do not believe Humanism or Skepticism or Empiricism themselves to be true. I pull either Skepticism or Empiricism to truth-hood by pulling them up by their bootstraps (aka circular logic). Similarly, no amount of evidence can ever support the claims "Mustard is objectively delicious" or "Humans are objectively valuable." I can make persuasive arguments - describe the tastes of mustard and occasions for use, or argue that Humanism is a natural philosophical extension of human empathy - but these cannot be 100% logically satisfying for a consistent4 yet resistant opponent.
Symbolism: my favourite, since this is, as far as I'm aware, my own personal philosophy, and not one already established. At some point in our development, the human species gained an unprecedented ability - the ability to communicate using the abstraction of language. We developed other abstractions - logic, mathematics, scientific theory yes, but also art, literature, and music. We are creative analogy makers, over-active pattern recognizers. It is not simply that we draw truth from our senses - we are able to generalize, notice patterns, and make predictions. These abstractions let us touch the infinite, the eternal, the total. Our ability to contemplate these through the use of abstraction is transcendental, and is (bringing us back to my original answer, those years ago) the source of my spiritual feeling.
Throughout our history, we have looked to some higher power - religious, familiar, social, etc - to give our lives meaning, but it is always our own self which crafts this meaning. I believe that this ability of abstraction lead us to contemplate our own death, and the anxiety this caused prompted proto-religious feelings of identifying your own self somehow with something eternal. But I do not think this is the only response - mine, for instance, is the realization that I am just bits of the universe, expressing itself as a human for a while, and the values I hold and the meaning I give to my life are human, tempered with respect for and interest in that which I am a small part of, and filled with awe about what we know, what we do not yet know, and what we can never know.
This is how I am spiritual without religion.
1: I'm often not nearly as eloquent "live" as I am "rehearsed", like these blog posts.
2: I have a theory about memes and thoughts. Briefly, the effects of the former on the latter can be both good and bad, and this would be an example of bad.
3: So why not "Symbols for Skeptical Humanism"? I wanted to emphasize my non-religiosity and my belief that magical thinking has negative consequences. Plus, I wasn't sure if it would come across that I was skeptical of humanism, which is not what I mean.
4: It's a different matter if you present a perfectly logical syllogism, but your opponent fails to grasp the logic of your argument, or denies logic altogether. Either of these would make the individual rationally inconsistent.
5: Don't think this is the only form of communication - many mamals, like dogs, have "body language" just like us.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Mental 02: Identity, Part 02: Towards a Solution
As the title gives away, I am not ambitious enough to say I know a full solution to the problem of philosophical identity. I do hope, however, that I have laid sufficient groundwork, in identifying the problem, to point to a possible solution.
I do wish to point out one more kind of identity important for our own self-conception before proceeding: conscious identity. For instance, consider our friend S. Another copy have been made of S1. Both remember exactly what was on their minds at the time of the S-singularity, and to both it seems that was a moment ago. However, if we claim that both are consciously identical to the single-S, we get a violation of the principle of transitivity, as follows
This would be denying the sensibility of ci, and therefore hypothesis 1) and 2). The other approach would be to argue that either or both 1) and 2) were false, depending on whether S-Right or S-Left or both were constructed. If S-Right were the only one constructed, we might argue that while S-Right believes themself3 to be the same self as S-Single, that in reality S-Right's consciousness only began at the moment of construction. You could do this by arguing that conscious identity is linked to animal identity, or that a significant break of consciousness, like deconstruction/reconstruction, cannot be bridged by the ci relation.
To those whom believe the first: do you believe you are consciously identical to yourself at age 3? 5? 15? a year ago? If so, how do you define ci? (Remember that I have made a distinction between personal and conscious identity, so if you're argument relies on being the same person, you have to refute that first). To those whom believe the second: how do you qualify the "break"? Does it occur when we pass out? sleep? are knocked unconscious? How about when we shift our focus of attention?
I wrap this discussion up with two more things. First, I don't think, despite what some Eastern philosophies may hold, that identity through time doesn't make sense for people. This simply requires a highly nuanced understanding of ourselves, especially our psychology and biology, one I think we do not yet have. The identity relation we're looking for may not take the form we expect. Do you remember my "in the same room" relation? That's not at all like an identity relation we're accustomed to, yet it does satisfy our intuitive definition of what identity is.
