Let's have a dialogue about one of the solutions offered two posts back:
Eliminate all languages except one.
Here's how this will work: If you disagree with this notion, write a single sentence in the comments which sums up why it's flawed. I will then write a single sentence in reply, possibly in the form of a question, and we will continue this way until we either both agree or one of us gives up.
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Education reform
Scenario 1
1. Bobby is a date rapist, because he has left behind evidence and the testimonies of several women.
2. Bobby should be slowly tortured to death for being a date rapist.
3. Billy is a date rapist, because he has the same awkward smile and messy hair as Bobby. All people who have awkward smiles and messy hair are date rapists.
4. Billy should be slowly tortured to death for having an awkward smile and messy hair -- and, thus, being a date rapist.
Statement 1 sounds plausible. The rest do not follow from it, however.
Scenario 2
1. Bobby is a loser, because he makes no attempts to improve society and instead consumes cannabis on a daily basis while never bothering to look for a job.
2. Bobby should be mocked and ridiculed rather than offered opportunities, a proper education/discussion, and some intrinsic motivation to improve society -- either via a renewed sense of empathy or because he directly benefits from doing so, or both.
3. Billy is a loser, because he, like Bobby, believes that capitalism is one of the evils of man. Billy has a job in the face of this and is strongly interested in matters not concerning himself, however.
4. Billy should be mocked and ridiculed rather than offered opportunities, a proper education/discussion, and some intrinsic motivation to improve society -- either via a renewed sense of empathy or because he directly benefits from doing so, or both.
This scenario is not as severe or starkly violent as the former, but the same pitfalls are present.
So, are you going to be like the people in both scenarios who chastise Billy and Bobby, regardless of Billy or Bobby's crimes against humanity, or are you willing to offer them new opportunities? Are you willing to extend your hand in an effort to persuade them and improve not only their own lives, but the lives of those around them?
If so -- and if you have previously voiced disapproval of my vision to improve the education system -- then please provide a real critique of it in the comments. Thanks!
[Regardless of whether you think that any of the above is a bunch of crackpot babbling, wouldn't you rather see enumerated problems like these in a college course concerning ethics and philosophy than crap about epistemological nominalism and Foucault? If mathematics can be about exercise and practice, then so can philosophy and ethics.]
1. Bobby is a date rapist, because he has left behind evidence and the testimonies of several women.
2. Bobby should be slowly tortured to death for being a date rapist.
3. Billy is a date rapist, because he has the same awkward smile and messy hair as Bobby. All people who have awkward smiles and messy hair are date rapists.
4. Billy should be slowly tortured to death for having an awkward smile and messy hair -- and, thus, being a date rapist.
Statement 1 sounds plausible. The rest do not follow from it, however.
Scenario 2
1. Bobby is a loser, because he makes no attempts to improve society and instead consumes cannabis on a daily basis while never bothering to look for a job.
2. Bobby should be mocked and ridiculed rather than offered opportunities, a proper education/discussion, and some intrinsic motivation to improve society -- either via a renewed sense of empathy or because he directly benefits from doing so, or both.
3. Billy is a loser, because he, like Bobby, believes that capitalism is one of the evils of man. Billy has a job in the face of this and is strongly interested in matters not concerning himself, however.
4. Billy should be mocked and ridiculed rather than offered opportunities, a proper education/discussion, and some intrinsic motivation to improve society -- either via a renewed sense of empathy or because he directly benefits from doing so, or both.
This scenario is not as severe or starkly violent as the former, but the same pitfalls are present.
So, are you going to be like the people in both scenarios who chastise Billy and Bobby, regardless of Billy or Bobby's crimes against humanity, or are you willing to offer them new opportunities? Are you willing to extend your hand in an effort to persuade them and improve not only their own lives, but the lives of those around them?
If so -- and if you have previously voiced disapproval of my vision to improve the education system -- then please provide a real critique of it in the comments. Thanks!
[Regardless of whether you think that any of the above is a bunch of crackpot babbling, wouldn't you rather see enumerated problems like these in a college course concerning ethics and philosophy than crap about epistemological nominalism and Foucault? If mathematics can be about exercise and practice, then so can philosophy and ethics.]
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
How to make intellectual progress 101
1. Leave fear of new ideas -- the cause of most knee-jerk reactions -- out of any formulation of premises and conclusions; do not foam at the mouth.
2. Express hope that the person whose ideas you're critiquing will come around to seeing things your way.
3. Express awareness of the possibility that you are in error, and that the person whose ideas you're critiquing may be able to provide you with a learning experience.
Failing to adhere to even one of these three will eventually lead to your species fighting wars with itself.
Class dismissed.
