tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-176903132024-03-07T18:27:36.145-05:00HumanaturalismMakes you feel like a natural human...ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-33031962843716654812012-01-16T18:01:00.000-05:002012-01-16T18:01:17.448-05:00Humanaturalism is BackWell, that was a bust. So much for the term panaturalism, which did not catch on at all, and I probably lost what little readership I had here. So "Humanaturalism" is back to stay. Besides, I have been reading more humanist literature recently, notably Greg Epstein's "Good Without God" and it has persuaded me I am really more of a humanist than I ever thought previously. Epstein explains that "humanism" does not imply a total focus on humanity at the expense of life and the web of nature of which humans are a part. And he advocates a "big tent" openness to all "lifestances," both religious and secular.<br />
<br />
More soon, I hope...ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-64823639604831419912011-01-27T13:52:00.007-05:002011-02-02T19:40:46.504-05:00Galloping Gaian Gonads!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-gx89DDufm3ssbOVeam7dh1JLkdo605cUheJdJURr8l0ivaOHXfUajpLkZU5LtKktPC07o9lPIXmB8tDMe6qk3Km5NfP7H-9rse2QTguepnm1QAmDtzgGKzYC3_NvSaNeEQcgbg/s1600/TheForgeOfGod%25281stEd%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-gx89DDufm3ssbOVeam7dh1JLkdo605cUheJdJURr8l0ivaOHXfUajpLkZU5LtKktPC07o9lPIXmB8tDMe6qk3Km5NfP7H-9rse2QTguepnm1QAmDtzgGKzYC3_NvSaNeEQcgbg/s320/TheForgeOfGod%25281stEd%2529.jpg" width="211" /></a></div> Paraphrasing one of Greg Bear's characters in his novel "The Forge of God": "Humans are the gonads of Gaia (mother Earth)." That is, we are her reproductive strategy. This may not be a huge insight, but I am tickled by his mode of expressing it! It resonates and echoes the heroism of those species who have spread life to the corners of the Earth, including the tiniest island habitats, by dint of clever efforts to transport themselves across vast expanses of ocean and atmosphere. Still, when it comes to interplanetary or even interstellar travel, among all the species on Earth, only humans have displayed the potential to accomplish such a feat of transportation. <br />
<br />
This being the 25th anniversary of the Challenger accident, it is thought provoking to think back on that in this context. I was working then at Marshall Space Flight Center, which was responsible for shuttle propulsion systems, including the boosters that failed disastrously. So our management was involved in the decision to push ahead on that icy morning in Florida. We scientists were practicing talks for a conference when the word came in. It completely broke up our meeting, and later our management team.<br />
<br />
As aspiring Gaian gonads, we have on a few occasions seemed to be vying for Darwin awards, instead, perhaps calling to older minds Woody Allen's satire "Everything you always wanted to know about sex...". Space exploration is indeed deadly dangerous, but so is war. Yet the former is certainly a more productive application of testosterone and youthful drive. Given that that we strive instinctively to test our mettle against mortal dangers, the challenge of space travel promises a form of "glory" for our species and planet that is far beyond the sometimes petty national and religious rivalries that have plagued us. Wouldn't we prefer to live up to our role in Gaia's reproductive strategy, than to become passive or active agents of its destruction? That's a very real and compelling definition of good and evil. It seems defensible that all ethical and political issues should be decided on the basis of the sanctity, advancement, and propagation of life in the universe. <br />
<br />
But, and it's a big BUT, there may still be a compelling need for war, even in pursuit of a cosmic destiny to protect and propagate life in the universe. Just as a prudent young couple defers child rearing until they are prepared to take on its responsibilities, so must nations defer the pursuit of space travel analogously. And one of those responsibilities is the creation of a stable home in which the serious business of nurturing can be pursued successfully. In addition to requiring the establishment of a viable economic activity, adequate to support the effort, this may at times also require defense of the household against attacks. <br />
<br />
Attacks might come from any quarter, even including other competing life forms in the universe, as Greg Bear points out. The local attacks may be motivated by entirely different issues from this ultimate cosmic objective. But there is a distinct trade to be made in expending some life on Earth in defense of a stable and productive civilization capable of advancing life in the universe. Still, on balance, we may suspect that that trade has for too long favored local national issues rather than the long term future of life on our planet and beyond. And, in view of that suspicion it seems well worth considering that the zero sum allocation of human wealth expended upon space exploration could be greatly increased without substantially compromising the safety and stability of civilization.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-85993744715693153692011-01-22T13:08:00.004-05:002011-01-22T14:55:58.510-05:00Free Will<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuJcETDL31WZfTmfh4lj64JRG_mwZNHSOE1k8tVTxL03ZVrIqV0okPhYreT4jb4w-DxCFuX043oYDH1HbQ_oXHHtzZQhvi63A90KKO3FaVpcKvV5vXQd6z4ZM9n6JfjVvg9ztTbw/s1600/keiko.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuJcETDL31WZfTmfh4lj64JRG_mwZNHSOE1k8tVTxL03ZVrIqV0okPhYreT4jb4w-DxCFuX043oYDH1HbQ_oXHHtzZQhvi63A90KKO3FaVpcKvV5vXQd6z4ZM9n6JfjVvg9ztTbw/s320/keiko.gif" width="320" /></a></div>Any discussion of science, religion, and politics eventually comes around to the issue of "free will." According to religious traditions, free will was given by God to humans, as a test of their commitment to good and rejection of evil. From a scientific viewpoint, all behavior is a matter of the neurophysics of the brain, and c0nsciousness, and no behavior is free of that. Naturalists disparage free will as a concept, and see all human behavior as determined by inevitable responses to the environment. Political life demands that individuals take responsibility for their actions, unless they are declared "insane," meaning unable to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong. Libertarians and rugged individualists or positivists often dismiss the naturalist doubts about free will and insist that everyone is fully responsible for their own condition in this world, in a free society. A recent discussion board debate in which I participated went on for hundreds of posts without much resolution, to the point where the following position questionnaire was suggested. I've entered my responses:<br />
<br />
<b>What do you understand by the expression "free will"?</b> <br />
Free will is the ability of a living agent to take actions that are not controlled by other agents who have studied that behavior and sought to influence it. Thus, will is free to the degree that it is subject only to the constraints imposed by Nature, which cannot in any case be escaped, and free of social constraints, that is, constraints imposed by other sentient agents. <br />
<br />
<b>Do humans have it or not?</b><br />
To the degree that "others" are absent, or if present, refrain from taking controlling interest in our actions, humans exercise free will. Thus free will is a matter of degree, rather than an either-or proposition, and should perhaps be referred to as "freedom of will", a parameter that can range from unity (only natural influences exclusive of other sentient agents), to zero (behavior essentially prescribed by other sentient agents, for example in a prison). On such a scale, humans have progressed from near unity in pre-history, to very low values in feudal times, and more recently are making progress back toward unity. <br />
<br />
<b>What is your logic and your evidence for your position?</b><br />
Behavioral science has shown that behavior can be predicted to the degree that it is influenced or controlled through the arrangement of "imposed" positive and negative reinforcement as consequences of behavior. When it is so controlled, it not fully free, and conversely when it is not so controlled. The most elemental form of Human Rights is the right to freedom of behavior, albeit within certain limits set by society, which can vary greatly, and of course the dictates of the natural world, which are immutable and apply to all. <br />
<br />
<b>What is the practical consequence of your position for welfare and social policy?</b><br />
Democracy sets the goal that freedom of will is to be maximized through the minimal constraint by the state or government of the behavior of individuals. The list of discouraged or punished behaviors should then be minimized by restriction to those with important harmful effects on others, as judged by a majority of those whose behavior is to be affected.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, government creation of positive incentives is widely accepted as an influence on behavior, so the method of influencing behavior seems important. Positive reinforcement is equivalent to a negative reinforcement of the inverse behavior, so that any form of behavior modification can be seen as reducing the freedom of will. Still, humans have come to a collective understanding, supported by behavior modification science, that reinforcement of desired behavior is far preferable to punishment of undesired behavior, as a foundation of civilization.<br />
<br />
Controversy often stems from the reinforcement of undesired behaviors, for example welfare payments, or other benefits that are perceived as undeserved. The issue here is not freedom of will, but the wisdom of incentives that are divorced from desired behaviors. <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusions </b> <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLeQUg2VQcOt_KIhUfxE45wvFro5iPLO1UvYfv35jmYMijJ_DPuGipbZbSS1ekDjWy9yIYRJiY0qz8wvmtbYFvSibthh3Sh022M_HzhBLno41XQ-BYQ65XGRBJw9fXxtZYwix9ig/s1600/Free-Willy-Escape-from-Pirate%2527s.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLeQUg2VQcOt_KIhUfxE45wvFro5iPLO1UvYfv35jmYMijJ_DPuGipbZbSS1ekDjWy9yIYRJiY0qz8wvmtbYFvSibthh3Sh022M_HzhBLno41XQ-BYQ65XGRBJw9fXxtZYwix9ig/s320/Free-Willy-Escape-from-Pirate%2527s.jpg" width="320" /></a>A phenomenon or behavior may be fully deterministic, yet if sufficiently complex, there may be no way to fully control or direct it but to "run the universe" and let it unfold. To the degree that is true, only an entity which controls the entire universe can exercise total control of our behavior. Thus only God, or the universe itself (if different) can control our behavior in the absence of civilization and other humans. By the definition above, such behavior is free, or as free as it gets. <br />