Finally, I want to offer a tool for use while we lack (and may always lack) an exact model: fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic is like mapping 'true' and 'false' to numbers 1 and 0, and allowing all versions of grey in between. We might re-state the requirements of identity relations like so.
For objects x,y,z and for fuzzy margins f,u,v each between 0 and 1, inclusive
1: This is the version in which S is not deconstructed, only constructed at the other end
2: I concede that working memory might be necessary for consciousness to occur at all
3: Before you get upset about my bad grammar, allow me to justify myself in a later post for this intentional decision.
I do wish to point out one more kind of identity important for our own self-conception before proceeding: conscious identity. For instance, consider our friend S. Another copy have been made of S1. Both remember exactly what was on their minds at the time of the S-singularity, and to both it seems that was a moment ago. However, if we claim that both are consciously identical to the single-S, we get a violation of the principle of transitivity, as follows
- S-Left is consciously identical (ci) to S-Single, hyp
- S-Right is ci to S-Single, hyp
- S-Left is ci to S-Right, 1,2, transitivity of c.i.
- S-Left is not ci to S-Right, since the former is aware of being on the left, and the latter of being on the right, definition of consciouness
- Contradiction, 3,4
This would be denying the sensibility of ci, and therefore hypothesis 1) and 2). The other approach would be to argue that either or both 1) and 2) were false, depending on whether S-Right or S-Left or both were constructed. If S-Right were the only one constructed, we might argue that while S-Right believes themself3 to be the same self as S-Single, that in reality S-Right's consciousness only began at the moment of construction. You could do this by arguing that conscious identity is linked to animal identity, or that a significant break of consciousness, like deconstruction/reconstruction, cannot be bridged by the ci relation.
To those whom believe the first: do you believe you are consciously identical to yourself at age 3? 5? 15? a year ago? If so, how do you define ci? (Remember that I have made a distinction between personal and conscious identity, so if you're argument relies on being the same person, you have to refute that first). To those whom believe the second: how do you qualify the "break"? Does it occur when we pass out? sleep? are knocked unconscious? How about when we shift our focus of attention?
I wrap this discussion up with two more things. First, I don't think, despite what some Eastern philosophies may hold, that identity through time doesn't make sense for people. This simply requires a highly nuanced understanding of ourselves, especially our psychology and biology, one I think we do not yet have. The identity relation we're looking for may not take the form we expect. Do you remember my "in the same room" relation? That's not at all like an identity relation we're accustomed to, yet it does satisfy our intuitive definition of what identity is.
Finally, I want to offer a tool for use while we lack (and may always lack) an exact model: fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic is like mapping 'true' and 'false' to numbers 1 and 0, and allowing all versions of grey in between. We might re-state the requirements of identity relations like so.
For objects x,y,z and for fuzzy margins f,u,v each between 0 and 1, inclusive
- x is identical to itself, with fuzzy margin 0, (where f > 0, of course)
- If x is identical to y with fuzzy margin u, then y is identical to x with fuzzy margin u, where
f > u - If x is identical to y with fuzzy margin u, f > u, and y identical to z with fuzzy margin v,
f > v, then x is identical to z if and only if f > u + v
1: This is the version in which S is not deconstructed, only constructed at the other end
2: I concede that working memory might be necessary for consciousness to occur at all
3: Before you get upset about my bad grammar, allow me to justify myself in a later post for this intentional decision.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Mental 01: Identity, Part 01: Sounds like a Personal Problem
Consider the following scenario: you know a couple, both of whom are very kind, funny, intelligent, have many memories together, love each other, etc. Well call them A and B1. One day, a horrible tragedy occurs; they are in a car accident. B makes it out with relatively few injuries, and none of them serious, but A suffers severe brain trauma. It manifests itself quite strongly in A's personality in some way, although I am not concerned too particularly about how - A becomes vegetative, or can no longer remember anything about his past (including B), or some fundamental aspect of A's personality changes - say, A becomes terrible cruel or constantly angry, in ways never shown before. You're talking to and trying to console B, who is devastated. You hear B say: "A just isn't the same person anymore!"
What are we to make of this? There are many reasons we could argue that the A in the hospital bed shares identity with ("is identical to")2 the A prior to the car accident - sharing the same genes, being the same organism, being the same legal entity, etc. Disregarding the fact that it would be incredibly insensitive to be so coldly rational in the presence of B's grief, we would also be missing the point of what B said: pre- and post-accident A differ in fundamental ways, which are rather crucial to B's conception of the "person" A - dissimilar memories, dispositions, responses, etc.