2. Express hope that the person whose ideas you're critiquing will come around to seeing things your way.
3. Express awareness of the possibility that you are in error, and that the person whose ideas you're critiquing may be able to provide you with a learning experience.
Failing to adhere to even one of these three will eventually lead to your species fighting wars with itself.
Class dismissed.
James Randi Educational Foundation: Take 2
More convenient strawmen and haughty disdain, this time on page 2:
Posted by Sophronius:
From dictionary.com:
em·pa·thy
[em-puh-thee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2.
the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.
Empathy means to live vicariously through someone else, to truly feel or imagine what it must be like to be them, temporarily. If we were to attempt this for all beings to have ever felt anything, we'd fail miserably; nevertheless, the welfare of billions of beings is important -- something that we can ascertain via logic.
Empathy and sympathy completely block any attempts to fix problems, and in fact are part of "the problem," for they cause selfishness. When we identify with those like ourselves, it feels good, but it has no rational basis, and so is entirely founded on emotion.
Examples:
I'm a cripple, so when someone picks on cripples, I empathize; I get upset. However, when someone picks on an obese person, perhaps I laugh, because I'm not obese myself, and, for one reason or another, lack the ability to put myself into the shoes of the obese person.
Because I'm black, I sympathize with victims of slavery. Because I'm female, I sympathize with female rape victims. Because I'm obese, I sympathize with those who attempt to spread awareness of heart disease.
We shouldn't be limited by what we've been conditioned to be capable of empathizing with. I can't cry when I hear that a bunch of people died last night in a tornado, so if I rely on empathy alone, I'll not rationally concern myself with the event, or the fact that such events happen outside of my personal life. If I feel something for someone who's experienced a tragedy, I'm going to neglect those for whom I feel nothing who've also experienced tragedies -- especially if I'm presented with a choice between these two options, and need to make a decision per the law of opportunity cost. Is this fair? Is this unbiased?
Strawman. I stated that we fabricate excuses for why life needs to exist in the first place -- not for why life is valuable. Furthermore, I'm in favor of the idea that SENTIENT life is valuable; plants and bacteria can be tortured for hours for all I care.
How difficult is it to understand that something can be precious, even in spite of its lack of functionality or purpose (and thus, need to be continued on the production line)? When you perform a mercy killing on your pet, does the fact that you don't believe that it should continue to exist negate the fact that you find its life valuable?
Completely disagree. The general goal of valuing things as a phenomenon sprung from natural selection seems to be to perpetuate genes at the individual level -- not to value life itself. Members of early human tribes were no different from members of chimpanzee troupes or lion packs in their valuing of those genotypes most closely resembling their own -- and, thus, the individual genes whose goals were to perpetuate themselves feverishly and for no good reason.
Very few humans value "life" as a concept nowadays, anyway; they value their own lives, their own personal satisfaction, their nations, and the lives of those closest to them. If you mean to say that humans value their own lives, well, the fact that people are addicted to their various desires does not make those desires functional, imbued with purpose, or somehow objectively worth perpetuating.
Valuing life requires intellectual effort -- at the expense of one's genetically motivated inclinations to scorn all life but that which is reminiscent of oneself. This is evident all throughout the animal kingdom; dogs do not value life, but their own self-satisfaction.
This is silly. When baby birds starve to death in the absence of super important humans capable of deeming such a thing negative, is it somehow less unpleasant for the baby birds? Negative is not only a concept, but a sensation. Does the fact that we've contrived the concept of sex change the fact that animals have sex?
There is no such thing as a positive derived out of thin air; all "positives" are contrived from states of deprivation. I distinguish between the two merely because the former isn't physically possible.
That's precisely the point, isn't it? If emotions can lead to nasty consequences, then adding more emotions to the pile is going to make things nastier than they already are.
What you're saying is akin to stating that cancer wouldn't be so bad if we were biologically like plants instead of animals. Isn't that an obvious inference?
And what point would that be? Can you justify genocide? Short of Jesus and heaven, you're going to have a tough time finding something to put on the other end of the scale that balances everything out. Are you sure that you're not as religious as the fish in a barrel that you like to shoot so often?
1. Suffering is bad.
2. Human existence leads to suffering, so there's certainly something bad about human existence. Whether human existence will ultimately lead to less suffering or a discovery of some metric of value far greater than what we're currently using is hard to say.
3. Even if, hypothetically, all of human existence were a bad idea, wouldn't it be productive to do something about that bad idea? You're framing "productivity" as some kind of linear initiative where positive quantities continuously increase, which is an extremely limited approach to productivity -- a word which always needs context in the first place.
Newness is a terrible thing to value by itself. The Nazis were new for a time.
Posted by I Am The Scum
I think I'm going to start using this kind of rhetoric in my research papers. I wonder if my grade will go up or down if I start the first paragraph of a paper on nuclear fusion by referring to it as "really horrible and stuff." Hmmm.
