tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15129154288169040382024-03-13T20:08:41.315-07:00ungtss... pursuing Truth through dialectic.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-36573153379101478952010-07-13T03:04:00.000-07:002010-07-13T03:07:15.690-07:00apologiesI got to thinking about apologies today. What are they? What are they good for? It seems to me that an apology is a way of accepting blame. And blame, it seems to me, is a combination of causal responsibility and moral failing. In other words if you rearend somebody because of their error, you may have caused the accident, but they are to blame. But if you rearend them because of your error, you are to blame.<br /><br />But what is this "blame" we throw around? Where is this moral failing? I honestly can't see it anymore. All I see is causation. Causation by stupidity, impulsiveness, mental illness, or something else ... but only causation.<br /><br />Without blame.<br /><br />And if there is no blame, can there be any apology? I don't think so. I think an apology without blame means nothing at all.<br /><br />So I'm going to stop asking for apologies. I may stop giving them. Instead, causation. We'll see how that works.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-54364849062411223402010-07-07T12:22:00.000-07:002010-07-07T12:37:39.146-07:00should and couldMy last post got me thinking about exactly what the difference between "should" and "could" is.<br /><br />Both of them, of course, imply a difference between the current state of affairs and some alternative state of affairs. It "is" this way, but it "Could/Should" be some different way.<br /><br />Consequently, they both assume a few more things -- first, that some alternate state of affairs is possible. Second, that some act of will could change the current state of affairs to the alternate. Finally, that the alternate is somehow better than the actual.<br /><br />That said, the two words describe very different relationships between the actual and the alternative.<br /><br />"Should" implies a failure to live up to a standard. "Could" implies an opportunity to improve, regardless of any standard. Thus, you SHOULD go to college so you're not a bum, vs. you COULD go to college so you could make more money.<br /><br />So where does "Should" come from? I think it comes down to a logical error. When we say "should," we really mean "I or someone else want you to, and you're existential value depends on living up to the wants of that person." <br /><br />Both parts of that equation are essential to a "should." <br /><br />If I just want you to do something but your value doesn't depend on meeting my wants, then I don't say you SHOULD do something. I tell you I would like you to, and ask you if you would.<br /><br />If your existential value depends on meeting my wants but I don't want you to do something, then of course there's no should at all.<br /><br />And all this is not to say my wants are inherently illegitimate. I may WANT you not to waste your life away on crack. Nothing wrong with that.<br /><br />The danger in the equation, however, lies in the second element. The implied premise that your value -- your "okayness" depends on living up to my standards.<br /><br />What arrogance. What foolishness to say that if you fail to live up to what i want you to do, you are somehow less valuable than you otherwise would be. What fallacy to project my values on someone else. What utter nonsense.<br /><br />And that's the fundamental horror of "should." It places the "Shouldee" under the "Shoulder" in value and power. It is inherently coercive and controlling.<br /><br />Could, on the otherwise, is composed of a completely different scenario. Could is essentially "You would benefit yourself if you did X." It doesn't matter what I want. And you are no less valuable for having done what I wanted or not. It only says "You could benefit if you did X."<br /><br />Thus, you would make more money if you got educated. You would be healthier if you exercised and ate better. You would be happier at home if you were kind and supportive to your family. Simply put, benefit yourself.<br /><br />I believe in "Could."ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-40613008913696494362010-07-07T11:14:00.000-07:002010-07-07T11:37:47.344-07:00guilt and faithI got to thinking about guilt and faith today.<br /><br />Guilt I'll define as the cognitive dissonance we feel when we perceive a gap between what we "are" and what we "should be."<br /><br />Faith I'll define as the rush of joy we feel when we perceive an opportunity to rise from what we "are" to what we "could be."<br /><br />Let me unpack those two concepts a little bit. Guilt is pain. Faith is pleasure. Guilt is finding yourself at the bottom of the well, seeing the sun out of reach. Faith is finding yourself on the ground, and finding a tree to climb. Guilt is the difference between -5 and 0. Faith is the difference between 0 and +5.<br /><br />Now where do these two feelings come from?<br /><br />Guilt, I argue, is a form of external control imposed on us from outside. The "Should," after all, has to come from somewhere. Where does it come from? Rarely if ever from us. Usually from parents, preachers, politicians, friends, teachers, and activists. Somebody has to tell us what we "should be."<br /><br />Why do they tell us this? Is it because we actually SHOULD BE something?<br /><br />That's an interesting question. Because "Should" depends on a deeper question -- should, FOR WHAT? Should, so God will not send us to hell. Should, so we will not be mocked. Should, so our parents will not turn their backs on us. Should must be for something, and it always seems to be something outside.<br /><br />The "Could" of faith, however, doesn't have an external purpose. It has an internal one -- the pleasure of being better, stronger, faster. The joy of more power, of more freedom, of more love. It has an internal purpose. And because of that, it cannot be used to exploit us. Rather, because it comes from inside us, it only serves to better us.<br /><br />Now guilt, of course, is a form of pain. It burns inside us. In extreme cases, it can physically hurt. And as living, breathing, rational organisms, we naturally shrink from pain.<br /><br />So what do we do with guilt?<br /><br />Well, since guilt is the gap between what we are and what we should be, what mental tricks can we play with ourselves to close the gap?<br /><br />Well it seems to me there are two requirements for feeling guilt -- <br /><br />One, you need to have the self esteem to think you "Could" be what you "should" be -- otherwise when people tell you you're bad, you say, "Yes, of course, I know, so what."<br /><br />Two, you have to care about their standard. If someone calls you a bad person because you fail to live up to their standard, but you don't care about their opinion or their standard, you feel no guilt.<br /><br />The way I see it, we have four options:<br />1) We can keep our self-esteem intact while continuing to accept their standard, and become what they require us to be. These are the conformists who live up to society's standards. No guilt because they meet the standards.<br /><br />2) We can lose our self-esteem while continuing to accept their standard, and become what they say is bad. e.g. Eminem's lyric, "I am whatever you say I am." These are the rebels who accept without question what society says is good, but then place themselves in opposition to it, as a "bad kid." No guilt because they "just can't be good."<br /><br />3) We can lose both our self-esteem and their standard, and live a life of utter chaos.<br /><br />4) We can maintain our self esteem while rejecting their standard. These typically invent their own, new moral codes -- which may or may not be in accord with Reality.<br /><br />None of these responses, of course, is truly desirable. The first leaves others in control of your life and values. The second and third are miserable lives of low self-esteem and rebellion. The last is risky, as one invents one's own standards. Yet these are the only four options we are left with to reduce the pain of guilt, when guilt is used in an effort to control us.