<br />
When we take individual or collective action to alter the structure of the universe, we exert controls on our own behavior, or that of others. So it seems that we share control of ourselves with the rest of the universe, and to some degree we thus enjoy a limited freedom of will. One could perhaps argue that the universe "makes" us take action to alter it, so when we think we are changing our behavior we are still doing what the universe directed us to do. That might be true of beavers, ants, bees, or other industrious social species that restructure their environments, but I think it is stretching things to claim that all of human behavior is programmed in advance by our genetic capabilities, interacting with the external environment. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, it seems defensible to claim that our abilities to derive, store, manipulate, and reuse information, much more rapidly than genetic information is processed, constitute a new capability that is exclusively human. That "playground for creativity" is seemingly independent of nature's DNA playground, and pretty much under our control. So I think we humans get to take credit and blame for what we do with it, both as individuals and collectively, as appropriate. <br />
<dl class="discussion clear i0 xg_lightborder"><dd><div class="description" id="desc_3385793Comment64065"></div></dd></dl>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-2694265805518971432010-12-28T12:29:00.000-05:002010-12-28T12:29:53.176-05:00We are a way for the Cosmos to know itselfCarl Sagan put it so succinctly, it may seem like a tautology. Well of course we are part of the Cosmos and we are conscious. So what? Who cares? But when this meme first crossed my path it seemed like an epiphany. Someone once said "any most fundamental discoveries will soon seem obvious" or words to that effect. Where did this meme Sagan was spreading come from originally? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/AlanWatts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/AlanWatts.jpg" width="171" /></a>It first came to me in a pamphlet for a talk given by Alan Watts, circa 1968. At first glance, it appeared to be simply another of those many trendy themes that enjoyed currency in the 60s, something about Zen and meditation, and all that New Age stuff. But something about this particular item really grabbed at me. The lines that stuck in my head, and have stayed there through some transmutations for over 40 years, were:<br />
<br />
"We are not egos in bags of skin, who come into the world. We come out of the world, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean 'waves', the universe 'peoples'... We are the universe, become conscious of itself." <br />
<br />
The first three sentences come directly from Watts' book, just then appearing, entitled "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are." The last sentence was there in the pamphlet I mentioned, but I cannot find it in that form anywhere in print, though Watts did write things like "we are the eyes and ears of the universe." But it is the most important part for me, and it left me with the conclusion that science was somehow more fundamental than engineering. I then would become a voyeur, rather than a creator, in part because Nature's creation was so much more impressive than the relatively simple and predictable creations of engineers. <br />
<br />
I had been seduced by Alan Watt's (possibly drug-influenced) world view, as described in Wikipedia:<br />
<br />
"In several of his later publications, especially <i>Beyond Theology</i> and <i>The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are</i>, Watts put forward a <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview" title="Worldview">worldview</a>, drawing on Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism, and modern science, in which he maintains that the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila" title="Lila">Lila</a>), hiding from itself (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29" title="Maya (illusion)">Maya</a>) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise. In this worldview, Watts asserts that our conception of ourselves as "egos in a bag of skin" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely processes of the whole."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG" width="145" /></a>One of those processes is seeing and comprehending what is seen, so that life lessons can be learned and survival fitness can be improved, but also just for the sheer enjoyment of reality and the appreciation of the magnificance of the universe. And that is where we come in as at least one of the sources of sensations and information that the universe compiles about itself. That information has, up until we humans arrived on the scene, been compiled in the form of DNA codes. Now we are augmenting that with all of human culture and its documentation, some of which may conceivably be as durable as DNA is.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia notes that Watts was influenced by pantheism, the universe as supreme being, as was Carl Sagan. In his 1980's TV series, Cosmos, Sagan distilled it all into the bumper sticker title of this post. When Carl talked about the universe, you knew clearly that he was talking about "all that is or was or ever will be." Now that is almost by definition (barring a supernatural parallel universe) the greatest possible deity, of which all others can only be a part. And we are Its senses and memory, along with Its knowledge processing and storage system.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-9001218710840361682010-12-24T08:30:00.001-05:002010-12-24T09:24:15.259-05:00Season's Greetings!<div class="mobile-photo"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEO2TLfjJ8YHdppXt4XaKjG2G9_po8OS6qj2K_2sJ2HUhT5hyphenhyphenkj4P48LXYySMHqQKTvbwTlX1cNoy1v3KJ4bEz17tmUq6FATDQcW-D6Cr9AbhXhzkMU8VeIvX8jc-_g197WDPJqA/s1600/Solstice2010-775654.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="414" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5554240870642568770" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEO2TLfjJ8YHdppXt4XaKjG2G9_po8OS6qj2K_2sJ2HUhT5hyphenhyphenkj4P48LXYySMHqQKTvbwTlX1cNoy1v3KJ4bEz17tmUq6FATDQcW-D6Cr9AbhXhzkMU8VeIvX8jc-_g197WDPJqA/s640/Solstice2010-775654.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-39777698181265004622010-10-18T18:33:00.005-04:002010-10-22T21:23:37.405-04:00Panaturalist EpiphanyHow about a new 'blog title? Pan-naturalism came about during a discussion on the "Naturalism" <a href="http://www.facebook.com/naturalismpage">facebook page,</a> during which Cliff Andrew of the Annapolis UU church group asked the question: <span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show">"If naturalism is your worldview, what do you call yourself." After a few iterations, it came to me as: "pan-naturalists" or panaturalists, that is, all-one-nature-ists. As interpreted by Tom Clark, that comes down to "nature is everything. I like it" </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show">Compared with pantheism, we get rid of the theistic baggage. Compared with humanism, we spread the wings to embrace all of nature, living and inanimate, sentient or just heliotropic. And compared with simple naturalism, we make a clear distinction from the traditional nudist use of the term. </span></span><br />
<span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show">What do you think? Anyone? </span></span>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-36732169942472890742010-05-02T10:31:00.009-04:002010-05-05T12:13:07.820-04:00Pro-Informed Choice<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZv31GwhRs83hexhyphenhyphenyi6xi-l09s7uwcZOD8EwhhOogYY5RvVfUlzAITNZtHIKxXc6LqOtmCWAgIc4GKLno7TmjpwRHh07V8Tu9mdru3DSQLrs8odoM_mtgOSaXtRCw1tM5-WAn1A/s1600/kathleenparker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZv31GwhRs83hexhyphenhyphenyi6xi-l09s7uwcZOD8EwhhOogYY5RvVfUlzAITNZtHIKxXc6LqOtmCWAgIc4GKLno7TmjpwRHh07V8Tu9mdru3DSQLrs8odoM_mtgOSaXtRCw1tM5-WAn1A/s320/kathleenparker.jpg" /></a>This post is motivated by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001671.html">Kathleen Parker's linked Op-Ed</a> from the Washington Post. She's a self-declared conservative columnist, who recently received a Pulitzer prize for her thought-provoking work, which is characterized by great sensitivity to both sides of divisive issues. Abortion must be the most agonizingly vexing ethical question any woman or couple will ever face. In my view the responsibility for this choice should not fall solely on the woman or even the couple involved. It seems to me there should be an ethical support system, to assist in the decision, in a civilized society. There is a deep ethical issue involved, which does not fall solely within the realm of individual or couples rights but involves society and its values as well. The big issue concerns the fair treatment of all interests in the decision.<br />
<br />
The current wisdom is that this decision is between the individual woman and her doctor. The reproductive partner is included in the decision at the woman's option. It seems to me that an ethics adviser should also be involved, as a representative of society at large and a voice for ethics. This is especially true if the abortion will be performed by publicly funded health care facilities and personnel. <br />
<br />
I agree that any woman who determines that she wants an abortion should be qualified for one. By declaring as much, she has declared her disinterest in raising the child, which may be reason enough not to give birth to one. And yet, we don't always know what we want and may need help determining what that is, or understanding other options that may be available. Getting an ethics counselor involved would help everyone to decide what they really want before they go through with an irrevocable act. However, this approach is subject to the criticism that it often turns into coercion that influences the decision. <br />
<br />