Locke outlined three different types of identity: the physical, the animal, and the personal. In this hypothetical conversation, it seems as though there is confusion between "animal" identity - is A the same organism as before the accident (I'm thinking yes) - and "personal" identity - is A the same person as before the accident (not so sure about this one, either way).
Here's another example: consider a human test subject of the very first teleportation device, called S. The device scans the configuration of every particle3 of the subject, deconstructs the physical subject, sends the scans of the configuration to the other end of the machine, and reconstructs the individual. Imagine the subject goes through the process relatively satisfied - no experience of pain or abruptness. One moment over here, the next over there. S remembers everything those close would expect S to.
Would you use this device? Would you let someone you loved? Despite our possible reservations, we would be hard pressed to say S pre- and post-teleportation were not the same. If a close friend were not aware of the experiment, not only would they not think to questions S's S-ness, but from this scenario, no consequence of the act of teleporting could never possibly inform someone of post S's non-identity to the person of pre S. I am making a careful distinguishment. We can conceive of a phenomenally skilled imposter, R, who pretended to be S, memorized all facts about S's life, and somehow thwarted every DNA test made, etc, etc, to convince us all that R is S. But we could conceive of what it would take to recognize that R is not S - R is revealed as an imposter, willingly or otherwise, or has a memory of something S could not have, etc. There is only one thing which might call us to question post S - the teleportation - and even so the ground is not as certain as with R.
Again, a strictly physical response is unsatisfactory - whether or not post-S was re-assembled from the same particles seems immaterial4. We could argue that S is no longer shares "animal" identity, but our first example shows that, at the very least, a good argument needs to be given to couple "animal" and "personal" identity.
A final pair of examples: suppose that the teleportation machine malfunctions. No, S will be fine. In one scenario, the machine correctly scans S, and S is assembled in the other platform - all this without first deconstructing S! So who is the real S? Similarly, imagine that S is deconstructed, and reconstructed at both ends of the teleportation machine? Is this substantially different from the first case? If so, why? What if no one noticed S's initial deconstruction in the starting chamber? Then the first scenario would be nearly identical to the second, would it not?
More in a third, and final, post.
1: Notice I'm trying to avoid any assumptions about what constitutes a "normal" couple
2: In the last post, I sketched an argument for why exact physical identity is not incredibly enlightening.
3: Please ignore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This is philosophy, not physics
4: A really, really bad joke.
What are we to make of this? There are many reasons we could argue that the A in the hospital bed shares identity with ("is identical to")2 the A prior to the car accident - sharing the same genes, being the same organism, being the same legal entity, etc. Disregarding the fact that it would be incredibly insensitive to be so coldly rational in the presence of B's grief, we would also be missing the point of what B said: pre- and post-accident A differ in fundamental ways, which are rather crucial to B's conception of the "person" A - dissimilar memories, dispositions, responses, etc.
Locke outlined three different types of identity: the physical, the animal, and the personal. In this hypothetical conversation, it seems as though there is confusion between "animal" identity - is A the same organism as before the accident (I'm thinking yes) - and "personal" identity - is A the same person as before the accident (not so sure about this one, either way).
Here's another example: consider a human test subject of the very first teleportation device, called S. The device scans the configuration of every particle3 of the subject, deconstructs the physical subject, sends the scans of the configuration to the other end of the machine, and reconstructs the individual. Imagine the subject goes through the process relatively satisfied - no experience of pain or abruptness. One moment over here, the next over there. S remembers everything those close would expect S to.
Would you use this device? Would you let someone you loved? Despite our possible reservations, we would be hard pressed to say S pre- and post-teleportation were not the same. If a close friend were not aware of the experiment, not only would they not think to questions S's S-ness, but from this scenario, no consequence of the act of teleporting could never possibly inform someone of post S's non-identity to the person of pre S. I am making a careful distinguishment. We can conceive of a phenomenally skilled imposter, R, who pretended to be S, memorized all facts about S's life, and somehow thwarted every DNA test made, etc, etc, to convince us all that R is S. But we could conceive of what it would take to recognize that R is not S - R is revealed as an imposter, willingly or otherwise, or has a memory of something S could not have, etc. There is only one thing which might call us to question post S - the teleportation - and even so the ground is not as certain as with R.