<br /><br />Faith, on the other hand, doesn't raise these issues. It doesn't compare us with what we "should be" -- it points to what we "could be," and shows us the advantages thereof. You don't go to college because "If you don't you're a slacker." You go to college because "Knowledge and wisdom are power." You don't refrain from stealing because "only bad people steal." You refrain from stealing because it's risky, and earning wealth is much more secure and pleasurable.<br /><br />The difference here is much more significant than mere "glass half full or half empty." The difference is fundamental, because there is no pain to shrink from in faith. There is nothing to hide from. You can acknowledge what you are, and know what you could be, without pain. Without cognitive dissonance. You are free to acknowledge the truth about yourself, and to ponder what you could do better.<br /><br />I choose faith.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-91428942025144940192010-07-05T05:32:00.000-07:002010-07-05T08:52:52.302-07:00defending the guiltyin criminal defense, you basically have four categories of clients:<br /><br />1) People who are not guilty, and the government cannot convince a jury they are.<br />2) People who are not guilty, but the government can convince a jury they are.<br />3) People who are guilty, and the government can prove it.<br />4) People who are guilty, and the government cannot prove it. <br /><br />Each of these categories needs to be treated differently.<br /><br />Categories 1-3 are pretty straight forward. <br /><br />1) If a guy is innocent and the government can't prove they're guilty, you litigate and win.<br /><br />2) If a guy is innocent but the government can convince a jury they're guilty, you investigate and fight like the dickens to allow the truth to come out in court, then litigate and win.<br /><br />3) If a guy is guilty and the government can prove it, you convince him to plea guilty and say sorry.<br /><br />4) It's the last category -- guilty people that the government cannot prove guilty -- that gets people all tripped up. "How can you defend guilty people!?"<br /><br />Before answering that question, however, we need to dig into the assumptions underlying the question itself.<br /><br />The key assumption, I think, is that "If a guilty person isn't punished for his crimes, he has gotten away with them -- and this is unjust."<br /><br />This only makes sense of we assume two things:<br /><br />First, that governmental punishment is the only legitimate and meaningful source of punishment;<br />Second, that crimes OUGHT to be punished by government.<br /><br />I don't think either of those is necessarily true. Consider a man who slaps his wife, and his wife leaves him, but never reports the offense to the police, so he is never punished by government. But of course he loses his wife. He has technically violated "the law," and not been punished by government. But he has been punished. He has received the natural and normal consequences of his actions -- the loss of his wife. And would it necessarily be more just for the governmen to step in and slap him on the wrist for this offense? No. It is best, I submit, for the issue to be addressed between the two of them directly.<br /><br />There are many other cases where a "crime" need not be punished by government. An insane man attacks a psych ward employee in a fit of madness, and kills him. Punishment will serve no purpose, as the person lacks the mental resources to "learn from his mistakes." Rather, the "right thing to do" is not to punish, but treat the person, and keep him in circumstances where he will not hurt another.<br /><br />Seems to me there are many other cases where the violation of a law need not be punished by government in order to be adequately addressed. Many sins, after all, are their own punishments.<br /><br />So let us conclude that there is not necessarily a violation of the deep moral law if a person commits a crime and is not punished by government. Rather, let us conclude that government should only punish crime where punishment is justified and useful under the circumstances.<br /><br />So then, what is the justification of punishment?<br /><br />The American system is premised on the idea that punishment is only justified if the government has met its burden of proof. NOT merely that a person is guilty -- but that the government has PROVEN a person is guilty.<br /><br />And who is to decide that?<br /><br />The accused cannot be relied on, for obvious reasons. Sometimes they may falsely deny a crime because they want to avoid punishment. Sometimes they may falsely admit to a crime to protect someone close to them, or because of mental infirmity. And people do falsely admit to crimes. All the time.<br /><br />The government cannot be relied on, also for obvious reasons. Unless the government is given a check and balance, it can -- and will -- exercise arbitrary punitive power, to the detriment of individual rights and the integrity and predictability of society of a whole.<br /><br />So who is to be relied on?<br /><br />The evidence, weighed out and balanced in court.<br /><br />And how is this evidence to be weighed? Well, that's determined by the system. And the rules of the game say that defendants have a legal and moral right to plead not guilty, even if they are.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />I think it's for the best of the system. Because again, just because I'm guilty doesn't mean the government should be able to punish me. The government needs to play by its own rules if it wants to punish me -- and one of those rules is getting the evidence together and convincing a group of people that i did what they say i did. That's how the system works.<br /><br />So if the system is designed to work that way; and if the system says I have the legal and moral right to plead not guilty even if I am ... and that the government is responsible for proving I'm guilty in front of detached jurors ... then why shouldn't I?<br /><br />And this brings us back to the first point. If the government does not punish a crime, that may or may not be the right outcome, depending on the circumstances. The rules say that the government has to put together case enough to prove I'm guilty -- evidence enough to convince people who know nothing about me that I did what they say I did. <br /><br />If they can't do that, therefore, they should not punish me.<br /><br />And that's what it comes down to. If I defend a guilty man and the government fails to convince the jury that he's guilty, the government does not punish him. But:<br /><br />1) That doesn't mean he gets away with it. As discussed before, there are many ways we can be punished for our actions that don't involve governmental action. Sometimes (though certainly not always), those punishments are actually more effective than the governmental action itself.<br /><br />2) The government has set the rules of the game. They've decided to only punish people if they can prove it. If they can't prove it, they can't punish. Regardless of guilt or innocence. Their rules. I see no problem playing by their rules in deciding whether they get to punish somebody.<br /><br />Why should I apply a higher standard -- a standard that treats the government as God, and their punishment as the only true punishment -- when the government doesn't even assume that level of arrogance?ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-62529980646071293422010-06-13T06:05:00.000-07:002010-06-13T06:18:04.246-07:00Marriage, Stimulus + ResponseAssuming for a(nother) moment that we are deliberately designed by one or more really smart people, we can infer a little bit about their design philosophy.<br /><br />For one thing, they keep everything functioning through equilibrium of opposing forces -- earth's temperature is managed through summer and winter, day and night -- constant change of opposing forces that balance each other out. Equilibrium of extremes keeps things from changing too much and spiraling out of control.