Now some states are taking up this matter and proposing or requiring in some cases that women be fully informed about their fetuses before making a decision. That is, they are in some cases being required to view an ultrasound diagnostic of their fetus's condition and state, and receive a physician's assessment on the specific matter of their fetus, before having an abortion. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001671.html">Kathleen Parker's linked Op-Ed</a> covers the details well. The new approach of requiring that the simple facts of the situation be determined prior to an abortion seems like a promising way to reach the "common ground" that President Obama has suggested is possible. It is consistent with my sense of ethics on this issue, and seems like the right thing to do. It satisfies my sense that some reflection on the facts of the matter is essential when facing a huge decision point in three or more lives.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-75592538114819225582010-04-05T19:35:00.002-04:002010-04-05T20:42:44.121-04:00EtherealityPreparing for our recent Robert Frost Dinner (26 March was his birthday), I found the following Frost poem in my 1967 anthology, a gift from my mother. Though written back at about the time I was born, this poem is a whimsical meditation that is just as germane to our current infatuation with information technologies and consumption of ethereal media such as music and cinema. Frost clearly dreams of being free of his physical body, the better to compose abstract verse. But he likens that state of freedom from the flesh to "evolution's opposite extreme", the jellyfish.<br />
<br />
I like his use of the word "ethereal." To me it signifies something that is distinct from material reality; something in the realm of ideas, concepts, explanations, models of reality; that is, information. There's nothing supernatural about this meaning of ethereal. But it's a part of reality that is unique to living things with DNA that takes notes, and humans with their own kinds of notes, including poetry.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTiWTetV95Mohyrrq2zY9l-nL20dLTn8ODcim5WEXcL247vM95nu-T9d9qWRgRurLtm34g_9SYgqxTFbTCO4llLKICTihdAmuBZZGiUHCXg5_IHrumw_qbLDmAAH45txgbb42Wqw/s1600/RobertFrost.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTiWTetV95Mohyrrq2zY9l-nL20dLTn8ODcim5WEXcL247vM95nu-T9d9qWRgRurLtm34g_9SYgqxTFbTCO4llLKICTihdAmuBZZGiUHCXg5_IHrumw_qbLDmAAH45txgbb42Wqw/s320/RobertFrost.jpg" /></a></div>Etherealizing<br />
<br />
A theory if you hold it hard enough<br />
And long enough gets rated as a creed: <br />
Such as that flesh is something we can slough<br />
So that the mind can be entirely freed. <br />
<br />
Then when the arms and legs have atrophied, <br />
And brain is all that's left of mortal stuff, <br />
We can lie on the beach with the seaweed<br />
And take our daily tide baths smooth and rough. <br />
<br />
There once we lay as blobs of jellyfish<br />
At evolution's opposite extreme. <br />
But now as blobs of brain we'll lie and dream, <br />
With only one vestigial creature wish: <br />
<br />
Oh, may the tide be soon enough at high<br />
To keep our abstract verse from being dry!ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-63190957597246805402010-03-29T20:57:00.003-04:002010-03-29T21:03:30.112-04:00Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html">Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com</a><br />
<br />
We know and agree on the goals of human culture. We want collectively to survive and thrive and become all we can be; the same thing we want for our gardens and pastures. And just as horticulture is a scientific approach to gardening and animal husbandry, human culture could perfectly well be a scientific approach to getting what we want out of life. Neither specifies in detail how each plant or animal or human should behave. But it does specify how the gardener should behave in the face of threats to the health of the garden, and why, in each and every case. There is no reason to invoke the will of another in this; in the case of human culture, we do it for our own sakes and because we know how, and it’s time we admitted as much. This is what I believe Sam Harris is saying here. <br />
<br />
<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param><param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/SamHarris_2010-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/SamHarris-2010.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=801&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right;year=2010;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=bold_predictions_stern_warnings;theme=new_on_ted_com;theme=a_taste_of_ted2010;theme=is_there_a_god;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=TED2010;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/SamHarris_2010-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/SamHarris-2010.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=801&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right;year=2010;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=bold_predictions_stern_warnings;theme=new_on_ted_com;theme=a_taste_of_ted2010;theme=is_there_a_god;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=TED2010;"></embed></object>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-31289087002864499422010-03-24T20:21:00.001-04:002010-03-24T20:22:28.554-04:00The Poetry of Reality<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Cd36WJ79z4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Cd36WJ79z4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
John Boswell's remix series continues with a new video that focuses on Science as a human activity and the most effective method for gaining knowledge known to humankind.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-39101775074578740312010-03-13T13:17:00.001-05:002010-03-14T13:03:31.591-04:00The Unbroken Thread<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hOLAGYmUQV0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hOLAGYmUQV0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
So now there is a fourth "symphony of science" by John Boswell, this time with David Attenborough and Jane Goodall, with the poshumously peripatetic Carl Sagan. Here are some of the best lines: <br />
<br />
"Those are some of the things that molecules do, given 4 billion years of evolution." [Sagan]<br />
"Its a very wuzzy line and it's getting wuzzier all the time." [Goodall]<br />
"Our planet is, as far as we know, unique in the universe; it contains life" [Attenborough]<br />
"Its continued survival now rests in our hands." [Attenborough] <br />
<br />
"There's an unbroken thread from those first cells to us." This is Sagan's line and it is taken as the theme of this symphony. That's what we've learned about the genetic code: that while it is ever changing, it is also eternal. It's as if a notebook was opened at the creation, and it has been gathering notes continuously ever since. The number of copies has expanded, seemingly without limit, though in practice there are of course limits, especially on each genomic variation. But overall, the notebook proliferates and each new note adds to the storehouse of information about what works and what does not work for life on this planet. And each individual has their own copy and makes contributions that are realized in new copies of the genome. Darwin may not have known about the molecular machinery, but he certainly grasped the essence of the situation when he wrote: <br />
<br />
"There is grandeur in this view of life..as the Earth has gone on cycling... from so simple a beginning, endless forms most wonderful and beautiful have been, and are being evolved." -- Charles Darwin, 1872ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-9191272386325050192010-03-08T20:44:00.005-05:002010-03-13T09:15:27.553-05:00A Universal Golden Rule?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZBDf_KHcQF9ZPf_f4u1L4awfS9lfy4eaI-p8SS8o3hTMOxx2IDtPzqn9xObGoTqgJKhYYEIJpHaioC8AN_fZZdx9FVdWlOhi6wJOl32XDnEiZjK_Q0PEv7hSWdayxY5Ce-pJ2Ag/s1600-h/GoldenRule.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 244px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZBDf_KHcQF9ZPf_f4u1L4awfS9lfy4eaI-p8SS8o3hTMOxx2IDtPzqn9xObGoTqgJKhYYEIJpHaioC8AN_fZZdx9FVdWlOhi6wJOl32XDnEiZjK_Q0PEv7hSWdayxY5Ce-pJ2Ag/s320/GoldenRule.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5446444315277225698" /></a><br />I came across the figure on a facebook UU page. It's from a poster that <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm">can be obtained in larger sizes</a>, presumably large enough to be able to read the different translations of the golden rule in the various faiths and philosophies. Or you can <a href="http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/sacred_texts.php">get the texts here</a>. But the idea is plain enough. To me it echoes the message of a bumper sticker I like and have on my car, showing several of these symbols in a row that spells out "Coexist". I used to have a bumper sticker that says "Slow for Tailgaters," but replaced it with this one when I found it.<br /><br />The quality of the drivers in Maryland disappoints me greatly. This week at the first stop light I come to on my way to work, there were two cars in front of me. The first in line was timid about turning on red, because of oncoming traffic. The second in line beeped his horn at the first car several times. Finally, the driver of the first car opened his door and got out, stood up, and looked back at the second car driver reprovingly. Whereupon, the second car pulled to the left around the first car and then made the right turn on red that he so fervently wanted, getting some rubber as he sped off. The standing driver of the first car stood there and watched him drive off, perhaps making a gesture at him, though I'm a bit foggy about that detail. By this time I was getting antsy and considering whether some additional horn blowing was called for! But then we were off into the morning rush hour traffic with reconsidered priorities.<br /><br />I guess I'm just offering this as an example of coarse behavior that could certainly benefit from a more universal adherence to the golden rule in everyday life. It is so easy for selfish behavior to turn into anger and retaliation, and worse. Clearly it is anything but instinctive for us to exercise golden rule consideration for others. We need to be taught and to learn the advantages of that approach. Most faiths teach it, but sadly few individuals can see the advantage to it when faced with bad behavior.