Again, a strictly physical response is unsatisfactory - whether or not post-S was re-assembled from the same particles seems immaterial4. We could argue that S is no longer shares "animal" identity, but our first example shows that, at the very least, a good argument needs to be given to couple "animal" and "personal" identity.
A final pair of examples: suppose that the teleportation machine malfunctions. No, S will be fine. In one scenario, the machine correctly scans S, and S is assembled in the other platform - all this without first deconstructing S! So who is the real S? Similarly, imagine that S is deconstructed, and reconstructed at both ends of the teleportation machine? Is this substantially different from the first case? If so, why? What if no one noticed S's initial deconstruction in the starting chamber? Then the first scenario would be nearly identical to the second, would it not?
More in a third, and final, post.
1: Notice I'm trying to avoid any assumptions about what constitutes a "normal" couple
2: In the last post, I sketched an argument for why exact physical identity is not incredibly enlightening.
3: Please ignore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This is philosophy, not physics
4: A really, really bad joke.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Physical 00: Meditation
It occurred to me that in my previous post on Physical resolutions, I failed to more fully justify with evidence some of the changes I proposed. It's a common fallacy: somehow it has entered my head, whether it be through conversations with people online or IRL, or through some article I happened across, that all of these things were "good", and did no further research. Some of these shouldn't need justification - I do not think there is any controversy in claiming that exercise is good for your health. However, I would not be surprised if some skeptical readers out there doubted the claim that meditating has any benefit.
First, what prompted me to seek meditation? I was raised Christian, so I was not exposed to it as a part of my cultural upbringing. I learned about it most in high school, through maybe a few paragraphs in my World History textbook, but mostly through my conversations with a good friend, who was in the midst of her own spiritual journey at the time and whose mother attended a Buddhist organization. Still Christian at this time, I found it no more than a curiosity.
Sometime after my de-conversion, I began my own "spiritual"1 quest, a part of which was developing my meta-cognitive abilities. I became very aware that a deficiency in my ability to attend to things - conversations, my environment, etc - obstructed some of my academic and personal goals. Another way to say this: my attentions span wasn't as long as I'd have liked. My mind has a tendency to wander from idea to idea. In it's way, this is a good thing, since I've often had great insights into problems during these moments. But I also find myself having hypothetical conversations or puzzling over certain implications of new material when I'm trying to prepare for school or work, almost always causing me to forget something. My mind also wanders in class or even during a conversation, even though often I do want to pay attention, and even when the topic is crucially important.
I researched the long-term effects of common ADHD medication, and while they're mostly benign - dependence, volatile temper, and possibly a slight decrease in memory over the long term - I decided I preferred not to spend money on a prescription drug (and not to take something which my exaggerate a genetic heart arrhythmia). I do not think I have ADHD, anyway, so I turned to meditation instead.
Pulling from Wikipedia again, mindfullness-based meditation was described in the following way:
Research suggests that the act meditation triggers the "relaxation response", which is a decrease in arousal. This response has been used clinically to treat the stress and pain of the chronic or terminally ill. Stress, as you may know, has a few short-term benefits, but over the long term may cause or aggravate many negative conditions, including decreased immune system activity. Researches are now looking into whether this same stress-reduction benefit can be replicated in the workplace, and the initial results seem to be positive2.
Now, before I stop attending to the original point altogether, what about attention span? We live in a world of constant distractions - novel information in the form of a text message, a Google search, or an email notification can constantly bombard us. You constantly hear that this is a generation of multitaskers - and of the negative consequences of some forms of multitasking, such as texting and driving. It's sometimes difficult to find activities to strengthen your sustained-attention "muscle," so is meditation a viable option for this?
Again, the research seems to suggest so3. Perhaps it's not surprising that making sure you're focused on the present moment for extended periods of time increases attention span. Scientists created two groups, gave both a demanding test of attention three separate times, and sent one group off to a meditation retreat, over the course of three months. The results showed a positive gain for the experimental group, and even maintained gains 5 months after, especially for those who reported they continued the practice of meditation.
What about my experiences? I can't say I've done it for long enough to know or not, but I will say, paraphrasing the words of the Dali Lama, I find meditation to be hard work4.
1: Using the definition I gave in a previous post.