<br /><br />They were also much more concerned with proportion than with size. Show me 100 frogs, and I'll show you 100 frogs of different size. But they all are designed with the same proportion in mind.<br /><br />Today i thought of a third design philosophy we can infer from how they designed things -- development through challenge. We develop muscles when we have to lift things. Speed when we have to run. Aggression when we need to assert ourselves.<br /><br />So let's apply this to marriage. Assume for a moment that women were designed as a stimulus to develop personal strength in men. What would we expect them to become in marriage? Unstable, emotional, bossy, unpredictable, flaky.<br /><br />Without those stimuli, we'd never need to develop leadership.<br /><br />Taking that a step further, marriage can be looked on as a personal challenge for men. Rather than expecting it to be a situation that gives us everything we want -- happiness, peace, and stability -- we can look at is as a challenge to develop core leadership qualities in us that are essential to running a Tribe.<br /><br />Maybe that's why things are the way they are -- why wives commonly act in ways that make us nothing short of miserable. They're not there to make us happy. That's not what they're designed for. They're designed to force us to become what we need to be.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-53919029240463969342010-06-12T04:47:00.000-07:002010-06-12T04:57:23.195-07:00Anxiety and its self-medicationBeen thinking a lot about anxiety -- particularly the ways we try to cope with it.<br /><br />Let's define anxiety as that uncomfortable feeling you have when you don't know what's going to happen next, and fear it might be something bad.<br /><br />How do we avoid this? 1001 ways.<br /><br />Alcohol, drugs, controlling others, smoking, anorexia, bulemia, workoholism, procrastination, the list goes on.<br /><br />The first thing I thought was, "Man, if you find somebody who's exhibiting the above behaviors, watch out -- anxiety is probably under the surface!" We blame people for their alcohol or drug abuse ... but really it's just their way of coping with their anxiety. Because of you're not feeling anxious, there really is no escape necessary. An obsession with massage I think is also a clue that somebody is struggling with anxiety -- because anxiety causes muscle tension, which needs massage. Controlling others is the classic response to anxiety -- I feel out of control, so I impose control on others to make myself feel safe and powerful.<br /><br />This line of thinking does a couple things for me -- first, it puts these "vices" like control and drugs in perspective as means of coping with weakness, rather than affirmative "sins" in the religious sense. Second, it provides warning signals that somebody may be struggling with anxiety -- and that you can probably expect the rest of the symptoms to show up sooner or later. Third, it explains why I've never had any need for any of those vices, as I really don't experience any anxiety. Fourth, it makes me wonder where anxiety comes from -- early in life? biology? choice? Finally, it makes me wonder how best to deal with the anxiety of others, particularly in the area of controlling behavior, where it begins to have negative impacts on my life.<br /><br />The obvious answer -- and the one they want you to buy into -- is to alleviate their anxiety. That will certainly alleviate their anxiety, and thus your immediate pain. But the habits that caused the anxiety remain, and the anxiety is sure to return. It's a non-sustainable solution.<br /><br />What is the answer? Maybe there is no answer to the question "How can I fix them?" as it seems one can only fix onesself. Maybe the answer is simply to cope short-term with anxiety in those around us, and provide education on the tools that alleviate it ...ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-22502876388054670882010-06-09T06:54:00.000-07:002010-06-09T07:07:25.587-07:00Why Academics Lean LeftThe demographic studies have always troubled me -- education and leftism are strongly and directly correlated.<br /><br />What's the causal relationship there?<br /><br />The Left traditionally explains this in one of two ways -- either education teaches you that Leftism is true, or smarter people choose to be both academics and leftists.<br /><br />The Right, at least to my knowledge, has never explained it, except from small pockets of anti-intellectually that don't appeal to me for obvious reasons.<br /><br />So why?<br /><br />Today, as I was walking back to work, it occurred to me -- Leftism is, at its heart, alienation from and anger at the marketplace. They don't trust the marketplace. They instinctively blame businesses when things go wrong, even when some other fact is to blame -- reactively, angrily, anti-market.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Perhaps it comes down to alienation. Academics are typically smart, diligent, hardworking, motivated people. Yet they find themselves underpaid and impotent in the marketplace because academia teaches us lots of theories, but very few marketable skills. In fact, you learn your marketable skills in the marketplace, not in school, because marketable skills simply aren't for sale in school. Teachers, for one thing, typically don't have any to pass on.<br /><br />So let's look at the life of the original and consummate leftist, Marx. Now there was a guy alienated from the marketplace and from real life. He couldn't do anything useful. He couldn't even keep his family clothed and fed. Yet he was smart. And he knew it.<br /><br />How is an intelligent failure-at-life to explain the problem? One of two ways, really -- some fault in him, or some fault in the "real world."<br /><br />Many people (myself included) see the problem in ourselves. We recognized when we graduated from school that we were essentially worthless in the marketplace, and needed to learn a whole new set of skills to survive and thrive in the real world.<br /><br />But suppose someone were to take a different approach, and blame the market for being "unjust" and "immoral." Suppose an intelligent, idealistic young man chose to blame the world for the fact of his uselessness, instead of his own failure to learn anything useful?<br /><br />Why then you'd have a leftist. Someone who is instinctively, reactively, anti-market at every turn.<br /><br />Perhaps this explains why academics -- particularly at the highest levels -- tend to be leftist. they're smart, and they know it. yet they cannot compete in the marketplace, and cannot make money. They think they know how the world should be run, because of their extensive study of social science (developed by other academics alienated from the market). Yet business has no use for them. How short a leap to blame business, rather than their own failure to engage in the useful activities demanded by business.<br /><br />Academia and Leftism share one key similarity -- alienation from the daily business life of the world. Perhaps that alienation is the causal force that drives their correlation.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-50384150771237009612010-02-04T11:10:00.000-08:002010-02-04T11:16:14.239-08:00Old age and deathI used to think of old age and death as cruel and foreign -- as unjust and undeserved punishments imposed upon us.<br /><br />As I've gotten older, that's changed. I'm starting to see them as intentional -- and as merciful.<br /><br />First, death. It used to seem to horrible. But as I grow up, it seems more and more like a merciful sleep. As though I could die tomorrow without fear, because either a) it's just sleeping, or b) there's some sort of eternal life afterwards. I'm thinking a is more likely, but it doesn't really matter, because neither sound so bad.<br /><br />And what would eternal life be after all? Would I really want to do that? When I was young and spoiled and got whatever I wanted, sure. But now I'm old and I have a lot of responsibilities. I figure as I grow older, my responsibilities will increase. Those are exhausting. Rest sounds good. Because adulthood is not as fun as childhood.