the end of the world and other newtonian discoveries

I offer this brief and humorous tidbit to tide over you guys until we busy students are able to prepare something more substantial. Hail, friends, hail Sir Isaac Newton!

While still a baby boy, before the ripe age of 25, Newton had already mastered the art of falling apples and discovered calculus. The philosopher-astronomer-physicist-and-then-some went on to set the foundation for classical mechanics. He established revolutionary laws of motion. And this is only the beginning of his list of accomplishments! However, I find one very mysterious discovery of his even more awesome than the rest.

After breaking nearly all scientific barriers possible, Newton made his most amazing proclamation! According to Newton, in 2060 the sky will fall! Yes you heard it here first, the world is going to end in the year 2060, so make sure to conquer your fears and climb your mountains before then.

This strange prediction from Newton represents a very different side of this genius that most of us have probably not seen before. Perhaps Newton was not the cold logic-driven machine that he is often made out to be. A passionate irrational man was hidden underneath his calculating exterior. What is more, it is always entertaining to poke fun at the most intelligent among us humans whenever possible.

Read more!

hiatus and return

The astute observer would have realized by now that this blog has been on hiatus for some time. I do not doubt for a minute that there has been a vast amount of tears shed over this very issue, but fear not my friends, good news is on the way! The return of freecog is soon to come, and as our beloved Eriatlov has said, keep your metaphysical beards trimmed and prepare for some more free cognition.

Read more!

one pawn to the rule them all

We appreciate the positive feedback for last week's chess competition. Seeing as there is enough demand to host weekly tournaments, this is precisely what we will do. This week the tournament will be held on Thursday, June 16 at 7:00 PM EST. This time around the brackets will be single elimination to speed things along. Sign up under this thread! Congratulations to Mike Quagliato, Russ Watson, and Eriatlov for great play in last week's tournament.



Seeded players & Competitors (Seeds based on past performance in freecog competitions)

1. M Quagliato
2. R Watson
3. Eriatlov
4. J Bakshi
- A Berriz
- mandytex
- Vexorith
- J Calvin

Read more!

the existence of privilege

Privilege is defined (by your average dictionary) as a special advantage, immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all or a prerogative: a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right). There are many who believe that privilege does not exist in our society. There are even more who claim ‘we are all equal’. Then there are those few who believe that our differences do not matter. Some of the main reasons for these beliefs have been shoved down our throats since we entered kindergarten. As children during the holidays we all made Christmas trees with construction paper and glue or sang Christmas carols to show our holiday spirit. During Thanksgiving we dressed up as Indians and Puritans to show how well everyone liked each other while giving thanks for our many blessings. These examples are normal and non controversial in many classrooms across the nation. As we got older we leaned about history, where Christopher Columbus is a hero and slavery is non existent therefore racism does not exist anymore. We also learned about the constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are more examples of how equal and fair the United States is to everyone.

In every example I’ve given you there is some form of exclusion and portrayal of privilege, therefore I would like to argue that our differences do matter. Within the United States we are not all equal because privilege does exist. Peggy McIntosh, an author and researcher for Wellesley College has described privilege as: “…an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious.” Privileges are unearned assets that are given to you because of the category you fit in. Those who receive privileges are most commonly those who dominate our society. The most obvious categories that receive privileges are individuals who are white, male, Christian, heterosexual, middle/upper class, first world nationality (i.e. American), young age, and the physically and mentally able. The more categories you fit in the more privileges you receive. Do not misunderstand me; receiving privileges does not make you a bad person or even a hateful person. You are merely a component within our society of privileges and underprivileged. It is important to see how and where you fit within this society, regardless if you wish to receive anything. The nature of privilege is to be given without consent or awareness which makes it invisible. Privilege and oppression go hand in hand. In order for someone to receive a privilege someone has to be oppressed. Peggy explains this with race: "They take both active forms, which we can see, and embedded forms, which as a member of the dominant group’s one is taught not to see. In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth."

Some examples of privilege are:

• I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
• When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
• I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
• I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
• My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.
• I have never had to worry about going hungry or finding a place to sleep at night
• I can or my parents can afford daily living expenses (food, water, electricity, clothes, personal hygiene, shelter, transportation, etc.)
• I can or my parents can afford health insurance
• I can or my parents can afford to send me to a private school, charter school, and/or a university.
• I can access buildings without delays, help, or being handicap accessible
• I can move around freely and perform daily tasks without problems or preventions or help (shower, eat, restroom, etc.)
• I can hold hands in public with the person I care about without stares, remarks, or feeling unsafe
• Religious holidays which I identify with are widely accepted and celebrated as a national holiday (i.e. Christmas)
• Schools and institutions can accommodate me for my religious practices and/or traditions without trouble or hesitation
• I can practice my beliefs without being judged, criticized or continuous attempts to be converted
• I can walk alone at night without fearing for my safety
• I can expect to be paid more then a women who holds the same position as I do
• I can expect my voice to be heard and respected without being called moody, PMSing, or a bitch.
It seems that the existence of advantage is kept strongly silenced in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. This keeps most people unaware that freedom of choice and confident action is there for just specific groups of people. Through discussion and exposure it is possible to identify and understand privilege and oppression. In order to understand the system that produces the disadvantaged, oppressed, and underprivileged, it is important to also know how and who is benefiting from the same system.

Additional information by Peggy McIntosh
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

Read more!

a thinking man's war

Garry Kasparov once famously said that chess is mental torture. And it is. Chess is one of the most intellectually challenging and grueling activities one can engage in, aside from a rousing debate with our friend Eriatlov. The value of chess, however, stems beyond its value as a mere game. Many of the qualities that are necessary for any great chess player to have are also often essential to maintaining a happy and healthy lifestyle in general. As Fischer said, a strong memory, concentration, imagination, and strong will are the most potent weapons in a chess player’s arsenal. In the spirit of competition and mental strength, free cognition introduces its first Amateur Open Chess Tournament. Entry is free and all are welcome to join. You may signup by emailing us or by responding to this thread under the comments section. The tournament will be held on Friday, June 3, at 8:00 PM EST (5:00 PM PST). Be on AIM or MSN ten minutes prior to this time. Click read more for tournament details.