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-90043125047506435732009-12-29T20:01:00.011-05:002010-03-13T09:14:36.076-05:00Conquering PandoraAvatar is a great, possibly a landmark movie, IMHO, and that of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=1">others</a> and still <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203276.html?hpid=voicesopinion">others</a>. It turns the tables completely on our history of science fiction about aliens, in which we express our fears of being exploited and conquered by an alien race, while demonizing them so we can deal with them as savages, should they appear. Think War of the Worlds, or Independence Day, The Matrix, or even Men in Black. In a stroke of genius, this movie asks "what would humans do" if they reached an alien world that was miraculously rich in "unobtainium" and populated only by simple aboriginal folk who do not even practice agriculture, to say nothing of high technology. Three guesses... Are we not the folks who corrupted the Golden Rule into: "do unto others before they can do it unto you!" It would be minutes before we began to mine the place; and to hell with the natives. <br /><br />The movie is widely regarded as belonging to the genre of "Dances with Wolves," "Pocahontas," and other White Guilt stories in which an officer of the oppressing people "goes native' and joins the aboriginals in their struggle against his own people. The movie is also rich in references to American behavior on the world stage, especially in recent years, when questions arose along the lines of: "how did our oil get under their sand?" and when we concluded that the only acceptable response to a perceived risk was preemptive war. <br /><br />Scientists play an interesting and typical role in Avatar, serving as enablers of war and exploitation even as they, themselves exploit the interests of others in support of their own fascinations. That's just as true on Avatar as it was in Peenemünde, Baikonur, Los Alamos, or Huntsville. One wonders if we can adapt to the apparent lack of others out there to exploit, or if we will go on girding to defend ourselves from perceived threats, as an excuse for exploitation, here on Earth and beyond it. <br /><br />But the movie also made me think of that ultimate exercise in White European Guilt, the modern move to regard Columbus as a villain who upset the balance of nature in the New World by launching the extermination of Native Americans. And I know of no better expression of that view than a song by Tracy Chapman, called simply: America. Tracy never avoids or turns away from dark thoughts. She faces them and revels in them. Here are the lyrics and <a href="http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/America-lyrics-Tracy-Chapman/259B1A7356A1A8A3482570780005D8A7">a link</a> to the song. Tracy even manages to anticipate the theme of Avatar here, calling us down for our selfish motives as we begin to explore space. <br /><br /><br />AMERICA<br /><br />You were lost and got lucky<br />Came upon the shore<br />Found you were conquering America<br />You spoke of peace<br />But waged a war<br />While you were conquering America<br /><br />There was land to take<br />And people to kill<br />While you were conquering America<br />You served yourself<br />Did God's will<br />While you were conquering America<br /><br />The ghost of Columbus haunts this world<br />'Cause you're still conquering America<br />The meek won't survive<br />Or inherit the earth<br />'Cause you're still conquering America<br /><br />America<br />America<br />America<br /><br />Your found bodies to serve<br />Submit and degrade<br />While you were conquering America<br />Made us soldiers and junkies<br />Prisoners and slaves<br />While you were conquering America<br /><br />America<br />America<br />America<br /><br />You hands are at my throat<br />My back's against the wall<br />Because you're still conquering America<br />We're sick and tired hungry and poor<br />'Cause you're still conquering America<br /><br />You bomb the very ground<br />That feeds your own babies<br />You're still conquering America<br />Your sons and your daughters<br />May never sing your praises<br />While you're conquering America<br /><br />America<br />America<br />America<br /><br />I see you eyes seek a distant shore<br />While you're conquering America<br />Taking rockets to the moon<br />Trying to find a new world<br />And you're still conquering America<br /><br />America<br />America<br />America<br /><br />The ghost of Columbus haunts this world<br />'Cause you're still conquering America<br />You're still conquering America<br />You're still conquering America<br /><br />© 2001 Tracy ChapmanThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-74881792112226280452009-11-28T10:07:00.007-05:002010-03-13T09:14:07.649-05:00The Pledge of Citizenship<a href="http://tinyurl.com/yauazsb">Some Americans have problems</a> with the content of The Pledge of Allegiance, and I'm among them, though I won't admit to any lack of commitment to my country or its founding principles. The Pledge always made me feel conflicted, for reasons I could never articulate well. Now there are some interesting ideas circulating about this, one of which can be summarized by the question: "Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?" The following is a clipping from an article by Michael Lind that ran on 16 Nov 2009 at <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yauazsb">http://www.salon.com</a><br /><br />"While a pledge of allegiance by the subject to the government is incompatible with American republican principles, a voluntary pledge of mutual support among the people who collectively create and own the government might be useful, if only as a succinct catechism of the American Creed. [With selected wording from the US Declaration of Independence,] if we replace the topical phrase "this Declaration" with a reference to the enduring principles of republican liberty, we might get something like this:<br /><br />"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. And for the support of these principles, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."<br /><br />"Call this purely voluntary pledge the Citizens' Pledge of Mutual Support for the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, or simply, The Citizens' Pledge. It would be addressed by Americans directly to one another, rather than to the flag or any other symbol of the state. Oh, and if you give a stiff-armed salute, you'll be sent to the principal's office.<br /><br />Here's a suggested short "Pledge of Citizenship" that might be "memorizable" for voluntary recital on appropriate occasions. <br /><br />We hold these truths to be self-evident:<br />that all men are created equal, and endowed with unalienable Rights;<br />that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;<br />that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted;<br />that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.<br />In support of these principles, we mutually pledge to each other,<br />our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-51216717009995582632009-11-28T09:43:00.006-05:002010-03-13T09:13:31.540-05:00And Then There Were Three<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vioZf4TjoUI&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vioZf4TjoUI&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />A third John Boswell <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioZf4TjoUI&feature=player_embedded">composition</a> on science has now appeared at <a href="http://www.symphonyofscience.com">symphony of science</a>. It's a bit slower and moodier that the first two efforts I featured. All three are on the link you get clicking the title here. And it has also been announced that a collaboration with the great Jack White and friends at Third Man Records, in Nashville, TN led to release of a 7" vinyl single of the song "A Glorious Dawn," featuring a special etching of the Voyager Golden Record cover on the B-side. This makes for a great collector's item, and a novel way to experience the song as well. It was released 11/9, on Sagan's 75th birthday.<br /><br />Ann Druyan and Jack White apparently collaborated on this so we can now breath a sigh of relief that there will not be legal problems concerning these remixes of Cosmos and other materials. You can go to the Third Man Records site to learn more about the release: <a href="http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/news.html">http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/news.html</a><br /><br />And to their store to order it: <a href="http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/store.html">http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/store.html</a>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-31851557119614745832009-10-27T20:30:00.004-04:002009-10-27T20:51:02.198-04:00The Symphony of Science<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XGK84Poeynk&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XGK84Poeynk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br />Well, it's been a while, but I haven't gone away. These two pieces of remix work by John Boswell, who has a home page <a href="http://www.symphonyofscience.com/">here</a>, is something special. It echoes and greatly amplifies some materials I have linked from the opening of the Cosmos series (lower right column), but Boswell has added music in a very pleasing way, at least to me. And millions of others agree, as these short music videos are wildly popular on YouTube. In any case, it is really wonderful to see such creativity invested in Cosmos, and also the really great segments added in from Richard Feynman's interviews, from Bill Nye's material, and from Neil Tyson's work. I hope you enjoy these if you stumble in here, and let's hope that these materials create a big wake in the universe, of people who have been "turned on" to science and it's spiritual side. <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSgiXGELjbc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSgiXGELjbc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-1791772794746073572009-02-28T12:07:00.003-05:002009-02-28T12:26:47.395-05:00Values Expressed by The Election of 2008It seems the election is sufficiently "over", and the new administration sufficiently "underway" for some reflection on what happened and how things are going. Most of our attention is being directed to the financial crisis, the stock market, and varying prescriptions for recovery. Suffice it to say here that I regard the crisis as a symptom of Republican values concerning the military pursuit of idealistic goals, privatization of government functions, the right of the wealthy to increase their wealth and decrease their numbers, and the Ayn Randian prescription that whatever works for personal ambition (and greed) is best for humanity. 'Nuff said. Now on to a couple of items that have cropped up this week.<br /><br />First item: neocons have been resoundingly discredited by the election, but have they been replaced by dogmatic ideologue realists? That's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702485.html">one wag's view</a>. He says that Obama has made a big mistake in appointing such a realist, Charles Freeman, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Realists, he says, are completely blind to any idealistic motivations that the electorate may harbor, and see US self-interest as the only guide for foreign policy. In his view the idealism of the American electorate is legitimately important in some decisions about foreign policy, but totally opaque to realists. This is expressed in his most memorable line: "Consider, perhaps, if eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage boys act around girls." Nice; I'm sure this will forever endear Jon Chait to realists everywhere.