<br /><br />And then I started to think about old age, and how it makes life more and more uncomfortable. Almost mercifully, it prepares us for death by making life less fun. We grow tired just as it becomes time to rest.<br /><br />I tend to think the Designer(s) gave us death because eternal life would be cruel punishment on a planet of so much work and pain; and they gave us old age to make death more appealing than scary.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-66029544713176528112010-01-18T12:22:00.000-08:002010-01-18T12:39:59.756-08:00Government and racismIt occurred to me today that most if not all forms of racism are driven and sponsored by activist government -- and in fact, the dynamics of the private sector are largely anti-racist.<br /><br />Slavery seems to be the clearest example. In order for slavery to exist, the government must establish and enforce the "right" of one person to own another. If the government does not pursue runaway slaves, they are no longer slaves. If the government charges masters with battery when they beat their slaves, false imprisonment when they hold them against their will, and rape when they sexually abuse them (as they would with citizens outside the legally protected "master-slave" relationship), there would be no slavery. Without government sanction, slavery is impossible.<br /><br />Another example is "nationalism" -- the sense that the "French" need to protect and advance their rights against the "Germans" by going to war and taking their lands. But who really benefits when a state gains land? Not the people -- the STATE. Say France takes 1000 hectares from Germany. Who now owns that land? The State. And they can distribute it as they wish -- most likely, to those who are in good with the political elite. Without governments to fight over land, the notion of the "French" taking land from the "Germans" would be meaningless.<br /><br />Then of course we have "Jim Crowe" laws -- again, the GOVERNMENT placing one group into a subserviant legal status.<br /><br />Then of course you have the use of race by politicians to galvanize support for themselves. In Africa, this is particularly vivid as many many politicians run on a tribal, rather than an ideological, platform.<br /><br />It's less obvious, but no less effective in Western politics. The Far Right often advances policies that unfairly benefit the Majority (e.g. immigration caps and English only legislation), while the Far Left often advances policies that unfairly benefit Minoroties and those in the Majority who can be manipulated into feeling guilty about being in the Majority (e.g. affirmative action, "national apologies," and "hate crime" legislation). Ultimately, they are advancing policies that pit the majority against minorities, when in fact those policies either harm everyone concerned or do nothing substantive at all.<br /><br />In the private sector, of course, none of this works. Money is money, no matter who gives it to you. A business that only buys or sells to one race will be at a distinct competitive disadvantage with respect to companies willing to buy and sell based purely on price and merit. Racism is not profitable. Wars of nationalism are expensive, and disrupt profitable trade and tourism. Simply, ordinary people live better and richer without racism to limit their opportunities for commerce and social intercourse.<br /><br />I wonder. Without political interests to manipulate us into racism, would there be any?ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-51513289517992288662010-01-10T03:59:00.000-08:002010-01-10T04:03:53.925-08:00Argument and lecture.I always learn so much more from an argument than from a lecture. It's kind of like vision, I think. You see better with two eyes than with one. Why? Because each eye sees a different picture. With info from both, your mind can interpolate a single picture that couldn't have been seen by either eye alone. Voila. Depth perception.<br /><br />This has particularly applied in my recent study of economics and the climate controversy. I learn an enormous amount about how the issues work and play together by hearing disagreements ... because my mind is forced to build a deeper, more nuanced picture than either side alone could have provided in a lecture.<br /><br />If I were going to run a university, I think I would structure classes with 2, rather than 1 professor. And the class would be structured around controversial (and ostensibly interesting) issues in the subject. And each prof would argue his own perspective. In the process, they would have to explain the basic elements of the subject. To make it comprehensible. As a result, students would gain a much deeper, profound understanding of the topic, as well as the modes and ways of analyzing and criticizing ideas.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-27232894247809764342010-01-08T17:52:00.000-08:002010-01-08T18:07:08.899-08:00Academic questions<i>I chuckled at the non-academic and uneducated attempt to distinguish 'academics' from 'truly educated people.' Who determines this?</i><br /><br />It's a statement of opinion. I determine it.<br /><br /><i>What skills are needed?</i><br /><br />Experience working with both people who have interacted in the world of business and government, and those who have spent their entire lives on one side of a classroom or another.<br /><br /><i>What tests are used?</i><br /><br />Why would there be tests? It's an opinion.<br /><br /><i>Who teaches the 'academics' and 'truly educated people'?</i><br /><br />Academics are taught by academics alone. Truly educated people are taught by academics, people with real world experience, and their own real world experience.<br /><br /><i>Is 'real world' a term of art?</i><br /><br />See definition number two here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=real%20world<br /><br /><i>Where is this 'real world'?</i><br /><br />See above.<br /><br /><i>What constitutes 'more time in the lab'? Does this lab time test apply to all 'academics' or a subset of the group? What about the others?</i><br /><br />This is poorly written. Clarify.<br /><br /><i>Is 'spit back' a technical term?</i><br /><br />Out in the real world (see above), it means "repeat without questioning."<br /><br /><i>How do you test for 'dogma'?</i><br /><br />%Dogma=%Conviction/%Falsifiability<br /><br /><i>How do you test for 'spitting back'?</i><br /><br />%Spittingback = GPA/%CriticalThought<br /><br /><i>What is the relationship between 'a decade ago' and dogma?</i><br /><br />The longer a person holds on to stupid ideas, the more dogmatic they are.<br /><br /><i>How would times of one year ago or two decades ago change the test?</i><br /><br />It would not.<br /><br /><i>If something is not dogma, what is it?</i><br /><br />Either error or reasonable belief.<br /><br /><i>Do academics "fancy themselves much better than the rest of mankind," or do particular geologists on this page happen to know more about geology than the EE proponent here?</i><br /><br />Are those mutually exclusive?ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-33692500875337815782010-01-06T17:13:00.000-08:002010-01-06T17:19:01.461-08:00Crescent + StarJust learned how the crescent moon and star came to be widespread symbols of Islam. The crescent moon was the symbol of the pagan goddess Diana, goddess of the hunt. The city of Byzantium adopted Diana as its patron goddess, and with it her symbol, the crescent moon, and put the moon on their flags. When Byzantium was renamed Constantinople and became the Capitol of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, they added the star, symbol of Mary. For 1000 years, the star and crescent were the symbol of Constantinople -- a symbolic fusion of ancient paganism with Christianity.<br /><br />In 1453, when the Ottomon's conquered Constantinople, they adopted the crescent + star symbol for the empire. Since the empire was over so much of the Muslim world, it became associated with Islam itself.