Tournament Details:

The tournament will take place at Yahoo Chess, so make sure you register an account at Yahoo, if you have not done so already. Your Yahoo ID does not have to match the name you are using in the tournament bracket. Each round is a best of three series. Each player plays white once and black once. If the series goes to a third match, you must report to the tournament administrator to determine who play as white (via coin flip). If you are able to come to agreement amongst yourselves, without admin intervention, more power to you. The final round is best of five.

Additionally, each game should be set so that the timer starts at an initial time of two minutes and an increment time of thirty seconds. This means that you begin the match with two minutes each, and thirty seconds is added to your clock with each move that you make. This allows more than enough time to think carefully, while maintaining reasonable time constraints.

Read more!

agnosticism versus atheism

I have heard many staunch atheists call agnostics nothing more than 'weak atheists.' Essentially, an atheist may think himself to be more assertive and bold than an agnostic, and therefore intellectually superior. I wish to call this claim into question. Agnosticism deserves a second, and sincere, look.

What is the difference between atheists and agnostics? The former hold that no godly being, such as the Judeo-Christian god, exists. The latter suspend judgement. Agnostics refuse to declare with certainty that no god exists; however, they may admit the extreme improbability. They may even consider the possibility that a godlike being exists so minute that it is hardly worth considering. In effect, an agnostic is indeed a practical atheist, while remaining a theoretical agnostic.

This suspension of judgment that agnostics adhere to may be looked upon as feeble indecisiveness or a lack of courage to scoot all the way over to the atheist camp. However, before we label agnostics as cowards, it is interesting to make a quick comparison between atheists and Christians.

Atheists claim that they are completely sure that god does not exist. On the reverse, Christians are absolutely certain that god does exist. These are equally dogmatic worldviews. When looked at objectively, there is no conclusive evidence that god does or does not exist. In this sense, an atheist is exactly the same as a Christian!—willing to make irrefutable judgment about something which can not be conclusively proven (at least, at the present time). That being said, a rational man should certainly adhere to the atheistic camp until sufficient evidence provides reason to think otherwise. Practical atheism is the default position. However, a rational man should also be willing to change his views if sufficient evidence for a godlike being's existence is somehow provided. This is where agnosticism becomes rationally useful. Agnostics are practical atheists, but they bring more to the table than just this. They are happy to point out that evidence lends us to the conclusion that no god exists. But, they are also willing to say that theoretically, it is possible, though improbable, that a godlike being does exist. This is a freethinker's stance—the readiness to admit the possibility that one’s views may be wrong.

Bertrand Russell, a practical atheist and theoretical agnostic, knew the value of doubt. Inflexible and rigid belief in any philosophy is to be avoided. Atheism and Christianity are instances of such rigidity. Theoretical agnosticism is a flexible and skeptical approach to this issue, which is anything but weak.

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." Bertrand Russell

Read more!

moral obligation or a lack thereof

Peter Singer is your quintessential utilitarian philosopher. His theories are tightly strung and often controversial. He is willing to defend damn near anything if the net result is an increased amount of happiness for all parties involved—a chip right off the old block, the block being none other than J.S. Mill. Singer makes a very interesting and perhaps radical claim regarding moral responsibility. He asserts that it is our moral duty to help others whenever we are able to do so without significant harm to ourselves. It is not necessarily this exact claim that I wish to address here, instead I would rather get to the root of the issue. Is there such thing as moral obligation? In other words, should certain actions be morally obligatory? We must walk this road, as always, with intense skepticism.

There is an important distinction we must make before we continue, between morally obligatory actions and morally supererogatory actions. The former are actions which are absolutely necessary to maintain moral goodness, and the latter is an action that we consider morally good, but not necessary. For example, we may consider somebody running into a burning building and rescuing a kitten a supererogatory action, because we would certainly think it a benevolent act; however, if the person did not save the kitten, we would not have faulted him for it.

This investigation regards obligatory actions—those which are supposedly necessary—such as those which Singer imposes.

Let us look at the following example.

I am watching television and one of those heartfelt ‘Save a Child’ commercial comes on. Apparently I can support a child for just twenty cents a day, or some comparable figure. Essentially, I can save a life with absolutely no harm to myself. All I have to do is call the number and give my credit card (assume the organization is not full of con artists).

I think we can be quite certain that donating the money is a supererogatory act; however, am I morally obliged to do so? Must I call this number in order to maintain moral goodness? I must honor Pyrrho, and suggest that the answer is no.

While I fervently advocate charity of all types (see On Philanthropy, by Veronika Green), I have a hard time considering charity, or any other action, morally obligatory. I find it difficult to assert that any action is morally necessary or necessary in any way. This seems far too restrictive and arbitrary. We can not impose one man’s moral compass on another man’s.

Subjectivity reigns on high, when objectivity hides its face.

Read more!

mother, father—what is sex?

Sex is mysterious, doubly so for children. We teach our children to read, we teach them to write. We answer their many, many questions about how the world works; however, when it comes to sex, we leave our children in the dark. Questions go unanswered, ultimately leading to an increased curiosity and yearning to reveal the puzzling nature of sex. It is this lack of knowledge that our youngsters are left with regarding sex that causes an infatuation with it. If we were to refuse to answer questions youths have about trains, they would become increasingly fascinated with trains. This is the nature of curiosity. For sex this phenomenon is even more pronounced, because while trains are quite boring, sex is nothing short of intriguing.

There is absolutely no excuse for deceiving children, no matter the topic. We must answer their questions regarding sex openly and honestly. There is no need for any sort of peculiar overtone when speaking with a child about these matters. Speak frankly and thoroughly. A child has not yet been exposed to the notion that sex is somehow “off limits.” If we explain the purpose of the penis and the vagina, as we explain the purpose of books and calculators, neither will be more mysterious than the other. A healthy sex life will arise out of children with this type of clear understanding.