<br /><br />IMHO, American idealism tends strongly to be either hypocritical (we think we can "impose" democracy on others), or proselytizing (we have sent Christian missionaries to Muslim nations since antebellum times!). With that record, American idealism is always suspect in my mind, so I'm firmly in the realist camp. And I'm not at all sure that Freeman's take on Tienanmen Square amounts to a "reductio ad absurdum." After all, what happens in the USA when a disruptive demonstration occurs? Can anyone remember the 1968 Democratic National Convention?<br /><br />Second item: It seems that the Obama administration is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html?nav=hcmodule">raising hackles </a>by making Federal aid to localities blind to local rules on health profession "conscientious objection". That is, Federal aid will no longer be withheld from localities that discipline health workers who refuse to do assigned duties on grounds of conscientious objection. The Bush admin. measure to withhold Federal aid was principally directed at abortion related duties, but was broadly written enough to limit family planning, blood transfusions, and end-of-life treatment issues, according to the linked article.<br /><br />IMHO, conscientious objection should be expressed by refraining from the activity that requires the offending services. For example, where would we be if conscientious objection to military service was acceptably expressed by active military personnel? Conscientious objection is not only a rationale for deferrment from military duty, it is a disqualification from military service. Those who are squeamish about those actions involved in providing professional health care should similarly steer clear of careers in the health professions. Instead, under the Bush administration, they were indulged as a means of harrassing the medical profession. The new adminstration's initiative to eliminate this harrassment is arguably at odds with its expressed intent to "find common ground." On the other hand, we can hope that the common ground will be sought in a more direct way of addressing the simultaneous legality and undesirability of abortion.<br /><br />Third item: the new administration has announced plans to proceed with removal of most US troops within 18 month (vs. 16 months suggested during the election), and entirely within 36 months. This timetable is sufficiently close to that suggested by the Bush administration, and advocated by the Iraqi government, that we should be able to accept a certain convergence of views on this. Yet <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3ad17af7ba-2ce0-4c14-ba39-67227d43ac67Discussion%3aece6823e-6c7d-4be4-8a91-8f9352cef2a4">some pundits</a> are claiming that Obama, in admitting that Iraq is now "winnable," has also accepted responsibility for the successful completion of the military action in Iraq.<br /><br />IMHO, the administration is making good on its promise to end the war, and to do it in the most constructive way possible, which involves a certain buy-in to the Bush administration goals for the war. This in no way is an endorsement of the war, or an acceptance of full responsibility for it and all its outcomes. If the war eventually reflects well on the Bush administration through the eyes of history, so be it. But it will be exceptionally difficult to separate the war and its conduct from the financial crisis that has engulfed the USA and the entire world. Vice president Cheney famously opined that "deficits don't matter." But it is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that the reckless pursuit of idealistic goals by military actions in foreign lands is likely to be more costly than we reckon when we begin them, and indeed more costly than we would willingly afford in the absence of an overwhelming national interest in the outcome.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-36965415455726501482008-03-16T10:33:00.006-04:002008-03-23T12:26:36.729-04:00The Hall of Mirrors<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj66ZCSN2j9axF_2OylaDpTYp-1j01IXlNVT0urCq4gt3P_wIXOh77TqrwTh_F4GZO3HH8bJ0xEb_Se4yOuy5Pn_8aJHX-cL0MqXATnFTtx6sEyjaVI8vFyhrY9rhHVXNatKhd8nQ/s1600-h/HallOfMirrors.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj66ZCSN2j9axF_2OylaDpTYp-1j01IXlNVT0urCq4gt3P_wIXOh77TqrwTh_F4GZO3HH8bJ0xEb_Se4yOuy5Pn_8aJHX-cL0MqXATnFTtx6sEyjaVI8vFyhrY9rhHVXNatKhd8nQ/s400/HallOfMirrors.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5180974311321678386" border="0" /></a><br />It is said that true consciousness requires conscious of itself. Short of that, it is only sentience or awareness of what is outside. A flower or a tree is sentient. For example, consider phototropism of plants. But is a plant aware of its own phototropism? Not likely. In the animal kingdom, it is more obvious that sentience exists, but is it consciousness? Perhaps in some cases it is, but we have no proof of self-consciousness until language is used to describe the experience of the self to others. Of the animals, only apes and dolphins have learned some of our language; and we have not learned the language of any other species, as far as I know. We consider our language to be the very measure of intelligent consciousness. And self-consciousness brings the capability to question one's desires and choices, which is to say, to plan and influence one's own behavior. Without that degree of self-examination, how can we speak of free will? This is attention to what Keith Stanovich refers to as "second order desires," which he sees as distinguishing us from animals. We can seek to improve on our Autonomic Set of Systems, and try not to be such ASSes.<br /><br />Most of us experience a certain fascination with the "hall of mirrors" effect, which appears when two mirrors near alignment so that they reflect into each other. We can peer around the edge of one mirror and see ourselves repeated many time over, like those industrious broom clones in Disney's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." Human intrigues begin with trying to outguess another in a form of gamesmanship. We say "I could do A. But you probably know I will do A so you will do B to counter me. So I will do C instead, to keep you guessing. But then you might guess that I have guessed that you have guessed what I will do. So perhaps I should do something different?" It doesn't take much recursion to create a lot of confusion, and we have to decide how far to go. But this kind of thought process permeates the interactions among conscious (self-aware) individuals. It is perhaps most evident in games like Chess, where anticipating the moves of one's opponent is critically important to play an effective game. And in team sports or business, one must successfully anticipate the moves of one's teammates as well. So perhaps it is not just the consciousness of self that is key here, but the consciousness of being conscious of self, and of others and their consciousness. It was with this in mind that I took the self-portrait using my computer's web camera.<br /><br />Another thing I had in the back of my mind was imagery from M C Escher's graphical work, which I have loved ever since I was presented with a book of it as a college graduation present. While Escher seems not to have ever drawn the "hall of mirrors" he was fascinated with reflections, especially from curved surfaces, and did a number of works that feature them. It always intrigued me that Escher chose to give a glimpse of himself and his world, embedded within his drawings. So in this world of blogs and social networking, where one puts out an image of oneself through the things one posts, I have posted a photograph here that I intend as an expression of my own consciousness. Think of it as taking the narcissism of the web a step further, an assertion of confidence. Rather late in a life of excessively self-conscious anxiety, I have found a lot of comfort in my own skin, and it feels great.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaIRiGy3gaB1TXRPwOD1nsUXPKzz7kh_5KUhZN9wwB3VlGVTtrNSK-N8QWRJ5AtgOeYUL8UiV_dVcvnWb2gysfb6lVaCTDgDZ5SxT12zfOQ6KNWzG1vE9eJcKxE3ZU4rAl0UAtQA/s1600-h/Escher-ThreeSpheres.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaIRiGy3gaB1TXRPwOD1nsUXPKzz7kh_5KUhZN9wwB3VlGVTtrNSK-N8QWRJ5AtgOeYUL8UiV_dVcvnWb2gysfb6lVaCTDgDZ5SxT12zfOQ6KNWzG1vE9eJcKxE3ZU4rAl0UAtQA/s400/Escher-ThreeSpheres.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5180973929069589026" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Some would call me a cheat, call me a liar </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Say that I've been defeated by the basest desires</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Yes I have strayed and succumbed to my vices</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But I tried to live right</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But I have no regrets, no guilt in my heart</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I only feel sadness for any pain that I've caused</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I guess I wouldn't bother to worry at all</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If I'd lived right</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Do you live by the book, do you play by the rules?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Do you care what is thought by others about you?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If this day is all that is promised to you</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Do you live for the future, the present, the past?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If there is one thing I know, I know I will die</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If anyone cares some stranger may critique my life</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I may be revered or defamed and decried</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But I tried to live right</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">There would be psalms sung by a choir</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I would have a white robe, a halo newly acquired</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I'd be at peace and I'd have no desire</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If I'd lived right...