2: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/mindful.htm
3: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2010/maclean.cfm
3: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=meditation-on-demand
First, what prompted me to seek meditation? I was raised Christian, so I was not exposed to it as a part of my cultural upbringing. I learned about it most in high school, through maybe a few paragraphs in my World History textbook, but mostly through my conversations with a good friend, who was in the midst of her own spiritual journey at the time and whose mother attended a Buddhist organization. Still Christian at this time, I found it no more than a curiosity.
Sometime after my de-conversion, I began my own "spiritual"1 quest, a part of which was developing my meta-cognitive abilities. I became very aware that a deficiency in my ability to attend to things - conversations, my environment, etc - obstructed some of my academic and personal goals. Another way to say this: my attentions span wasn't as long as I'd have liked. My mind has a tendency to wander from idea to idea. In it's way, this is a good thing, since I've often had great insights into problems during these moments. But I also find myself having hypothetical conversations or puzzling over certain implications of new material when I'm trying to prepare for school or work, almost always causing me to forget something. My mind also wanders in class or even during a conversation, even though often I do want to pay attention, and even when the topic is crucially important.
I researched the long-term effects of common ADHD medication, and while they're mostly benign - dependence, volatile temper, and possibly a slight decrease in memory over the long term - I decided I preferred not to spend money on a prescription drug (and not to take something which my exaggerate a genetic heart arrhythmia). I do not think I have ADHD, anyway, so I turned to meditation instead.
Pulling from Wikipedia again, mindfullness-based meditation was described in the following way:
The first component [of mindfulness] involves the self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby allowing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment. The second component involves adopting a particular orientation toward one’s experiences in the present moment, an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptanceThe two components are, in brief, awareness and orientation. I believe that this practice enables people to identify their patterns of thought, and allows them to interpret these patterns in non-emotional ways, even leading them to change unwanted thought patterns.
Research suggests that the act meditation triggers the "relaxation response", which is a decrease in arousal. This response has been used clinically to treat the stress and pain of the chronic or terminally ill. Stress, as you may know, has a few short-term benefits, but over the long term may cause or aggravate many negative conditions, including decreased immune system activity. Researches are now looking into whether this same stress-reduction benefit can be replicated in the workplace, and the initial results seem to be positive2.
Now, before I stop attending to the original point altogether, what about attention span? We live in a world of constant distractions - novel information in the form of a text message, a Google search, or an email notification can constantly bombard us. You constantly hear that this is a generation of multitaskers - and of the negative consequences of some forms of multitasking, such as texting and driving. It's sometimes difficult to find activities to strengthen your sustained-attention "muscle," so is meditation a viable option for this?
Again, the research seems to suggest so3. Perhaps it's not surprising that making sure you're focused on the present moment for extended periods of time increases attention span. Scientists created two groups, gave both a demanding test of attention three separate times, and sent one group off to a meditation retreat, over the course of three months. The results showed a positive gain for the experimental group, and even maintained gains 5 months after, especially for those who reported they continued the practice of meditation.
What about my experiences? I can't say I've done it for long enough to know or not, but I will say, paraphrasing the words of the Dali Lama, I find meditation to be hard work4.
1: Using the definition I gave in a previous post.
2: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/mindful.htm
3: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2010/maclean.cfm
3: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=meditation-on-demand
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Mental 00: Identity, Part 00: The Problem
Recently, I got into an argument with a good friend of mine about the nature of identity. She said that my idea was interesting, but that it lacked substance, i.e. it required more evidence. A Google chat conversation is not the best place to lay out well-thought, detailed arguments, so I promised her I would write a blog post about it, and invited her to comment on it publicly or talk to me in private about it. I know I've said that my first Mental post would be about Un-arguments, but this may serve as a good introduction to my view about reality, and how we experience it.
A quick look a Wikipedia shows me that I must clarify what I mean by "identity." I am not referring to social identity. Social identity is a "self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group," which can be based on sexuality, ethnicity, socio-economic status, country of birth, etc. Philosophical (or mathematical) identity is much simpler: when are two things the same thing? This is an important concept: the idea of identity is a certain kind of relationship between things. We call this an identity relation.
A mathematical identity relation must satisfy three conditions. These are:
Exciting, right?