Furthermore, once we begin lying to our youths about sex, they lose faith in our informative reliability on the whole. We must not mislead them about one topic, lest we lose their confidence on a host of other topics as well. They will begin to go elsewhere for information regarding sex or whatever else, in order to satisfy their fascination with issues that are left unexplained.

We should also not deceive our children into believing that monogamous relationships are the only ones that exist. There should be no stories about everyone remaining virgins until their marriage night. These are nothing more than fairy tales on the whole. People are often polygamous and often sexually active outside of marriage. These are trivial truths that need not be hidden. Once again, deception can only lead to distrust and mystification.

Knowledge leads to increased understanding and comfort. Misinformation leads to confusion and a frantic search for a new source of knowledge. Why create this latter situation? I am convinced that the only reason we would mislead our youths about the issue of sex is due to our own immaturity. We are uncomfortable talking about sex despite the alleged maturity adults are supposed to magically acquire by the age of thirty. Children are not uncomfortable when talking about sex—they have not yet sunk to that immaturity level. Let us not allow them to sink that low, and let us satisfy their thirst for knowledge on all subjects.

Read more!

on philanthropy

Philanthropy is commonly defined as “the effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.” More simply, philanthropy is a love of human beings in general. Reflecting on this generalized definition, I have come to realize that this very blog is a philanthropic enterprise. Free Cognition was made with the explicit purpose of spreading ideas and thoughts in order to help people become freethinkers. This is a very philanthropic goal. The question that I am pondering is why did we make this blog? Or, by in large, why does anyone feel compelled to be a philanthropist of any sort? It can be argued that we simply do this to make ourselves feel good (helping others tends to have this effect), or for some other egocentric reason. This may indeed be part of our motivation for philanthropy, but maybe there are other motivators as well.

I recently had a slightly disturbing discussion with your quintessential corporate capitalist, for who green is the only color that matters, and I am not referring to trees. I told him that I think people deserve certain fundamental human rights simply based on the fact that they are people, regardless of supposed public value or fiscal standing. He asked me, completely bewildered, “Why would you care about somebody who is ‘useless’ to society?” He argued that if somebody does not pull their respective weight in society, and thus, are “useless”, then we should not be burdened with providing them basic human needs when they are unable to do so themselves. Apparently, says the American Dream, anyone that wants to be successful can be, and anyone who is not successful, deserves the pangs of poverty. This is an outright lie.

When I speak of fundamental human rights, I am referring to basic needs that people require in order to live relatively full lives, such as education, health care, and more basically, sufficient nutrition. As humans we need these rudimentary provisions in order to live healthily and intelligently. This is an opportunity that we all deserve. What you choose to do with your life is irrelevant. These rights should be yours regardless.

As to the American Dream claim, that I aforementioned, even within the wealth of America is often impossible for some people to defeat the poverty cycle. The economic gap between the rich and the poor is gargantuan, and it is continuously becoming larger. People are in genuine need of help, and the current administration is too busy cutting taxes for persons making over $200,000 to worry about the lowest financial class of Americans. For these reasons, I find it imperative that we pick up the slack where the incompetent government has left the situation unhandled.

Why should we care about those who have very little, if we are among those who have an excess of resources and benefits? I do not propose to psychologically analyze human beings to find a reason for selfless behavior. This would lead to far too much ambiguity. Instead, I want to explain my personal reasons for being philanthropic. My hope is that this may help on a broader scale explain why some people have a desire for philanthropy, whether or not this holds true for the majority of people, I have no idea. I provide the following examples to explain why I feel that we should act philanthropically whenever possible in order to help those in need.

(ex.1) I am walking along the sidewalk and I notice a meager looking child lying on the ground. He is starving. I would feel absolutely compelled, for whatever psychological reasons, to provide some sort of nourishment for this starving child. I would bring him home with me and feed him. I am acting philanthropically

(ex.2) I balance my budget, and I realize that I have some excess money that I can use on superfluous expenses. I come across information revealing that there is a starving child in India, who I can support very cheaply and easily through an intermediary organization. I am not as compelled as I was when the starving child was directly in front of me, why is this? I strongly question this lesser state of compassion simply based on distance away form the individual in need. I must conclude that this lesser state of compassion is merely a result of an irrational tendency to pay attention to things that are near, while mindlessly ignoring that which is far. I should act as I acted in (ex.1), as I should not pay heed to an irrational tendency to ignore events that occur far away.

When I am able to aid another person’s existence, I feel compelled to do so. This is especially true when I am able to do so unscathed. I can not think of a reason not to help others when it is of little cost and effort to myself. Even when the cost or the effort becomes greater, I am hardly discouraged.As I said before, Free Cognition is a philanthropic enterprise. This blog is aimed at provoking insightful discussion that will help people think freely and see things in new and interesting ways. Freethinking is a beautiful, beautiful thing. The ability to pleasantly question things you have long taken for granted is something that should not be undervalued. The more freethinkers that arise in society, the more able society will be to help itself advance and improve as a whole. Freethinkers are able to objectively search for the best courses of action and best scenarios. Freethinkers are not limited by party line or religious affiliation or ethnic background. This is not to say that a freethinker will not enlist himself in a specific political party or religion, instead it means that freethinkers are human beings before any other labels or affiliations. You can not label a freethinker as anything besides just that—a freethinker. And so, our philanthropic goal at Free Cognition is to encourage free thought and healthy skepticism, which are very valuable personal and societal assets.

Read more!

devil's advocate

You are all probably familiar with the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’—a person arguing from a point of view which they do not necessarily consider their own. Where does this peculiar term come from? What is the importance of playing Devil’s Advocate?—why would you argue for a position that you do not even believe in yourself? The answers to these questions are vital for any aspiring freethinker.