<br /><br />And now, it's widely used as the symbol of Islam itself -- on dozens of flags, and the Red Crescent (Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross), etc.<br /><br />Evidently, there are a number of Muslims, aware of the pagan and Christian origins of the symbol, who disapprove of it. But obviously they're in the minority.<br /><br />Fascinating how much history, religion, and metaphor is wrapped up in a symbol.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-4844939263175315682009-12-27T01:01:00.000-08:002009-12-27T01:30:25.934-08:00InflationThe concept of inflation has always bothered me, because none of the theories I learned about it in school made any sense. Then, on the way back from Paris, I came up with a theory of inflation that makes sense, to me at least.<br /><br />Prices are of course determined by supply and demand. All things being equal, an increase in demand without any change in supply or a decrease in supply without any change in demand will result in an increase in price. And a decrease in demand or an increase in supply will have the opposite effect.<br /><br />So imagine you have an island, in which 100 people live, work, and trade in dollars. Everybody produces a certain amount, and consumes a certain amount. Everything is stable, nothing changes. Prices stay the same.<br /><br />Then imagine somebody comes into town with a million dollars he earned back on the continent. He's retiring on the island, so he's not going to work. He's just going to consume. So he buys a house, buys furniture, buys food. But he produces nothing.<br /><br />The result is that demand increases, but supply stays the same. That, according to the laws of supply and demand, will raise prices for everybody. Inflation.<br /><br />But here's the key -- the inflation is not caused by an increase in the money supply. If he had used that million dollars to build a new factory, he may very well have increased supply as well ... canceling out his increase in demand. Or if his factory produced even more than he consumed, it could lower produces across the board. The amount of money in the money supply is not significant. The key is the effect his actions have on the supply and demand for products on the island.<br /><br />Or suppose the government started taxing half the island, and giving that money to the other half of the island, so the other half could consume products, but was no longer required to work. Demand would increase, because the beneficiaries of the wealth transfer would have increased income. Supply would decrease, because those beneficiaries would no longer be required to work for low wages, raising the costs of production. Demand would increase, supply would decrease. Inflation.<br /><br />Or suppose the government started buying all sorts of stuff -- non-productive stuff -- like cannons and missiles and laser beams. (Remember, just because something is non-productive does not mean it is useless -- defense is important, but it doesn't produce goods that enter the marketplace). The government would finance those purchases with taxes, which would make production more expensive, reducing supply. It would employ people to operate them, drawing labor and increasing labor costs. And of course the government would use raw materials and resources to produce the weaponry, increasing demand. Decreased supply, increased demand. Inflation.<br /><br />Now it's important to remember that in this model, inflation is not caused by the mere existence of these things. For instance, if our guy moved onto the island and started spending his retirement savings, there would be a step of inflation as the island adjusted to his spending, but then prices would remain stable at the new, higher level. Further inflation would only be caused by FURTHER outpacing of demand by supply.<br /><br />It's also important to realize that inflation is not caused by an increase in the money supply by itself, but only by the way that money is USED. If our guy came to the island with a million dollars and hid it under a matress, the money supply has increased, but there has been no inflation. If he uses the money to build a factory, there may even be deflation if he lowers prices. It's only if he increases demand without increasing supply that he causes inflation.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-45729445324830501232009-11-11T11:00:00.000-08:002009-11-11T11:03:01.493-08:00Reasonable things requested unreasonablyDon't think there's much worse than having somebody ask for something reasonable in a bitchy way. If you say yes, you're a patsy and a pushover. If you say no, you're refusing to do something that's eminently reasonable -- even necessary.<br /><br />If the request were made in a kind and appreciative way, it would be a pleasure to perform. If the request itself were unreasonable, it would be simple to say "No." But what do you do when it's neither?ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-79790683735363738242009-11-11T05:47:00.001-08:002009-11-11T05:55:50.003-08:00Role and PerformanceI've been getting in some high-drama situations lately, which I think come down to a definition and appreciation of roles.<br /><br />Let's envision a secretary and an executive. The secretary is trained -- and predisposed -- to keep track of details. The executive is a "big picture" guy.<br /><br />The big picture guy has an appreciation for both the big and small picture -- and also understands that he has delegated the small picture to his secretary.<br /><br />The secretary, however, appreciates the small picture details, but neither understands nor appreciates the big picture.<br /><br />The result is that the secretary sees no value in what the executive does, and sees all of his failures in the "small picture" as deep incompetence on his part.<br /><br />I wonder how one could keep the secretary happy. The concept in the boss's mind -- which revolves around an appreciation for different roles in a team -- doesn't seem to mean anything to her, because she doesn't understand or appreciate his role.<br /><br />Some people allow her the illusion of power and control in the small picture. Do what she says with obedience and reverence for the significance she finds in it. Joke about your incompetence in that area, and how you "couldn't survive without her." This seems like a common approach.<br /><br />My first reaction to this approach is to draw back, because it's an illusion and lie. But maybe it's a helpful lie. If the secretary actually does know the value of the big picture -- but finds herself incompetent to deal with it and insecure from her incompetence, she is unlikely to consider herself "better" than the executive. Instead, she is likely to find her "niche" to be a pleasant little bubble of competence where she can pretend she is "in charge."<br /><br />I have fought this for years because it is a lie. And I have gotten nothing but negative results and failure. Perhaps the key to accepting it is recognizing that it is a lie -- but a lie to a child, because the child cannot handle the truth. And treating someone as though they can handle a truth that they cannot in fact handle is a recipe for disaster.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-51043548686162390962009-11-03T13:05:00.000-08:002009-11-03T13:09:26.088-08:00Meaning IIIIt occurred to me a couple days ago ... "the meaning of life" could be answered in the same way as "the meaning of a sentence" -- i.e. whatever the author meant it to mean. the meaning of life? whatever we mean our lives to mean. <br /><br />Simplistic perhaps. But liberating somehow.<br /><br />Why do we passively wait to find a "meaning of life" outside ourselves. if we truly have free will (and my daily experience says I do) then the meaning of my life is whatever i want my life to mean.<br /><br />This is not a theological statement. It's true with or without a God. Real question is "What do I want my life to mean?" and "how do i make it mean that?"ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-6143932006403561372009-06-21T03:53:00.000-07:002009-06-21T04:22:49.329-07:00Dennett on Religious Education<a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html">Dennett argues that public schools should teach "facts" about all religions.</a><br /><br />He seems to think this would be the easiest thing in the world. "No problem! Just teach the facts."<br /><br />But there are two problems with his plan that he doesn't address:<br /><br />1) The facts are disputed. Who wrote the Bible / Quran / Vedas? When? Why? Did the events reported occur? Did Jesus <a href="http://www.believers.org/believe/bel123.htm">die and rise</a> like the Christians say, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html">die and not rise</a> like the atheists say, <a href="http://www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/tr/Pg/WorkDetail/Number/3822">not die on the cross at all</A> like the Muslims say? Or did he <a href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/">even exist?</a> What are the facts?<br />2) Which facts are to be selected? Do we emphasize the Crusades, or the Abolitionists? The selection of facts itself creates a different image in the mind of the student. Who decides what the balance is to be?<br /><br />Those two decisions are philosophical, not factual -- and they will be made by the teacher.<br /><br />And the reason I don't want religion taught in school is because I don't trust teachers -- any teachers -- to make those decisions.<br /><br />The problem becomes clear as he goes on -- he quotes PDL, but his only response is essentially, "I think that's wrong," and/or "I want this meme to go away." Well, yeah. You two disagree about the facts. That's why I don't want either of you teaching religion in school.<br /><br />He also, off-handedly, says, "Intelligent design? Not from Francis Crick." But Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA, was an advocate of ID -- specifically, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4B55M32-N&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8bf8828ca0015bedd33d934ba6a397dd">directed panspermia</a>.<br /><br />Dumbass can't even get his own facts right. Why should I trust him or his philosophical minions with the mind of my child?ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-3636562587045561842009-06-19T22:31:00.000-07:002009-06-19T22:42:26.957-07:00East and West RomeGrowing up, I was taught that the Roman Empire was split in two by diocletian, East and West, and that the West "fell" in the 5th century.<br /><br />But as always, the story is far more interesting than that.<br /><br />The split was administrative only -- meaning the Empire remained intact. There were augusti over East and West -- but there were also prefectures, diocese, and provinces. Diocletian created a federal system for a united Empire.<br /><br />He also moved the capitol of the Western portion to Milan -- so Rome was no longer the capitol of ANYTHING significant.<br /><br />But then Constantinople became the de facto heart of the Empire -- because of its fantastic trade location, that's where the money went. And because that's where the money was, that's where the power went. And the West was neglected, and became something of a backwater -- the center of power lay in Constantinople, and the rest of the empire suffered a brain drain, as always happens in every highly centralized state.<br /><br />And eventually, the Germanic tribes from up north took the Western provinces -- but this was a loss of territory to a single Roman Empire now effectively capitoled in Constantinople ... not a "fall of the Roman Empire."<br /><br />That event -- the true fall of the Roman Empire -- occurred in 1453 when Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomon Turks.<br /><br />If I were to guess, I think our current view of the Roman Empire stems from:<br /><br />a) cultural bias on the part of Western European historians that see only the Western portion of the empire as significant;<br />b) professional bias on the part of Western European historians -- because which makes a more interesting story -- "The Ancient Roman Empire Crumbled from within into a ball of fury from mysterious causes which I will now elucidate" or "Nobody cared about Rome anymore, because all the money was in Constantinople -- which is studied by the professor down the hall."ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-32734726114639783542009-06-14T10:13:00.001-07:002009-06-14T11:39:08.560-07:00Dirty words and racismI got into an interesting discussion about <a href="http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/06/12/scgop-activist-posts-remark-disparaging-first-lady/">this event</a>, in which a prominent SC Republican joked in a Facebook comment that Mrs. Obama's ancestors were gorillas. The left was, of course, up in arms.<br /><br />At first, I got caught up in the literal meaning of what was being said, and noted that Bush had been called a <a href="http://www.bushorchimp.com/">chimp</a> and a <a href="http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/12/HBODCO'Neal.wmv">cracker</a>, and I wondered aloud why there appeared to be a double standard. It also occurred to me that if one takes biology textbooks seriously, it's not far from the truth about her and the rest of us.<br /><br />All in all, it seemed a very strange thing to get upset about.<br /><br />But then I thought about it a little harder.<br /><br />And it seemed to me to be similar to the issue of curse words, which didn't really make sense to me until tonight. The words "Fuck" and "Shit" are widely considered obscene. But why? Each of them has non-offensive equivalents ("Intercourse" and "feces," to name only two) -- so it is not the subject matter itself. And I can't imagine there's anything particularly offensive about the mere ordering of the letters. So why are they offensive?<br /><br />And then it occurred to me, it's because of the groups that commonly use those terms. They are seen as "prison language," or the language of coarse, vulgar people. It's not the meaning or word itself -- the use of the word is a social signal that one belongs to a particular class. And it is membership in that class that drives the offense.<br /><br />Perhaps the same thing applies to the comment about being descended of gorillas. From an objective standpoint, there doesn't appear to me much basis for offense. After all, per the theory of evolution, it's true! And also, it's common to call people apes, but seems to only be offensive when applied to blacks -- a rather strange double standard.<br /><br />But let's look at it from my new vantage point. When a white, southern male says that a black female is descended of gorillas, he is associating himself with a particular group -- specifically, ignorant, old-timey racists. He's doing the same thing as the KKK. It doesn't matter that it's ostensibly true per the theory of evolution -- it's offensive because he's connecting himself with racists. <br /><br />For comparison, it would be like a gynecologist telling a patient, "Alright, let's see that pussy." The meaning itself is identical to "Alright, I am going to examine your vagina." But it's offensive, because it associates him with those who treat the female anatomy disrespectfully.<br /><br />But when a black man calls a white man a cracker, what group is he associating himself with? Nobody except a trendy, bold, sarcastic black man -- a group which doesn't have negative associations -- and even has positive ones.<br /><br />Or when a white man calls a white man an ape, what group is he associating himself with? Every 10 year old who's ever wanted to give somebody shit on the playground. No horrible group there either.<br /><br />From this vantage point, all these strange offenses common in our culture (and other cultures) come into focus -- it's not about the word -- it's about the speaker.<br /><br />But what's funny is, the emphasis is on the statement, not the person. We consider the PHRASE offensive, when in fact it is the PERSON we are judging.<br /><br />Interesting.