2+2=4 does not require empathy; it requires logic. Understanding evolution does not require empathy; it requires empirical observation, from which logic is eventually derived by logic agents. Computers can understand these things.
Empathy is an emotional response to an imagined scenario; see above for its official definition. Empathy requires sentience -- a central nervous system designed for sight, touch, smell, hearing, taste, or some combination of these. A computer does not require a central nervous system in order to understand that 2+2=4, or that circles are round, or that things that don't feel good don't feel good (or that some organisms don't want certain sensations).
What?
Huh? Have you read any of this blog?
Posted by Sophronius:
I disagree that empathy is a bias. I have always considered empathy to be a source of information: By allowing us to sympathize with others, we gain a better understanding of them. It would be much harder to predict someone's behaviour without empathy, I think.
From dictionary.com:
em·pa·thy
[em-puh-thee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2.
the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.
Empathy means to live vicariously through someone else, to truly feel or imagine what it must be like to be them, temporarily. If we were to attempt this for all beings to have ever felt anything, we'd fail miserably; nevertheless, the welfare of billions of beings is important -- something that we can ascertain via logic.
Empathy and sympathy completely block any attempts to fix problems, and in fact are part of "the problem," for they cause selfishness. When we identify with those like ourselves, it feels good, but it has no rational basis, and so is entirely founded on emotion.
Examples:
I'm a cripple, so when someone picks on cripples, I empathize; I get upset. However, when someone picks on an obese person, perhaps I laugh, because I'm not obese myself, and, for one reason or another, lack the ability to put myself into the shoes of the obese person.
Because I'm black, I sympathize with victims of slavery. Because I'm female, I sympathize with female rape victims. Because I'm obese, I sympathize with those who attempt to spread awareness of heart disease.
We shouldn't be limited by what we've been conditioned to be capable of empathizing with. I can't cry when I hear that a bunch of people died last night in a tornado, so if I rely on empathy alone, I'll not rationally concern myself with the event, or the fact that such events happen outside of my personal life. If I feel something for someone who's experienced a tragedy, I'm going to neglect those for whom I feel nothing who've also experienced tragedies -- especially if I'm presented with a choice between these two options, and need to make a decision per the law of opportunity cost. Is this fair? Is this unbiased?
Well, he seems to make an error in the first paragraph when he claims that we consider life intrinsically valuable due to having gotten "emotionally attached" to our ego.
Strawman. I stated that we fabricate excuses for why life needs to exist in the first place -- not for why life is valuable. Furthermore, I'm in favor of the idea that SENTIENT life is valuable; plants and bacteria can be tortured for hours for all I care.
How difficult is it to understand that something can be precious, even in spite of its lack of functionality or purpose (and thus, need to be continued on the production line)? When you perform a mercy killing on your pet, does the fact that you don't believe that it should continue to exist negate the fact that you find its life valuable?
The explanation for us valuing life seems the logical result of natural selection, and as such is intrinsic to our nature. But eh, minor point.
Completely disagree. The general goal of valuing things as a phenomenon sprung from natural selection seems to be to perpetuate genes at the individual level -- not to value life itself. Members of early human tribes were no different from members of chimpanzee troupes or lion packs in their valuing of those genotypes most closely resembling their own -- and, thus, the individual genes whose goals were to perpetuate themselves feverishly and for no good reason.
Very few humans value "life" as a concept nowadays, anyway; they value their own lives, their own personal satisfaction, their nations, and the lives of those closest to them. If you mean to say that humans value their own lives, well, the fact that people are addicted to their various desires does not make those desires functional, imbued with purpose, or somehow objectively worth perpetuating.
Valuing life requires intellectual effort -- at the expense of one's genetically motivated inclinations to scorn all life but that which is reminiscent of oneself. This is evident all throughout the animal kingdom; dogs do not value life, but their own self-satisfaction.
It's a bit odd that he suggests that life is the cause of everything negative in existence, or that "the world might be better off without you". Negative is a human concept and wouldn't exist without sapient creatures to experience it.
This is silly. When baby birds starve to death in the absence of super important humans capable of deeming such a thing negative, is it somehow less unpleasant for the baby birds? Negative is not only a concept, but a sensation. Does the fact that we've contrived the concept of sex change the fact that animals have sex?
It also doesn't make much sense that he distinguishes between creating a positive and ending a negative, since the net effect is the same.
There is no such thing as a positive derived out of thin air; all "positives" are contrived from states of deprivation. I distinguish between the two merely because the former isn't physically possible.
He then claims that having emotions is dangerous. He backs this up by citing things like genocide, which would not occur if humans had no emotions. Even if true, this completely ignores the fact that we consider genocide bad because of our emotions.