A fact of funness (no, not a word, sadly), for those of you interested, is that the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’ originated in the Catholic Church in the 16th century. During the canonization process—the process that one goes through to become a Saint—there is a ‘trial’ of sorts to see if the person is up to snuff. The Devil’s Advocate is essentially a ‘lawyer’ that argues against the canonization of the potential saint, in order to ensure that the person is truly Sainthood material. He makes sure there are no skeletons in the soon-to-be Saint’s closet (a service that the United States Government should look into acquiring, if they can spare any money on nonmilitary operations). Incidentally, late Pope John Paul II did away with the Devil’s Advocate position in the 1980’s, which does indeed explain a lot. Such as the canonization of the Opus Dei cult leader, Josemaría Escrivá—where was his Devil’s Advocate?

We must remember that the Devil’s Advocate is most of the time not really against the canonozation of the Saint prospect. He is most likely all for the person becoming a Saint. He is merely arguing against the person for the sake of argument, so that any unforseen factors will surface. And, as you can tell, this brings us to the commonplace usage of the term.

If a Rawlsian political thinker was to propose to me his view of what government should be, I might take on the persona of a Nozickian political thinker in order to challenge his ideas and prompt him to defend himself against opposition. I am a far cry from a libertarian, so why would I impersonate one in order to have a conversation with the Rawlsian thinker? If I also suscribe to Rawls’ theories, which I tend to, why not just agree with him on the face of the issue, and move on? The reason is, playing Devil’s Advocate is a very valuable asset to any discussion. If I were to become Nozick, in the metaphorical sense, and argue vehemently against the Rawlsian proponent, I would force him to provide sound support for every claim that he makes. In doing so, not only will I have a more full and comprehensive grasp of his political position, but he will also become either more convinced of his views if he is successful in defending them, or disenchanted with them if I am able to be persuasive enough as the Devil’s Advocate. Furtheremore, while I am arguing from Nozick’s point of view (a point of view that I tend to abhor), I gain a better understanding of an opposing point of view. In other words, I am able to walk a couple miles in the shoes of a libertarian. This bolsters my ability to argue against libertarian ideals in future debates. Or, if the libertarian shoes are sufficiently comfortable and stylish, I may decide to join the libertarian ranks.
Playing Devil’s Advocate is an important exercise for all of us as responsible freethinkers and citizens of the world. It allows us to see arguments in a new light. We are better able to objectively understand situations if we are able to adopt other people’s mindsets. I often will play Devil’s Advocate against a person who has similar views as myself, in order to strengthen my own views. I suggest you all take the time to play Devil’s Advocate in a discussion once in a while, to see what it feels like to be on the other side of the couch. Maybe it wont be as bad as you expected, or perhaps it will make your side all the more comfy.

Read more!

the problem of evil and the impossibility of the Christian god

Though I feel as if I could write continuously on this subject for days on end, I will attempt to limit myself to a brief introduction of the issue. I will contest the logical possibility of the standard conception of the Christian god. This is a theological challenge to Christianity, as opposed to a biblical, practical, or historical challenge. I will leave the latter three—quite persuasive—issues for another time for the sake of brevity and clarity. I believe this discussion is pertinent for people of all worldviews and religious affiliations. Without further ado: the problem of evil.

The Judeo-Christian god is often described as the “3-O god”—omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. In laymen’s terms, the 3-O god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. With these characteristics in mind, we look to the world around us for evidence of a god of this nature. One surprising fact should jump out at us: evil exists. “Evil” is quite the ambiguous term, so to classify this statement, I mean things such as pain and suffering do undeniably subsist. Things that we consider dreadful are indeed present in this world. If you have not already noticed, there is a logical predicament afoot. Let us look at the stipulated facts thus far.

• god is omniscient—god knows that evil exists
• god is omnipotent—god has the power to remove evil from the world
• god is omnibenevolent—god wants to remove evil from the world
• yet, evil exists

• Logically, a being that has the properties of the 3-O god cannot exist in a world in which evil exists.
• Therefore, the Judeo-Christian does not exist

This, in short, is the logical proof that the Christian god does not exist.

Theologians have attempted several responses to the problem of evil, which have been dismissed one after another quite simply. To mention a few, some make claims such as evil is merely a means to increased goodness or there really is no evil in the world. Instead of spending time dismantling these claims, I would rather take the time to refute the most popular move theologians make in order to refute the problem of evil: an appeal to the notion of free will.

The claim is evil exists because god gave us free will. The idea behind this is god has instilled all humans with free will, and in order for this to work, humans must be able to choose between good and evil. This is the classic tale of heaven versus hell, god versus Lucifer, and so on. Are you compelled by this argument? Let us look back at the characteristics of the 3-O god to help us understand why an appeal to free will actually fails miserably. Recall that the Christian god is supposedly omnipotent. This means that god is able to do anything. (Note that some theologians stipulate that omnipotence merely means the ability to do anything except contradict logic. However, this does not change anything here, I will explain why in a moment.) So, if god is able to do anything, why can he not give us free will and eliminate evil? Indeed this is perplexing. An omnipotent god that is unable to both give humans free will and eliminate evil?—not quite omnipotence, is it? Therefore, the 3-O god certainly should be able to eliminate evil while still providing humans with the lovely and coveted freedom of the will.

At this point, some may fallaciously argue that giving free will and eliminating evil contradicts logic—and therefore, since “omnipotence” for them means “the ability to do anything except contradict logic” god cannot eliminate evil while still giving humans free will. This is absolutely false. The 3-O god could easily create a world in which free will exists, yet it is intrinsic in human nature to always pick good over evil. In this world, evil only theoretically exists, it does not exist practically. This is not a logical contradiction and this is a world where free will exists and evil does not. Therefore, this last objection does not work either.

Admittedly, in order to avoid verbosity, I have not taken the time to refute every possible argument against the problem of evil. If you think that you have an argument that may potentially work, please feel entirely free to post your objection under the comments section, and I will address your concern promptly.

Read more!