The problem may or may not become apparent to you when we factor in time, so we now turn the the famous "Ship of Theseus" paradox. This is stated by Plutarch as follows:
If our identity relationship is strictly physical, then of course these objects are not the same. However, choosing that identity relationship is problematic, because objects are always changing. The molecules change their arrangements, the wind and the waves erode the wood and cause it to be caked with salt and minerals, bacteria which eventually cause the planks to rot slowly germinates, etc, etc. It's clear that based on what we know about the laws of physics, from moment to moment nothing is ever exactly physically identical to itself a moment ago.
This problem is summed up nicely in the following quote (taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, attributed to Irving Copi):
1. It's for another post to describe how I view the structure of persuasive argument. Suffice for now to say that there's no argument if there's no problem, which can be either tangible or conceptual in nature.
A quick look a Wikipedia shows me that I must clarify what I mean by "identity." I am not referring to social identity. Social identity is a "self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group," which can be based on sexuality, ethnicity, socio-economic status, country of birth, etc. Philosophical (or mathematical) identity is much simpler: when are two things the same thing? This is an important concept: the idea of identity is a certain kind of relationship between things. We call this an identity relation.
A mathematical identity relation must satisfy three conditions. These are:
- Reflexivity. Given some x, x is identical to itself.
- Symmetry. Given some x and y, if x is identical to y, then y is identical to x
- Transitivity. Given some x,y, and z, if x is identical to y, and also if y is identical to z, then we have that x is identical to z
Exciting, right?
The problem may or may not become apparent to you when we factor in time, so we now turn the the famous "Ship of Theseus" paradox. This is stated by Plutarch as follows:
"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."Simply put, if I take a ship, and over the course of time slowly replace old planks with new planks, after a certain amount of time the ship is made only of planks which it did not have when I began. So in what sense is it the same ship? If you argue it is, consider the possibility that I remove planks before they become unusable, and instead perfectly preserve them some way. When all the planks are removed, I build an exact model of the ship of Theseus from these planks. Now I have two ships, each with rather strong claims to being "The Ship of Theseus". If your answer is, "'The ship of Theseus' is whichever one he owns," then you're just mincing words. We are just interested in the object itself, not the nature of it's verbal description.
—Plutarch, Theseus
If our identity relationship is strictly physical, then of course these objects are not the same. However, choosing that identity relationship is problematic, because objects are always changing. The molecules change their arrangements, the wind and the waves erode the wood and cause it to be caked with salt and minerals, bacteria which eventually cause the planks to rot slowly germinates, etc, etc. It's clear that based on what we know about the laws of physics, from moment to moment nothing is ever exactly physically identical to itself a moment ago.
This problem is summed up nicely in the following quote (taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, attributed to Irving Copi):
- If a changing thing really changes, there can't literally be one and the same thing before and after the change.
- However, if there isn't literally one and the same thing before and after the change, then no thing has really undergone any change.
1. It's for another post to describe how I view the structure of persuasive argument. Suffice for now to say that there's no argument if there's no problem, which can be either tangible or conceptual in nature.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Meta 01: The Physical/Mental Divide
Recently I have thought that some readers of this blog (besides myself... wait a minute, isn't that the empty set?) might be confused at where I draw the line between the physical and the mental. For example, I surprised a friend of mine when I revealed that I did not believe in the existence of a soul. To paraphrase: "I'm not concerned about the issue of whether we're bodies with souls or souls with bodies. To me, it's all bodies." Now, the soul is not the same as the mind, but supposing a soul, the distinction between mind and body would (appear to) clarify. Lacking that, what do I mean by these words? Let's turn to a dictionary!
Greatly unhelpful! It looks like I'm on my own for this. I am not using these words strictly in the way these definitions suggest - again, the idea of the mind as "opposed" to the body, and not an emergent property of the brain, which is a part of the body. Here's how I make this distinction:
Mental: The organization of the categories used to process sensory data about the sensory world and the "world of ideas". (This latter part includes belief, worldview, philosophy, and designated purpose, as well as the use of rational analysis in examining these).
Physical: the resources available to the purposes of the mental, and the knowledge accumulated about them, as well as those things which the mental must overcome to achieve its purposes.
Much of this has overlap - for example, I exercise my body (physical) because I believe (mental) it good to maintain good health. However, there is some counter-intuitiveness: my memory, attention span, and willpower would all constitute as physical, even though these are things which mostly take part in the brain. This is consistent to me: I exercise my body to improve overall health, and exercise my attention span through meditation to give me better focus when solving problems.