</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Unsung Psalm by Tracy Chapman</span>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-43909767812819220462008-02-03T18:07:00.001-05:002010-03-13T09:12:09.088-05:00The Robot's Rebellion<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/media/poi/images/stanovich.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 153px; height: 184px;" src="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/media/poi/images/stanovich.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>In <a href="http://www.pointofinquiry.org/keith_stanovich_robots_rebellion_finding_meaning_in_the_age_of_darwin/">a new book</a>, Keith Stanovich of U. Toronto invokes a "Robot's Rebellion" as way of "finding meaning in the age of Darwin". I learned of the book through a Point of Inquiry podcast distributed by the Center for Inquiry, which can be accessed with the link attached to the title of this post.<br /><br />I still haven't read this book, but have at least scanned the table of contents carefully and listened to the POI podcast a couple of times with attention to detail. It's a fascinating book and I am going to buy it if I can't find it otherwise, but my current feeling is that the thesis is fundamentally flawed. That's unfortunate, but perhaps the book leads us in the right direction in any case.<br /><br />The basic idea is an extension of Richard Dawkins' concept of "the selfish gene" using the concept of memes, also credited to Dawkins, who set up an adversary relationship with our genetic code, by attributing "selfishness" to a macromolecule. Stanovich sets out to help us find meaning in world where evolution is held to be a fact of life. He suggests this can be achieved if humans will seize control of their lives from their genes and memes, and insist on guiding themselves instead. Much as I love Dawkins prose and his delightful explorations of evolutionary science, his supposed deep insight into sociobiology now seems misguided to me. As engaging as Stanovich's writing also may be, I'm suspicious than any meaning that is found in this way may well be misguided.<br /><br />Not everyone is enamored with the idea of memes. A chapter subheading from "Robots' Rebellion" is "The ultimate meme trick: Why your memes want you to hate the idea of memes." So Stanovich would hold that many have fallen into this "trick" that memes play on us. They don't "want" us to understand that a host can be taken over by an idea that treats its carrier solely for the immediate advantage of the parasite. The joining of religious cults, and suicide bombings, are cases in point.<br /><br />So what is the fundamental flaw? Well, let me quote Peter Fields: "Those who are not proud of their heritage will never amount to anything, because they are in contempt of themselves from the start." This may be a bit sentimental, but I think it is a profoundly huge mistake to adopt an adversarial relationship with our genetic heritage, regarding one's own genes as an alien replicator that has "taken over the body" for its own purposes. Shades of "Men in Black"! Here we must hold Richard Dawkins responsible as the source of the "selfish gene" meme, which is at the root of this mistake.<br /><br />It's a natural enough error, until we recognize that a human body could never have been assembled in the first place without the presence of the genetic information. It's not as if a pre-existing and self-sufficient body has been invaded by an alien parasite. Rather the genes have guided the development of the material body with which they are able to preserve and propagate themselves. The body and the genes cannot be separated into distinct entities with different interests; they are the same. It could just as well (and erroneously) be argued that the dumb matter of the world has exploited the information contained in foundling scraps of DNA to assemble itself into living bodies.<br /><br />Stanovich argues for a robot's rebellion, in which humans would extrapolate the evolution meme to take over from the genes who are exploiting us against our better interests. He imagines that this will release us from the constraints of "subpersonal" optimization, by which I think he means the interests of genes in expanding and developing the gene pool and the species. This will, in his view, free us to be more rational beings who figure out what we want for ourselves and pursue it. This concept has a lot of appeal as it echoes the spirit of the 60's counterculture within which many of us matured (or failed to do so). It rejects the wisdom of "anyone over 30" and challenges us to figure things out for ourselves and find new solutions.<br /><br />But this looks all wrong to me from my present perspective. Genes and memes are distinguished by their temporal orientation and scale. Instead of being "selfish" invaders, genes are encyclopedias of the accumulated wisdom of the ages, distilled into individually unique, yet thematically consistent, forms that have dealt effectively with reality to sustain and propagate life. One of the resultant life forms has now developed its own facility for the creation and storage of information in encyclopedias, known as memes or memeplexes. Some of the memes provide models of reality that support successful prediction of the future, and how it depends on our current actions. And that allows us to practice rationality on a new time basis that is forward looking rather than backward looking, that is, experience based.<br /><br />Bottom line: thinking of ourselves as robots planning a revolt is both demeaning and dumb. It's wiser by far to heed the message of the genes, while looking ahead to predictable changes that could revise genetic wisdom and allow "anticipatory adaptation". Perhaps it can be said that a truly intelligent species goes beyond trial and error.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-14466642073513448642008-01-19T10:13:00.000-05:002008-01-19T10:46:47.817-05:00Oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve<span style="font-size:130%;">My uncle-in-law forwarded me this provocative piece of nonsense:</span><br /><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);font-family:'trebuchet ms';font-size:180%;" class="Apple-style-span" >"A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.<br />~~~<br />Well, there's a very simple answer.<br />~~~<br />Nobody bothered to check the oil.<br />~~~<br />We just didn't know we were getting low.<br />~~~<br />The reason for that is purely geographical.<br />~~~<br />Our OIL is located in Alaska, California, Coastal Florida, Coastal Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas<br />~~~<br />But Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington , DC !!!<br />Any Questions ???"</span><br /><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Well, that made me check into my conventional liberal wisdom, and I came up with my typically wonkish rebuttal: </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />It's easy for folks to blow the type up to 40 points and color it, but it doesn't make the conclusion a "no-brainer". It makes it an "urban legend". But as always, don't take my word for it:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil">Wikipedia on "Peak Oil"</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy">Wikipedia on Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve Controversy</a><br /><a href="http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/769687358.shtml">Petroleum News on World Reserves</a><br /><a href="http://www.american.edu/ted/alaska.htm">American University on Alaskan Reserves</a><br /></span><http: org="" 20center="" htm=""><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />From the above:<br />* Most optimistic world supply: ~75 yrs = 2300 Billion barrels / 30 Bb/yr<br />* Most optimistic supply in ANWR: 0.5 yr = 15 Billion barrels / 30 Bb/yr<br />30 Bb/yr worldwide is the current production rate, which could increase a bit if we invest in more capacity. But the world supply estimates have been constant since the 60's, so don't delude yourself about unknown supplies saving us. The projections include future discoveries using models based on experience.<br /><br />So the Alaskan National Wildlife/Oil Reserve is pretty much a drop in the bucket on a global, or even national scale, since we consume much of the world's supply, or did until recent increases in China and India. And now Indians are making a $2500 car that many more can afford. That's about the price of a dual sequential gearbox for a VW, Audi, BMW!?<br /><br />The naturalist/liberal prescription for the ANWR is then: "let's save it for a far rainier day than today." Damn, we're beginning to sound like conservatives, while the conservatives are dancing around the bonfire chanting "burn it, Burn It, BURN IT!"<br /><br />It's a topsy turvey world!<br /><br />Tom<br />"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Phillip K Dick</span><br /></http:></div>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-5390049118813116822008-01-07T21:45:00.001-05:002010-03-08T21:30:44.473-05:00The Metaphysics of Quality Rears its Head Again<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Ok, I admit it: beyond college courses, my philosophical awakening was "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and I'm a sucker for Robert Pirsig. I bought Lila in '91 or '92, but I must admit it made less impression on me than ZAMM did. However, I recently came across someone touting the Metaphysics of Quality as a way of resolving the apparent gulf between science and religion, and I zeroed in on that, visited the MoQ.org site, pulled out my copy of Lila, and began to root around to see if it had anything to say with which I now identify.<br /><br />I clearly recall the single biggest message I took from ZAMM. It comes from an episode that is fresh in my mind after 30 years plus (which, <a href="http://dtstrainphilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/not-half-man-i-used-to-be.html">if Steve Grand is right</a>, means that none of the atoms of my present body were part of my body back then!). The traveling companions of Phaedrus and his son develop loose handlebars on their BMW motorcycle. It seems that some shim stock is required so that the handlebar clamp can regain a grip on the bars. Now, the BMW Company likes to cultivate an aura of high quality surrounding its products, and likes to charge a premium for that aura. Part of this is a strident insistence that only approved parts and supplies should be used on BMWs, and that only approved BMW mechanics should work on them, to assure observance of BMW's ultra high quality standards. Well, Phaedrus proposed to cut a shim from an aluminum beer or pop can, but this approach was roundly rejected by the owner of the BMW, who insists on taking the bike to a certified BMW dealer where the repair is made, presumably using "official BMW shim stock" (made from aluminum can stock?). From this I took the message that Quality is a concept that can be manipulated and misunderstood. An yet, there is a clear recognition that quality is very important, difficult as it may be to define.