Nozick's experience machine

Robert Nozick, famous American philosopher and former Pellegrino professor of philosophy at Harvard University, is famous for many reasons, one of which is his “experience machine” thought experiment. It will probably strike a familiar cord. Imagine a very mature virtual reality machine. Mature in the sense that it is able to fulfill all of your basic needs as well as provide entertaining virtual experiences. One very interesting feature of this experience machine is that it causes you to completely forget that you are hooked up to a machine at all. In effect, you feel quite like you do right now (presumably)—completely normal. While hooked up to this experience machine, you feel as if you are actually living your life as you always have; walking around campus, having lunch with friends, and engaging in riveting philosophical debate with your colleagues. However, in reality you are immobile, hooked up to the experience machine. Putting aside the possibility that we are all already hooked up to such machines at this very moment (ignore the red pill), let us consider the positive and negative affects this may have on human beings.

We must know a little more about Nozick’s postulation first. Given that this machine is able to create a more pleasant atmosphere for human beings, it is able to increase overall happiness of people that plug into it. The obvious question then becomes should we plug in? Should we opt to escape from what we consider to be reality, and enter into a new, happier, virtual reality?

A utilitarian such as Mill or Bentham would be the first to say, “plug in!” Adhering to classical utilitarian principles, whatever action promotes the most amount of happiness is the action that we should follow. In this case it certainly seems that plugging in will yield the most happiness.

Should we object to this utilitarian decision? Why or why not?

If you have read A Brave New World then the question at hand is quite a familiar one. And the fact of the matter is, technology will probably—sooner rather than later—provide us with a chance to actually make this fascinating decision. What would you choose? What will you choose? Continued existence in what we refer to as “reality” or an altered state of virtual bliss?

Read more!

mentality (part ii): but pain hurts!

There is an old philosopher’s joke that goes something like this. There are two men who are tied up as captives of a third man. The third man, let us call him the torturer, needs information from these two renowned philosophers, and he decides the best way to get the information out of them is by repeatedly hitting them with a large bag of oranges until one of them finally relents. The torturer starts with the smaller of the two men, thinking that he will be easier to break. As you might expect—and if you have ever been beaten repeatedly with a bag of oranges then you know first hand—this hurts! The small man screams and begs for the torturer to stop, but he gives no information away, being well trained in the philosopher’s code of unyielding secrecy to rogue torturers. So, becoming bored with the small man, the torturer turns to the larger man and begins hitting him with the bag of oranges. The small man, being the keen philosopher he is—even in the face of torment—begins to think upon this. “Well,” he thinks aloud, “I am quite certain that the pain you are now feeling, larger man, is very different from the pain that I was feeling moments ago.” The torturer thinks this is amusing, as he is trouncing the larger man just as hard as he trounced the smaller man. “Why would you say such a foolish thing little philosopher?” the torturer asks. The small man answers, “Because, my pain hurts; his pain is funny!” I should have warned you that most philosophy jokes are not really all that funny, unless you are a philosopher, in which case they still are not funny, but you laugh anyways.

The philosophical point that this joke brings to the forefront is that of the subjectivity of pain. How can we know when somebody else is in pain? To answer this, we must first know the answer to the question, what is pain?, and it is this question that we will now explore.

It is difficult to define pain. Pain is, well, painful. Pain hurts. Pain is a sensation that normally causes us to have some aversive reaction. But are these descriptions definitive of pain? In other words, what characteristic is central to what pain is? When most people touch an extremely potent pepper to their tongues, they instantly remove the pepper and proceed to grab a drink. The sensation is “painful”. However, there are some people that genuinely enjoy this same sensation. In this case at least, it seems that the sensation is not what is definitive of pain. Additionally, consider all the different types of pain that we conveniently group together under one term. To take just two of the many types, compare pain from extreme coldness and pain from being cut by a knife. I do not think that anyone who has experienced both of these sensations can in any way assert that these feel similar. But, we label each of these disparate sensational experiences as pain—why? It must be something other than the sensational qualities of these experiences. That is where functionalism comes in.

Functionalists classify pain by examining the functional role that it plays, as opposed to the qualitative aspect of pain, qualia. Basically, pain is that state caused by certain physical inputs, and leads to certain behavioral outputs, such as screaming, or other avoidance techniques and forms of displeasure. This is significant because it entirely removes the qualitative aspect of pain from the definition! This is somewhat counterintuitive.

Philosophers such as David Chalmers are not satisfied with this reductive definition of pain. It is the ouchiness or hurtfulness of pain that makes pain what it is, they adamantly claim. If we are to define pain functionally, then we are in danger of classifying things which are clearly not pain, as pain. For example, if you were to leave the room immediately in a screaming fit every time a certain person comes near you, is this pain? A functionalist definition of pain may indeed consider that it is. This may be difficult to accept.

What is your position on what constitutes pain? Is it the adverse behavioral output that defines pain or is it the sensational experience? Your decision on this matter will become crucial when examining the controversial issue of Artificial Intelligence that we will address in mentality (part iii), so consider your options thoroughly.

Read more!

absurdity & the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Just yesterday The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was released in theaters. As you probably know—if not you are hopelessly missing out—The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a satirical science fiction novel by the witty, and now late, Douglas Adams. Actually, the novel is the first of a five part trilogy. He credits this strange occurrence (a trilogy in five parts) to a “poor grasp of arithmetic.” I went into the film with much anticipation and expectation, but, sadly, I left unimpressed and hardly amused. To understate, the book was far better than the movie. However, the experience was not all bad, because it got me thinking about Douglas Adams and his tendency to exploit the absurd.

“It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes,” Adams said, and I think this is probably a fair statement. Perhaps a few minor problems can be solved with only potatoes, such as, well, I need not extrapolate. However, I think we can agree with near certainty that major problems need more than just a potato arsenal to be reckoned with. Thanks to Mr. Adams, we are able to understand this elusive truth, and many more like it.

A major theme that runs through the works of Adams’ Hitchhiker’s series, as well as his Dirk Gently series is that of absurdity. He sheds light on the ridiculousness and silliness of things we generally regard as normal. In this sense, Adams is very close to a philosopher—one who takes the seemingly ordinary and explores it in new ways.