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-22676226186381407602009-06-06T18:56:00.000-07:002009-06-06T19:57:20.940-07:00EducationOften I read articles or hear people speak about how "the education system is failing our children, or us, or something." Implicit to those arguments, of course, is that schools have a responsibility to make kids smart -- to mold them, to educate them. To take the blank minds of the youth and mold them into passionate, skilled learners and employable, responsible citizens, yada yada yada.<br /><br />Noble as the sentiment appears, I think it's backwards and extremely dangerous. The responsibility for education lies not with schools, but with children and parents. The responsibility of schools is simply to make resources available which children and parents can use as tools in educating themselves -- providing lectures, books, and activities that the child can seize upon to educate himself. Or not seize upon, and fail to educate himself.<br /><br />Here's why this is important: No school can make a child smart if the child doesn't want to. The child simply will not retain, because children only learn when they want to. No school can make a child want to learn -- that desire comes from the child.<br /><br />The result of shifting the responsibility for education from children and parents to schools is passivity. Children and parents wait for the school to "make them smart" -- an impossible task. Only the children and their parents can do that.<br /><br />When a child fails to learn, the parent and child blame the teacher, believing the teacher has failed to do something magical in the child to make them not only interested in the topic, but also to retain and apply knowledge. But who has failed to learn? The child. And who has failed to train their child to learn? The parent. Educators are only resources -- by their very nature, they cannot do the essential work of education -- learning.<br /><br />I think educators brought this shift in responsibility on themselves, as there's a narcissistic appeal in viewing yourself as "molding the young," and it also has political benefits, insofar as you use rhetoric of your own indispensability to get funding and support. Parents and students seem to accept this view, as it relieves them of the responsibility for education. Nevertheless, it's still wrong.<br /><br />The issue here is of course philosophical, rather than practical. It requires an attitude change on the part of the student and parent, rather than any systemic change to the educational system. But I think it's vital. Children need to go to school in the belief that they are being given an opportunity to grow and learn so that they can be well-equipped to conquer the world. Parents need to see it as their responsibility to train their child in the value of that education, and to make it happen. Teachers need to stop trying to brainwash reluctant learners -- they need to make the tools available and provide structure, but not perceive the responsibility for (and waste time attempting to) educating the unwilling. If a child isn't learning, the teacher needs to tell him and his parents, "If you don't learn, these will be the consequences for your life." Beyond that, the responsibility lies with the child, and with the parent.<br /><br />Schools are a resource for education, but they are only a resource -- and often not the best one, especially with the advent of the internet. My education always has and always will take place primarily outside the classroom.<br /><br />It's important that the responsibility for education be placed where it belongs. Because when school is over, if a child got a shitty education, he has no one to blame but himself, and he alone will suffer the consequences.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-68069745273481446462009-05-26T13:24:00.000-07:002009-05-26T14:12:32.855-07:00Female unhappinesshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=1<br /><br />Interesting article on female unhappiness ... surveys show fewer women report being happier than they did 50 years ago, prior to the sexual revolution. Proposed causes from the article include: "Women are not wired for the working world," "Women are required to work more and still do the household stuff," "the continued struggle against the glass ceiling," etc.<br /><br />But I favor another hypothesis:<br /><br />I think women are much more attuned to social expectations than men are. I think in the 60s, women were expected only to run a great household. Now they're expected to run a great home and have a highly successful career. It's miserably difficult to accomplish both. But I know a huge number of women that have internalized both obligations -- and feel intense guilt at their failure to live up to both ideals.<br /><br />How many times have I heard women feel guilty about spending time with their family when they feel they "should be working," and feel guilty about working when they feel they "should be spending time with their family."<br /><br />This is peripherally related to the "double shift" hypothesis in the article, but discernably different I think. It's not about "women are doing more work than they did before." It's about "Women feel like they have to live up to a new, unattainably high ideal." Pre-sexual revolution society had much lower expectations of women. They weren't expected to be the peers of men in terms of their intellectual prowess and professional reputation. Raised demands = lower degree of success relative to those expectations = lowered self-esteem = lowered happiness.<br /><br />How often it seems women do that to themselves.<br /><br />And this leads me to the ultimate irony I've always perceived about the sexual revolution. I don't understand why they wanted it. If society told me all I needed to do was stay home and care for the kids, I'd do a spectacular job, and have a love of fun doing it. I could read books, surf the web, garden ... I'd love it. I hate going to "the office" every day. <br /><br />Why the hell did they want to WORK?<br /><br />The easy answer is, of course, "They wanted the option to work." Well and good. But what they imposed on themselves (with peculiar feminine logic) was an EXPECTATION to work, and not only work, but work well, at high paying, prestigious, meaningful jobs, as the equals or superiors of men. That's a very different proposition from "having the option to work," an option which I think they should well have. But they gave themselves more than they bargained for, I think.<br /><br />All of this is of course deeply subjective at heart. They're concerned with "whether they're a good person" much more than "what needs to be done." If they were concerned with "what needed to be done," they would likely make efforts to simplify their lives and reduce the demands from both sides. But that wouldn't satisfy the narcissistic urge to be the "uber-woman." And so they make themselves miserable based on self-imposed expectations of perfection in all realms of life.<br /><br />Meanwhile, men, who are generally much less driven by social expectations, find their load lightened. They aren't solely responsible for the financial and physical security of their family. Many of their women find themselves driven by misplaced pride to be the primary breadwinner ... and many men are willing to say, "Fine, if you say so -- I'm going back to playing Wii."<br /><br />The key, I think, is to focus not on social expectations, but on the objective requirements of life. Two sets of jobs need to be done -- money-making in the marketplace, and care of the home. Some division of labor is required, and specialization of labor is one of the key mechanisms for increased efficiency. Does that mean that women should stay home? No. But it means that if they choose to work, they need to recognize the costs it imposes on themselves and their families. The family loses the advantage of specialization of labor. It loses the stability of a person who is rested and relaxed enough to care for the emotional needs of the family. It loses the availability of a person who can take care of the endless needs of domestic life. Fine, go to work for your pride, that's well and good -- but do it knowing the effects of your actions.