<br /><br />Now I've done a bit more reading on the MoQ site, especially the essay collection, including "Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality," by Anthony McWatt from the Philosophy post-grad Seminar, University of Liverpool, February 12th 1998. After a lot of general discussion and background, he gets down to a Socratic Q&A exchange with himself:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">How do [Pirsig's] four static patterns of quality relate? (intellectual, social, biological and inorganic) </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br />The MOQ recognizes that the four static patterns of quality are related through cosmological EVOLUTION. A graphical representation is offered for this: </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPnZd2u7DSoMiEeIs1F4DyPVVNLPDCcnJ7pMpzQxJI7h8LLWJY_Ro_iZ9MUTIfcwbarXJxu1di7OAO4HcN1unWOEDKYFw8MsdD_SsKOFe36dc7FGeH4eQ_31LZyoBy9NJ2CG3EuA/s1600-h/MoQ_graphic.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPnZd2u7DSoMiEeIs1F4DyPVVNLPDCcnJ7pMpzQxJI7h8LLWJY_Ro_iZ9MUTIfcwbarXJxu1di7OAO4HcN1unWOEDKYFw8MsdD_SsKOFe36dc7FGeH4eQ_31LZyoBy9NJ2CG3EuA/s400/MoQ_graphic.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5152932651894946802" border="0" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">If the Big Bang is taken as the starting point of the universe, it is seen that at this point of time there were only inorganic quality patterns. That is to say chemicals and quantum forces. Since then, at successive stages of history, plants and animals have evolved from inorganic patterns, societies have evolved from biological patterns, and intellect has evolved from societies.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"...the universe is evolving from a condition of low quality (quantum forces only, no atoms, pre-big bang) toward a higher one (birds, trees, societies and thoughts) and in a static sense (world of everyday affairs) these two are not the same." (letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, March 23rd, 1997)</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br />As the cosmologist, Edward Kolb notes:</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"In perhaps nature's most miraculous transformation, the universe evolved the capacity to ponder and understand itself." ("Astronomy", February 1998, p.37)</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br />Well! that sounds a lot like Alan Watts and Carl Sagan, who both waxed eloquent about the role of humans as the conscience of the universe. I don't care much for Pirsig's nomenclature, and I would identify biological "static quality patterns" (SQP) as being equivalent to DNA information and its refinement through evolution. And, in my view, social SQP are equivalent to the social organization of living things into communities. Finally, intellectual SQP are equivalent on the written literature of humankind, which undergoes a refinement process much like that of the information in DNA, except that it is edited much more frequently and without life and death, except possibly for memes. Of these, you can see that I'm having the most trouble finding a form of information that is social in nature.<br /><br />But the next question is:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Why is evolution an important consideration in the MOQ?</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br />Evolution is an important consideration in the MOQ as a code of ethics can be generated from the four basic levels of quality patterns. Though each level of static patterns have emerged from the one below, each level follows its own different rules i.e. there are physical laws such as gravity (inorganic), the laws of the jungle (biology), co-operation between animals (society), and the ideas of freedom and rights (intellect). It is important to note that the different laws of the four static levels often clash e.g. adultery (biological good) v. family stability (social good).</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The MOQ combines the four levels of patterns to produce one overall moral framework based on an evolutionary hierarchy (as seen on the MOQ diagram). The entity that has more freedom on the evolutionary scale (i.e. the one that is more Dynamic) is the one that takes moral precedence. So, for instance, a human being is seen as having moral precedence over a dog because a human being is at a higher level of evolution...<br /><br />The MOQ follows a form of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" where the fittest is equated with the best. As Pirsig points out:</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"...'survival of the fittest' is one of those catch-phrases... that sounds best when you don't ask precisely what it means. Fittest for what? Fittest for survival? That reduces to 'survival of the survivors', which doesn't say anything. 'Survival of the fittest' is only meaningful only when 'fittest' is equated with the 'best', which is to say 'Quality'." (Robert Pirsig, LILA, Black Swan, 1991, rep.1994, p.179)</span></span><div><div><div><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">On the other hand, Darwin defined "fitness" this way: "it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change".<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In this context, the best generally refers to the choice which produces the most freedom for a given situation. It is an increase of freedom all the way. For instance, quantum forces can change their energy levels, earthworms can control their distance and direction, birds are able to fly in the sky while people manage to get to the moon.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"The MOQ says, as does Buddhism, that the best place on the wheel of karma is the hub and not the rim where one is thrown about by the gyrations of everyday life. But the MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological patterns and social patterns to the intellectual patterns that perceive the quantum forces.<br /><br />In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of this kind of evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay attention to it. Today it's not possible to be so uninformed. The suffering which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by the MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, just as accurately, the expansion of quality). Without the suffering to propel it, the cart would not move forward at all."</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">(letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, March 23rd 1997)</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br />I find these ideas a bit fuzzy, but it seems to me they can be made more rigorous by identifying "freedom" with "free will" and a propensity to freely respond to change, as Darwin posed it.<br /><br />And finally:<br /><br />So what's the value of such a moral framework?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">By removing morals from social convention and placing them on a scientifically based theory of evolution the MOQ removes much of the cultural subjectivity that is inherent in many ethical beliefs.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Pirsig produces the following example:</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"Is it immoral, as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of animals? Our current morality would say it's immoral only if you're a Hindu or a Buddhist. Otherwise its OK, since morality is nothing more than social convention."</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it's scientifically immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic than are grains and fruits and vegetables. But... it would add ... that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruit and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism." (Robert Pirsig, LILA, Black Swan, 1991, rep.1994, p.190/191)</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br />Lila is billed as "An inquiry into Morals" and Pirsig is clearly trying to devise an objective source of morals by basing it on Quality of life and evolutionary science. So he postulates an evolutionary ordering of life forms, a pecking order of "who may eat whom for dinner." If nothing else, this is certainly an effective rationalization for human omnivorousness!<br /><br />To wrap this up, note that I have mapped Pirsig's quality patterns into a hierarchy of information. For inorganic SQPs, there is no memory or medium in which to store information. When DNA came to be used as a genetic storage medium, nature began to take notes on its progress with replicating life forms, and to keep and preserve the notes from generation to generation, and to practice mutation with natural selection. The result is 3.5 billion years of evolution that has recently produced a species that keeps its own notes from generation to generation and is busily refining them using a process analogous to evolution, but using memes in place of genes. The editing is going on much more rapidly than once per generation, however, so the pace of change has speeded up greatly.<br /><br />All of which is a very long preamble to the overall point I'd like to make, which I believe to be supported by the Metaphysics of Quality. And my point is that DNA plays the role that humans have previously ascribed to an "immortal soul". The genome is scrupulously specific to each individual, is preserved for millions and billions of years so that it can be refined through selection, and is a ghostly reality that can be copied from physical medium to physical medium, with no substance of its own. As argued by Richard Dawkins and artificial intelligence expert Steve Grand, matter is merely "used" by genes and memes to propagate and test themselves. While not entirely satisfying as an analogue of the immortal soul of religion, the genome clearly shares many characteristics of that hypothetical construct, and is the closest thing we are likely to find to a scientifically defensible "soul" of each living thing.</span></div></div></div>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-14697190826509061542007-12-31T17:16:00.000-05:002008-01-08T20:43:13.907-05:00A Matter of Taste?I came upon a seminal bit of Phillip Johnson's stuff over at ScienceMusings.com (Blog) today in a piece called "Miracles" or in the comments on it. I've linked the object of the discusion in the title of this post. Here Johnson makes the case that science does not disprove religious dogma and the supernatural; it simply assumes it to be irrelevant, through its materialist focus. It seems a fair point to me. Is it possible that science is an overreaction to the realization that humans are biased to see intentionality in everything that happens? Is science immune to admitting any possibility of a supreme and supernatural being, by assumption? It certainly could be that's true.