Adams loved to use his incredible imagination to fill in gaps of science, and he loved to do so in a humorous way—what could be better? In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the entertaining and often foolish characters are on a quest to find the meaning of life. Adams was always making fun of people in search of an ‘objective meaning’ in life that ends up conveniently circling around themselves. He would say that these people need a serious dose of perspective. “There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” The worlds Adams creates in his books are undoubtedly bizarre—but, he might argue, no more bizarre than the world in which we live.

Zaphod Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy, finds himself in a compromising situation, and so searches for some way out. “I’m gonna pray, man!” Beeblebrox exclaims, “Know any good religions?” Religion is often a target of Adams’ satire. Issues such as the creation of the universe take center stage as an area of ridicule. “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”

Politics does not escape Douglas’ watchful eye. “To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”

Technology and the internet interested Adams greatly in his later years of life. He liked to parody both the technology industry and people who use, or misuse, it. Adams put forth a set of rules that “describe our reactions to technologies:”

1. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Remember the infamous Y2K scare that many of the most highly respected technology gurus most feared? You had to expect that Adams would take advantage of this nonsensicality. “There are two things in particular that [the computer industry] failed to foresee: one was the coming of the Internet; the other was the fact that the century would end.”

Adams’s writings resemble famous societal observers such as Jonathon Swift and Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Their combination of humor and reasonable critique makes their work both enjoyable and significant at the same time. Adams, like Swift and Clemens, is able to use his mastery of language and keen sense of rationality to exploit the irrationality of people. Not only is language a tool of exploitation for Adams, but it is also another point of critique. “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happened. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.” Absurdity runs rampant in language.

Humor aside, or humor included, what importance does this theme of absurdity have? Does it have any importance outside of its mere entertainment value? Insofar that it enables us to look at ordinary things in a new light, it is very important, just like philosophy. Moreover, many of Adams’ seemingly absurd claims are only made more hilarious by their possible truth. The fallibility and limited amount of knowledge enable this type of critique.

Do we live in an absurd world? If so, what does this mean?

Read more!

the "grand inquisitor"

In Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, his character, Ivan, tells a story about an extremist dictator named The Grand Inquisitor. The Inquisitor’s explicit goal is to seize control of the government by force and rule the people via a strict totalitarian state. He claims that he can give the people happiness, whereas freedom produces only misery. Another man now bears the title of “grand inquisitor”, and this man is Josef Ratzinger.

Ratzinger, who has recently taken the papal name of Benedict XVI, has earned this controversial title through the open and harsh persecution of liberation theology in Latin America, as well as the denouncement of many liberal Church officials in Europe and the United States. In other words, Ratzinger has become known as an oppressor of any Catholic voices who speak in a faintly provocative tone. Most disturbing though, is Ratzinger’s all too predictable stances against freethinkers, reason, and the Enlightenment.

The new pope follows closely in his predecessor’s footsteps as predicted. Journalist Peter Schwarz affirms that Ratzinger has issued “papal decrees denouncing contraception and abortion, confirming the subordination of women, denouncing stem-cell research, opposing an increased role for laymen in the life of the Church, barring marriage for priests and abhorring same-sex relationships. He went so far as to officially condemn masturbation.” Ratzinger is as repressively conservative as John Paul II, if not more so.

Ratzinger’s decrees against women’s rights are absolutely appalling. In a recent letter written by the pope, he cites Genesis 3:16 as evidence for the righteousness of his bigotry: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Of course, in the Catholic Church this sentiment is commonplace, but elsewhere it is thankfully considered ancient and outrageous.

This is a familiar theme for Ratzinger—his inability to accept modernity. He strangely stands against the development of technology and industry, citing them as obstacles that get in the way of worshipping god. Along with this aversion to progression, the pope stands ardently against science. He has a strong dislike for Enlightenment philosophers, saying that they are “blind to a truth which precedes their reason—the pre-political truth of religion” (Schwarz). This radical opposition to freethinkers and scientists is merely a continuation of the line of prototype popes that Catholicism has become so comfortable employing as their “infallible” leaders.

As long as men like Ratzinger sit on top of a throne of obscene wealth and power, it is important for freethinkers, scientists, and all freedom fighters alike to unite against the gross and disproportionate abuse of power exercised by the papacy.

See the article by Peter Schwarz, here.

Read more!

mentality (part i): functionalism, materialism, and qualia

This is part one of three of an introduction to philosophy of mind, leading up to a discussion on the possibility of Artificial Intelligence, and what implications this may have on the notion of mentality. Questions that we will be exploring and trying to find answers to throughout this three part series include: What are mental states? What is pain? Can the mind be reduced to neuroscience? I warn you ahead of time that no tidy solutions to any of these questions will be presented to you on a silver platter. As is often the case with philosophical investigations, questions will remain unanswered, however it is the search for these answers that leads us to further understanding, as well as the creation of new and important questions.

Before we begin, we must first understand a few basic theories regarding mentality. The traditional view that is commonly attributed to the 17th century philosopher, René Descartes, is known as dualism. A dualist holds that there are two completely separate entities, namely the body and the mind, or the physical and the mental. These “substances” exist independently of each other; however, they do interact on a regular basis. In order to explain this mysterious interaction between the mental and the physical, Descartes affirmed that animal spirits—a substance neither mental nor physical, magically connects the two, and is conveniently located in the pituitary gland. Who knows why this is so; it is a point of humor in the always comedic field of philosophy of mind. Even more humorous though is the general acceptance of Cartesian dualism throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Famous philosophers such as John Locke spoke of animal spirits as if they were a commonplace fact. Only the noble and exceedingly wise David Hume was able to step back from the Cartesian craze and ask his philosophical colleagues, “are you guys insane?” in more or less the same language, but in very much the same sentiment. Outside of philosophical circles, a dualistic worldview is very often held by the ordinary individual. It is very normal to talk about the “body” and “mind” as separate and distinct entities. “The body can not live without the mind,” Morpheus affirms—and we seem to understand what he means by this.