What about the third category, "Meta"? It is not independent: the ability to step back and evaluate what I'm doing is a Physical resource, and the belief that "the unexamined life is not worth living" is a Mental feature. Despite this, I want to treat it separately, for while I conceive the Mental to be about my views and categories for understanding the world, the Meta should be an examination of the categories I use to view myself, as well as a way to focus, track, and clarify the purpose of this blog.
I've already made a post about physical changes I am making in my life. To better illustrate the differences between the three categories, I plan on making the next post Mental, specifically about the dis-satisfactory nature of what I call "Un-arguments." See you then.
men·tal/ˈmentl/
| Adjective: |
| |
| Synonyms: |
intellectual - spiritual - psychic - psychical
| |
phys·i·cal/ˈfizikəl/
| Adjective: |
| |
| Noun: |
| |
| Synonyms: |
adjective. material - corporeal - bodily - corporal
noun. physical examination
| |
Greatly unhelpful! It looks like I'm on my own for this. I am not using these words strictly in the way these definitions suggest - again, the idea of the mind as "opposed" to the body, and not an emergent property of the brain, which is a part of the body. Here's how I make this distinction:
Mental: The organization of the categories used to process sensory data about the sensory world and the "world of ideas". (This latter part includes belief, worldview, philosophy, and designated purpose, as well as the use of rational analysis in examining these).
Physical: the resources available to the purposes of the mental, and the knowledge accumulated about them, as well as those things which the mental must overcome to achieve its purposes.
Much of this has overlap - for example, I exercise my body (physical) because I believe (mental) it good to maintain good health. However, there is some counter-intuitiveness: my memory, attention span, and willpower would all constitute as physical, even though these are things which mostly take part in the brain. This is consistent to me: I exercise my body to improve overall health, and exercise my attention span through meditation to give me better focus when solving problems.
What about the third category, "Meta"? It is not independent: the ability to step back and evaluate what I'm doing is a Physical resource, and the belief that "the unexamined life is not worth living" is a Mental feature. Despite this, I want to treat it separately, for while I conceive the Mental to be about my views and categories for understanding the world, the Meta should be an examination of the categories I use to view myself, as well as a way to focus, track, and clarify the purpose of this blog.
I've already made a post about physical changes I am making in my life. To better illustrate the differences between the three categories, I plan on making the next post Mental, specifically about the dis-satisfactory nature of what I call "Un-arguments." See you then.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Ego 00: Resolutions
This is a list of some physical changes I will be making in my routine. I distinguish the physical from the mental for ease of discussion; they are, however, part of the same Whole, and so the changes to my physical environment and schedule will, hopefully, clear my mind of distractions, useless thoughts, and open the way a new paradigm on the world. I attempt to justify each change with a brief description.
Meditate twice daily, for 15 minutes each, once after rising and once before sleeping. In the first I shall focus on how my will can achieve my goals, and sharpen my dedication; in the second, I shall focus on compassionate feelings for all living things, and my fellow humans especially. Meditation is known to reduce stress, to increase focus, and pairing this at the beginning and end of each day gives me a nice symmetry.
Every day I shall perform some kind of physical exercise. So far, I alternate between running and calisthenic (body weight) training. I will make sure that I spend an appropriate amount of time running, and that I keep a consistent schedule for push-ups, pull-ups, planks, etc. Physical fitness increases mood, health, memory and focus.
I shall write four times a week: twice in this blog, on Monday and Friday, and twice in my private journal, on Sunday and Wednesday. I wish to leave behind physical artifacts of my subjective experience to track my progress.
I shall keep track of the hours I spend on activities. I had previously implemented this, but the death of my grandmother on the 14th of October has thrown that and many other things off. My grief and helplessness at her loss is part of what motivates this blog (this belongs in a Mental post).
These are my decisions. I shall try to implement them in the coming week, and report back my progress. I don't imagine I will have time to explore more of the mental until the holidays come around.
Addendum:
Reduce the consumption of alcohol to no more than one standard drink a day, three drinks a week. Moderately increase the use of caffeine. This is for greater productivity, focus, and health, as well as an exercise of willpower.
Meditate twice daily, for 15 minutes each, once after rising and once before sleeping. In the first I shall focus on how my will can achieve my goals, and sharpen my dedication; in the second, I shall focus on compassionate feelings for all living things, and my fellow humans especially. Meditation is known to reduce stress, to increase focus, and pairing this at the beginning and end of each day gives me a nice symmetry.