<br /><br />But I speak in the language of enlightened self-interest, rather than the language of social expectation. And the response, in the language of social expectation, goes something like, "Well now you're just making me feel bad by reminding me of all the things I'm failing to do in the house." And on it goes.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-91401991339537824452009-05-25T18:26:00.001-07:002009-05-26T08:48:12.399-07:00Lynn MargulisProps to <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615">Sadunkal</a> for the <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/lynn_margulis_neodarwinism_and_kin_selection">link</a>.<br /><br />One real highlight is the quote:<br /><br />Margulis has described neo-Darwinism as; "a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."<br /><br />Love that. And love the fact that there are evidently good-hearted scientists out there fighting against the dogmatism of the Neo-Darwinists, whether or not they agree with me, as dogmatism is always the enemy of Truth.<br /><br />Not quite so impressed with the blog author, however. He claims: "And it was this perception of evolution and natural selection, the image of “nature red in tooth and claw” that was seized with glee by apologists for capitalism who were, at that time, struggling with an outraged public reaction to the inhuman conditions under which the working class, including very young children, were expected to labour."<br /><br />Who were these capitalists? Perhaps it was Andrew Carnegie, who devoted his later life to philanthropy? Or Andrew Mellon, who did the same? Who were these capitalists who sought to rationalize the oppressed condition of the poor?<br /><br />On the contrary, the arguments made in favor of racial and individual supremacy -- of the morality of 'nature tooth and claw' came from the Nazi or National <i>Socialist</i> party. And in the United States, 91 of the 126 votes against the Civil rights act (like 3/4) were by the populist, non-elitist <i>Democratic</i> party. The massive social purges were performed in the <i>Communist</i> countries, Russia and China, while the relatively capitalist US was developing a social welfare system.<br /><br />Associating Capitalism with dogmatic Survival of the Fittest-style Darwinism seems deeply at odds with the facts, but this author (a scientist, not a historian or a political scientist) makes the claim without support or citation. Yikes.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-47294347377671596962009-05-24T04:47:00.000-07:002009-05-24T04:59:28.786-07:00Baby instinctsJust got home with my first baby, and man is she delightful. In learning the ancient tricks of parenthood, though, I've been constantly amazed at the amount of knowledge already packed into the baby when she arrives. Not intellectual, abstract knowledge, but instinctual knowledge. For example, she knows how to make sucking faces when she's hungry. Or cry when she's cold.<br /><br />On the surface, this looks pretty simple. But the closer I look at it, the more remarkable it seems. What mechanism makes her want to do that? The common and superficial Western answer is "Instincts developed and refined by evolution." Well and good, but what is an instinct? What is it, actually, in the organism that makes them perform a behavior?<br /><br />The articles on the web give only the superficial answer -- "inherited." How so? If genetically, then shouldn't it be possible to "shut off" the instinct with genetic manipulation? We haven't done that yet to my knowledge, so this doesn't strike me so much as an experimental and scientific explanation as an "everything came about through evolution of genetic material, so the answer to every question in biology must be found in evolution." And anyway, how many complex interactions of genes must go into telling a baby how to make a sucking face, manipulate the tongue, and periodically swallow to get milk from a nipple they've never seen before in a world they can't possibly understand?<br /><br />Or is instinct non-genetic? Is it something else?<br /><br />Reductionists would argue that the child has some sort of pleasure sensor, and that the release of pleasure-chemicals is triggered by the instinctual behavior. Perhaps. But what pleasure chemicals are released by crying when cold? And what tells the body that those particular chemicals are "pleasure chemicals" to be sought, as opposed to "pain chemicals" to be avoided. This solution seems only to beg the question.<br /><br />I really have no idea. And that makes watching my little girl eat that much more of a spiritual experience. Because every day it seems more and more obvious to me that somebody put those instincts in her, and I'd really like to shake his hand.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-16153522661567023512009-05-23T21:31:00.000-07:002009-05-25T18:02:36.077-07:00Laws of Form(Props to <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615">Sadun Kal</a>)<br /><br />"Discoveries of any great moment in mathematics and other disciplines, once they are discovered, are seen to be extremely simple and obvious, and make everybody, including their discoverer, appear foolish for not having discovered them before. It is all too often forgotten that the ancient symbol for the prenascence of the world* is a fool, and that foolishness, being a divine state, is not a condition to be either proud or ashamed of.<br /><br />Unfortunately, we find systems of education today which have departed so far from the plain truth, that they now teach us to be proud of what we know and ashamed of ignorance. This is doubly corrupt. It is corrupt not only because pride is in itself a mortal sin, but also because to teach pride in knowledge is to put up an effective barrier against any advance upon what is already known, since it makes one ashamed to look beyond the bonds imposed by one's ignorance.<br /><br />To any person prepared to enter with respect into the realm of his great and universal ignorance, the secrets of being will eventually unfold, and they will do so in measure according to his freedom from natural and indoctrinated shame in his respect of their revelation.<br /><br />In the face of the strong, and indeed violent, social pressures against it, few people have been prepared to take this simple and satisfying course towards sanity. And in a society where a prominent psychiatrist can advertise that given the chance, he would have treated Newton to electric shock therapy, who can blame any person for being afraid to do so?<br /><br />To arrive at the simplest truth, as Newton knew and practiced, requires years of contemplation. Not activity. Not reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy behaviour of any kind. Not reading. Not talking. Not making an effort. Not thinking. Simply bearing in mind what it is one needs to know. And yet those with the courage to tread this path to real discovery are not only offered practically no guidance on how to do so, they are actively discouraged and have to set about it in secret, pretending meanwhile to be diligently engaged in the frantic diversions and to conform with the deadening personal opinions which are being continually thrust upon them.<br /><br />In these circumstances, the discoveries that any person is able to undertake represent the places where, in the face of induced psychosis, he has by his own faltering and unaided efforts, returned to sanity. Painfully, and even dangerously, maybe. But nonetheless returned, however furtively."<br /><br />G. Spencer Brown, The Laws of Form, Appendix 1.ungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512915428816904038.post-15335244001920890482009-05-12T18:03:00.001-07:002009-05-12T18:03:22.318-07:00Experiment"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." — Hannes Alfven<br /><br />"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." — Nikola Teslaungtsshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com0