So, what is this mystical notion that we call “the mental”? How does it interact with the physical? It certainly seems as if we have nonphysical thoughts and ideas running through our “minds” all the time, so how can we explain these “mental states”? Dualism runs into problems when it tries to account for mental causation (mental interaction with the physical), and many philosophers have abandoned this ancient notion of mentality. Today, the most commonly held theory by experts in the field is known as functionalism. Functionalism is an account of what mental states actually are. Functionalists hold that mental states are internal states that perform certain functions—specifically producing certain behavioral outputs after receiving various inputs, and determining what resultant internal state the system or brain goes into. In short, mental states are defined by the functional role they play.

I want to focus on a certain type of functionalism known as Psychofunctionalism. This theory uses the same fundamental ideas of functionalism, but instead of being based in some sort of folk psychology, Psychofunctionalism is rooted in a very mature neuroscience. Paul Churchland, the current professor of University of California San Diego is a staunch Psychofunctionalist. He asserts that “the mental” is merely an illusion—everything boils down to neuroscience. This type of view is commonly known as an eliminative materialist—or, he wants to reduce mentality to a materialistic worldview via neuroscience. Intuitively, some of us may have a problem with this type of worldview—and perhaps rightly so. Many argue against this view claiming that neuroscience misses something key about human beings, namely qualia or experiential sensations. How can an eliminative materialist account for the “ouchiness of pain” or the “sadness of depression”? We like to think that these are the types of sensations that are only knowable through actually experiencing them—quite contrary to the notion that neuroscience can explain all there is to know about mentality. Do you think that an attempt to reduce everything to physicalism could be successful? We will address these types of questions and more in the next two parts of this series, leading up to the question, “is Artificial Intelligence possible?”

Read more!

ad hominem uses and abuses

When you think of an argument, or let us say a quarrel, what comes to mind? Logically speaking, such terms as syllogism, validity, or soundness may immediately pop up; however, when the typical man or woman hears the words ‘argument’ or ‘dispute’ they most likely immediately think of an irrational exchange of insults or the uncontrollable rising of emotion leading to unfortunate outcomes. I certainly do not wish to advocate thinking about arguments in this fashion, but it is interesting that this laymen’s definition may indeed have more accuracy than one might think in important and public matters. My aim is to exploit ad hominem abuses, while maintaining that there is room for acceptable uses for the ad hominem argument. Generalized use of fallacious arguments of this kind poses a significant threat to the emergence and acceptance of rational thought in important issues such as politics and religion.

An argument ad hominem is a logical fallacy that pertains to replying to an argument via criticizing the arguer as opposed to the argument itself. In logical terms:

• A claims B
• A is not credible for some reason
• B is false

For example, if I were to claim, “Life supervenes logic” and Fallacious Freddy retorts, “Life does not supervene logic because you are a complete lunatic” then our friend Fallacious Freddy (pardon alliteration) is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. This seems somewhat obvious on the face of it, but still it is quite commonly used. This is used in informal ‘arguments’ all the time. “You don’t have much experience in this area so you must be wrong” is a typical form of the ad hominem fallacy used in everyday situations. Though it is important to allow expert opinion to carry more weight than a non-expert’s opinion, this does not excuse an expert from providing logical proof for any claims they make.

Think politics for a moment. Presidential debates. Is there a single claim made that is not an ad hominem accusation? “Mr. Bush is wrong about taxes because he only cares about the wealthy” or “Mr. Kerry is wrong about the Iraq war issue because he does not know what it is like to be President” could have been claims made by either candidate during debates—and these types of sentiments yielded positive results from their respective support camps. Moreover, what were the voters saying about the candidates? “Mr. Kerry is completely wrong about abortion because he isn’t a good Christian” or “Mr. Bush can’t even speak properly! How could he be right about anything?” were probably typical claims made around election time. It is quite clear that these claims are completely spurious; however, these types of shameless accusations almost certainly influenced a good majority of the public. This brings up an interesting question—are these fallacious arguments uses or abuses of the ad hominem fallacy? Logically, they are blatant abuses of syllogistic principles and reason, but otherwise they are quite effective uses of emotional appeal. When it comes to politics, specifically influencing the public, anything goes, as long as the desired effect is achieved. This we already know, so is the frequent use (or abuse) and effectiveness of the ad hominem fallacy a testament to political deterioration, political deceptiveness, public stupidity, or a combination of all three?

Inverted ad hominem is also quite prominent and equally as bogus. It is quite often an appeal to authority or power. In logical form:

• A claims B
• A is a figure of immense power or authority
• B is true

Parents often use fallacious arguments of this sort when attempting to control their children. “I am right because I said so,” says the domineering parent. The Inverted ad hominem fallacy often leads to circularity, or begging the question. If you ask a religious man why the teachings of his religion are correct, he often replies with an appeal to the authority of his god or scripture, which is of course completely circular—you can not prove your religion’s truth value by appealing to its truth value. Though this is completely absurd, it is commonplace. To what can we attribute the seemingly popular prominence of these crazy and illogical methods of argument? Perhaps we can blame it on ignorance or an unwillingness to think beyond standard public outlooks.

There is a valid form of the ad hominem argument pointed out by John Locke. We are able “to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.” In other words, it is permissable to point out inconsistencies between principles and conclusions formed supposedly from those principles. If a military commander from the United States was to claim that the United States military provides the best combat training in the world, and subsequently send a number of his trainees to train in Japan, he would be guilty of a perplexing inconsistency.

Another interesting use of the ad hominem argument is in a court of law. A witness’s credibility may become an important point of dispute, because her personal credibility reflects her ability to make accurate claims. A witness who is proven to be a pathalogical liar would not be able to enter any accusations into official testimony.