Every day I shall perform some kind of physical exercise. So far, I alternate between running and calisthenic (body weight) training. I will make sure that I spend an appropriate amount of time running, and that I keep a consistent schedule for push-ups, pull-ups, planks, etc. Physical fitness increases mood, health, memory and focus.
I shall write four times a week: twice in this blog, on Monday and Friday, and twice in my private journal, on Sunday and Wednesday. I wish to leave behind physical artifacts of my subjective experience to track my progress.
I shall keep track of the hours I spend on activities. I had previously implemented this, but the death of my grandmother on the 14th of October has thrown that and many other things off. My grief and helplessness at her loss is part of what motivates this blog (this belongs in a Mental post).
These are my decisions. I shall try to implement them in the coming week, and report back my progress. I don't imagine I will have time to explore more of the mental until the holidays come around.
Addendum:
Reduce the consumption of alcohol to no more than one standard drink a day, three drinks a week. Moderately increase the use of caffeine. This is for greater productivity, focus, and health, as well as an exercise of willpower.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Meta 00: Overview
This blog is the first of many artifacts I will create with the purpose of aligning myself to some kind of higher aspiration. I am an atheist - that is, I do not believe in a deity, although I have not strictly speaking ruled the possibility of one out. I was a Christian, once, and considered myself relatively devout. Although on the whole I think I am better off having shed those beliefs, I do miss the sense of elevated importance, cause, and commitment to ideals. I have absorbed a great many facts about psychology, human neuro-biology, and religion, may of which I am sure I will get to in later posts, but something that strikes me are the benefits being religious offers. It seems that if the individual believes strongly that they serve a useful role in a larger social organization, they are healthier, happier, and live longer. Also, being religious seems to give you an extra boost of willpower. Finally, religion offers most practitioners a deep identification with something that approaches eternity, which gives them a way to accept their inevitable deaths. Being adequately religious is not a necessary condition for any of these, or even all of these together, but it does seem sufficient.
I am not entirely certain what I want to accomplish with this, but if sustained it would probably develop into a broad philosophical framework which may give people like myself a way to find "spirituality" in the combination profound meaning and deep emotion (but not in the belief of a metaphysical plane of existence). The endeavor should consist of 3 parts, which are separate but not sequential stages. The first is mastery of the body, which includes the traditional physical fitness as well as a concentration on mental fitness. This will most likely be the subject of my next post. The second is a gathering, sorting, and distilling of information scientific, philosophic, and religious in nature. My knowledge of belief-traditions and history is woefully inadequate, and it would be folly to begin a philosophical construction of this sort without first surveying the attempts by past cultures. Finally, throughout this process I wish to maintain awareness of the meta-process. How am I approaching this task? What beliefs or prejudices do my decisions reflect? Is the claimed intent for some decision being fulfilled, or being subverted to another, unconscious desire?
I hope that formalizing my goals in this way and possibly giving them small audience will help me make these goals more real, for I fear my will to achieve them is fickle.
Expect future posts to discuss topics as broad as physical fitness, nutrition, psychology, current events, history, and classic literature.
I am not entirely certain what I want to accomplish with this, but if sustained it would probably develop into a broad philosophical framework which may give people like myself a way to find "spirituality" in the combination profound meaning and deep emotion (but not in the belief of a metaphysical plane of existence). The endeavor should consist of 3 parts, which are separate but not sequential stages. The first is mastery of the body, which includes the traditional physical fitness as well as a concentration on mental fitness. This will most likely be the subject of my next post. The second is a gathering, sorting, and distilling of information scientific, philosophic, and religious in nature. My knowledge of belief-traditions and history is woefully inadequate, and it would be folly to begin a philosophical construction of this sort without first surveying the attempts by past cultures. Finally, throughout this process I wish to maintain awareness of the meta-process. How am I approaching this task? What beliefs or prejudices do my decisions reflect? Is the claimed intent for some decision being fulfilled, or being subverted to another, unconscious desire?
I hope that formalizing my goals in this way and possibly giving them small audience will help me make these goals more real, for I fear my will to achieve them is fickle.
Expect future posts to discuss topics as broad as physical fitness, nutrition, psychology, current events, history, and classic literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)