<br /><br />If so, it is clearly by application of Occam's razor, which posits that the simpler story is always to be preferred, when faced with a choice of two different interpretations, in the absence of any clear differentiating evidence. Note the qualifiers on that statement. A good intelligent design advocate would say that complexity is of itself evidence of intention and design. Whereas, a good scientist would say that complexity can arise naturally and that self-organization is a property of matter in some circumstances. It's even a property of numbers and algorithms, clear of any matter. <br /><br />So it seems that the biggest questions must be answered as matters of personal taste and the making of bets on the future, unless or until direct evidence can be found. We have our choice of attributing that which we cannot otherwise account to deliberate intentionality on the part of a supreme being, or we can regard it as a challenge to explain otherwise. That is, we can blame spooks, gremlins, or gods if we like, with no apparent guilt concerning the lack of evidence. Or we can blame the inherent complexity of nature and vow to keep seeking to understand what we do not now understand. <br /><br />Your choice! But I hope you'll pardon me if I regard ID advocates as quitters and nay-sayers who would find the universe unsatisfying if its ultimate mysteries were removed. And yet, there is common ground here, if scientists and materialists would admit that part of what they find fascinating about the universe is that which we still do not understand. <div><br /></div><div><br /></div>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-13657360623630020692007-12-25T20:41:00.000-05:002008-01-08T20:41:23.922-05:00Carl Sagan Blogathon, Year 2However it came about, I'm really happy and excited to see that Cosmos will be on cable during prime time this holiday season (Discovery Science channel). Perhaps last year's decadal observance helped to make it happen. But I think in the future, it might be well to observe Carl's date of birth (9 Nov) rather than that of his death. Isn't that what we do for great people we wish to remember?<br /><br />In any case, please follow the title link to Joel Schlosberg's blog central for this event.ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-3485844852147873372007-12-17T16:51:00.000-05:002008-01-08T20:41:12.845-05:00Planet FinderGeoff Marcy gives a great show as a lecturer on the discovery of planets outside our solar system (extrasolar planets). He presented it on 14 Dec 2007 at Goddard Space Flight Center's Science Colloquium. This was a special colloquium in celebration of the life of John Bahcall, one of the pioneering supporters of the Hubble Space Telescope. Marcy had a bona fide letter from Bahcall, encouraging his astronomical studies. Pretty neat!<br /><br />Marcy presented many of the nitty gritty details that have been learned about over 200 extrasolar planets and nearly put me and a number of others to sleep, though a few were fascinated by every nuance. Then he got down to business, which he labeled as "speculations". That's fair, but he did attempt to make an inference from what is now a statistically meaningful collection of nearby stars that have planets. Even if one is as generous as can be, there is no way that any of the planets we have found could have life on them. And that sets a limit on how many worlds could be populated in our galaxy, or any other. Given the number of stars in our galaxy, the bottom line is that intelligent civilizations, if they exist anywhere in our galaxy, must be short lived phenomena, just a few million years at most. If that is the case, we have already reached what is apparently the typical lifetime of such civilizations. We have reached the point where they die out. And Marcy's take away lesson was that the supreme challenge faced by humanity is simply to survive for longer than the typical civilization does, assuming that they exist at all outside our solar system.<br /><br />Or are we happy to have a short fling with the universe, on the way to our eventual demise? For myself, I prefer to aspire to Todd Brennan's challenge: "A truly intelligent species will outlive its home star." What about you?ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17690313.post-86763725769848292582007-09-16T18:06:00.000-04:002008-01-16T20:49:10.810-05:00Philosophy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.panhala.net/Archive/642804.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.panhala.net/Archive/642804.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">It appears that I am a winter blogger. This weekend is the first of the fall that is cool enough here in Maryland to motivate jeans and a long sleeve shirt. Yesterday, we did the Maryland Renaissance Festival with our visiting student from Extremadura, Spain. RenFest is always wonderful, from Johnny Fox, the King of Swords (swallows them), to Jousting, the Maryland state sport! We actually had a jouster knocked off a horse this year (he was fine).<br /><br />However, here's what I want to write about soon, from Panhala:<br /><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;" ><p style="margin: 0in; font-weight: bold;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Philosophy</span></p><p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in; font-weight: bold;"> </p></span><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;">~ Billy Collins ~</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;" > <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">I used to sit in the cafe of existentialism,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">lost in a blue cloud of cigarette smoke,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">contemplating the suicide a tiny Frenchman</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">might commit by leaping from the rim of my brandyglass.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">I used to hunger to be engaged</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">as I walked the long shaded boulevards,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">eyeing women of all nationalities,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">a difficult paperback riding in my raincoat pocket.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">But these days I like my ontology in an armchair,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">a rope hammock, or better still, a warm bath</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">in a cork-lined room--disengaged, soaking</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">in the calm, restful waters of speculation.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Afternoons, when I leave the house</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">for the woods, I think of Aquinas at his desk,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">fingers interlocked upon his stomach,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">as he deduces another proof for God's existence,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">intricate as the branches of these bare November trees.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">And as I kick through the leaves and snap</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">the wind-fallen twigs, I consider Leibniz on his couch</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">reaching the astonishing conclusion that monads,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">those windowless units of matter, must have souls.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">But when I finally reach the top of the hill</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">and sit down on the flat tonnage of this boulder,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">I think of Spinoza, most rarefied of them all.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">I look beyond the treetops and the distant ridges</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">and see him sitting in a beam of Dutch sunlight</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">slowly stirring his milky tea with a spoon.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Since dawn he has been at his bench grinding lenses,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">but now he is leaving behind the saucer and table,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">the smoky chimneys and tile roofs of Amsterdam,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">even the earth itself, pale blue, aqueous,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">cloud-enshrined, titled back on the stick of its axis.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">He is rising into that high dome of thought</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">where loose pages of Shelley float on the air,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">where all the formulas of calculus unravel,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">tumbling in the radiance of a round Platonic sun--</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">that zone just below the one where angels accelerate</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">and the amphitheatrical rose of Dante unfolds.</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">And now I stand up on the ledge to salute you, Spinoza,</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">and when I whistle to the dog and start down the hill,</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"> </p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;"><br /></span></p><p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">I can feel the thick glass of your eyes upon me</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">as I step from the rock to glacial rock, and on her</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">as she sniffs her way through the leaves,</span></p> <p face="Verdana" size="10pt" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">her tail straight back, her body low to the ground.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana;"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana;">(<em>The Art of Drowning</em>)</p></span>ThosEMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13747040890064999594noreply@blogger.com0