When evaluating arguments, the ad hominem fallacy is important to keep in mind. It is crucial that we rise above petty insults and irrelevant assertions that are merely used to take our attention off the issue at hand. As individuals if we are able to look past all sorts of logically illegal argument ad hominem uses and abuses, we are going to be better prepared to consider arguments reasonably and calmly.

Read more!

pyrrhonism

There is an old story, once commonly told, about a young man named Pyrrho. Pyrrho held that a person can never truly know if one action is wiser than another. No matter how lucid a situation seemed, Pyrrho refused to admit that he knew the best course of action to take. One day Pyrrho was walking along the road on his way to his philosophy seminar, when he saw his philosophy professor stuck in a ditch on the side of the road. The professor called out, “Pyrrho, my good lad, would you kindly come hither and assist me out of this ditch? I am unfortunately unable to move.” Pyrrho was quite found of this man, as he was the professor who had taught Pyrrho the philosophy he valued so highly. Pyrrho thought for a moment, yet he could not conclusively decide that it would be better to help the professor out of the ditch, rather than leave him there. Pyrrho walked on, leaving the man helpless. Later that day, a couple other philosophy students came upon their poor professor. Of course, the young men helped him out immediately, wasting no time to even consider any other course of action. Many people thought Pyrrho despicable for his callousness; however, the professor was quite pleased. He praised Pyrrho’s consistency.

Pyrrho is the founder of Pyrrhonism, which in philosophical circles today has become much better known as Skepticism. So, what is the value of Pyrronhism? Should we suspend judgement for the simple reason that it may not be the perfect choice? If so, to what extent?

Read more!

a meditation on violence

note: freecog contributor, Eriatlov, has composed a counterargument to this post, located under comments.

I recently touched upon the issue of violence, its justifications (or lack thereof), and its consequences. But I want to delve deeper. I do not believe that violence can be easily justified. Furthermore, I am not convinced that it can be justified at all. I hope that the majority of moral and even pseudo moral persons can agree that we must, we absolutely must, set an extremely high standard of justification for violence. I can not stress the importance of this enough. This is accentuated by my reluctance to accept any justification at all. Let us step back for a moment and investigate the implications that violence actually has on people.

Violence liberates. Chaotic and bloody revolutions have set the oppressed free from their oppressors. France experienced such in 1789, Haiti in 1791, America in 1775. It is true that freedom can be gained through violence. I have even heard that "violence is necessary" to achieve freedom, but I have not heard why this is so. Rather, I have not heard sufficient reason why this is so. First, I hear that violence is necessary because there is no other way. Immediately I am confused. No other way to do what? What is the goal here? Ah, freedom. Ah, justice. Apparently, it has been overwhelmingly evident to numerous groups throughout history (and today) that there was (and is) no other way to achieve freedom and justice other than through vicious murder and destruction. And let us be clear here, “violence” is a term that entails such things as murder, widespread destruction, suffering, and pain. As to freedom fighters, I sympathize. As to so-called deliverers of justice, I am horrified. How, I ask, is it possible that violence can lead to justice? Is not violence itself an injustice? I want this to be clear, so allow me to qualify my claim. I can understand the desire to use violence by the oppressed or abused. However, it is still unjustified. There is an important difference here, and it is not to be overlooked. Yes, we understand the oppressed lashing out in violent rage. But, is it justified? No.

The 20th century brought the world some unimaginably gruesome events. The very notion of a “world war” is disturbing to the point of nausea. However, the 20th century also brought us some inspiring people and ideas. Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated to the world that peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience is a live option for revolutionaries in search of freedom. I am continually moved by the work of this man. His notion of a civil resistor is very different from what many other revolutionaries before him had envisioned.

The Duty of a Civil Resistor, according to Mahatma Gandhi:

• A satyagrahi, i.e., a civil resister, will harbor no anger.
• He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
• In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.

“When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom.” You most likely recognize the sentiment of Malcolm X. Invigorating words, certainly, but what does this type of thought actually represent? He’s famous for another saying, “by any means necessary,” and this is exactly what a peaceful world should fear. I do not wish to weigh the importance of freedom on one hand and the importance of peace on the other. Instead, I want to consider what type of action is permissible under doctrine similar to that of Malcolm X. The killing of one man is certainly tolerable. The killing of ten, fifteen, or five hundred is similarly an acceptable “price to pay” for freedom. I am not specifying whether these people are civilians or not, so how about civilians? How about bombing an urban city in order to protect freedom?—ring any bells? The Japanese hear them. Is genocide acceptable? At the very least, these questions are worth careful consideration.

I used the common terminology “price to pay” in the previous paragraph in order to point out just how despicable this type of thinking is. In order to tolerate a “by any means necessary” theory, you must think of people as commodities. You must think of people as a means to an end, as objects of utility. Is that what we are? Are people merely a means to some end? Even if the end is as noble as freedom, I refuse to accept the inhumane premise.

Read more!

shout, loudly

Today, like every day, is an important day for freethinkers to shout, loudly. There is a very unfortunate, yet all too familiar, phenomenon lurking its way onto the political scene. Blind violence. If there is one distinct thing freethinkers are to fight against, it is this. The worst of two worlds unite to create unnecessary dillema and undeserved suffering. Blindness; a sad trademark of those who are unwilling to open their minds to new possibility, despite beneficial ends. Violence; horrific and chaotic action taken without justification. Wars are fought because of such sentiment: false justification of blind violence. When the leader of a nation uses god as an excuse to massacre innocent victims, freethinkers are the people who must shout, loudly.

It is a strange animal, violence. Recently it has come to my attention that more people than I had previously expected condone the use of violence when it is “absolutely necessary.” Gene sharp, a follower of nonviolent activists such as Einstein, Russell, and Gandhi, published 198 methods of nonviolent action, including my personal favorite very effective—method, lysistratic nonaction (women refusing to take part in sexual acts until men yield to their demands). You can find the 198 methods, here.

Read more!

ruthless criticism

"But if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at, and in the sense of being just a little afraid of conflict with the powers that be."
-Marx, in letter written to Arnold Ruge, 1843.

Read more!