That's precisely the point, isn't it? If emotions can lead to nasty consequences, then adding more emotions to the pile is going to make things nastier than they already are.
What you're saying is akin to stating that cancer wouldn't be so bad if we were biologically like plants instead of animals. Isn't that an obvious inference?
We'd also have no genocide if there were no humans, but that is kind of missing the point.
And what point would that be? Can you justify genocide? Short of Jesus and heaven, you're going to have a tough time finding something to put on the other end of the scale that balances everything out. Are you sure that you're not as religious as the fish in a barrel that you like to shoot so often?
He actually does seem to argue that human existence is bad at some points... while simultaneously praising productivity as if it's our highest goal.
1. Suffering is bad.
2. Human existence leads to suffering, so there's certainly something bad about human existence. Whether human existence will ultimately lead to less suffering or a discovery of some metric of value far greater than what we're currently using is hard to say.
3. Even if, hypothetically, all of human existence were a bad idea, wouldn't it be productive to do something about that bad idea? You're framing "productivity" as some kind of linear initiative where positive quantities continuously increase, which is an extremely limited approach to productivity -- a word which always needs context in the first place.
He is right, however, that people will have children even when this is a bad idea (natural selection at work again), but that's nothing new.
Newness is a terrible thing to value by itself. The Nazis were new for a time.
Posted by I Am The Scum
You really need to stop reading this blog. It's absolutely terrible.
I think I'm going to start using this kind of rhetoric in my research papers. I wonder if my grade will go up or down if I start the first paragraph of a paper on nuclear fusion by referring to it as "really horrible and stuff." Hmmm.
In his computer example, he mentions that a computer would have an understanding of how others feel, and lack empathy. That's what empathy is.
2+2=4 does not require empathy; it requires logic. Understanding evolution does not require empathy; it requires empirical observation, from which logic is eventually derived by logic agents. Computers can understand these things.
Empathy is an emotional response to an imagined scenario; see above for its official definition. Empathy requires sentience -- a central nervous system designed for sight, touch, smell, hearing, taste, or some combination of these. A computer does not require a central nervous system in order to understand that 2+2=4, or that circles are round, or that things that don't feel good don't feel good (or that some organisms don't want certain sensations).
We should stop trying to make things better...
What?
We should stop trying to solve problems...
Huh? Have you read any of this blog?
Monday, May 23, 2011
Morality is a subtype of logic
A thread courteously started by an anonymous reader over at the James Randi Educational Foundation: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=209087
I'm a fan of this forum, first and foremost. It's a good place for skeptics to congregate.
Secondly, I love stuff like this, and hope that more of it happens in the future.
Exhibit A: http://nobadmemes.blogspot.com/2010/12/logical-vs-moral.html
Exhibit B: http://nobadmemes.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-logic-and-morality-once-more.html
Posted by Vortigern99 in the thread:
Clarification:
1. All personal moralities should conform to scientific standards and principles, as all facets of reality stem from or are themselves empirical phenomena; nothing is exempt from this -- not even whether you should be allowed to kill people for fun!
2. "Suffering is bad," while true, isn't the whole story. Value equations are the rest of it; see here.
3. However, there is a profound difference between "Suffering is bad" and "An action which causes suffering is bad." If causing harm in a particular instance negates a greater amount of harm elsewhere, then the potential action -- that is, the action that reduces suffering while in the process causing it to some degree -- is logically "good," while the harm itself is obviously still intrinsically bad in the same sense that circles are round.
4. Whether morality is an "objective" matter is beside the point of the original posts. Regardless of the status of morality as an empirically verifiable tool, it is valid; it's just that its scope is so narrow as to miss the vast majority of that which is "bad" in the universe. Humans are the only entities that we're currently aware of that are capable of being immoral; volcanoes, earthquakes, lions, and the AIDS virus may not be immoral beings, but they cause "bad" -- as far as we can tell.
Posted by mike3 in the thread:
"Morality" is in quotes in my original passage because I meant the word "morality" -- not the practice of framing things in moral terms. We should ask whether it's logical to rape women for fun -- not whether it's moral. Are both questions basically the same? Yes, but the latter causes us to focus on the human element of the bad parts of the universe, which isn't nearly a fundamental enough focus. I'm merely requesting that the human species update its vocabulary and broaden the scope of its ideals.
P.S.: It's more like asking if it's possible to replace a banana with a piece of fruit.
I'm a fan of this forum, first and foremost. It's a good place for skeptics to congregate.
Secondly, I love stuff like this, and hope that more of it happens in the future.
Exhibit A: http://nobadmemes.blogspot.com/2010/12/logical-vs-moral.html
Exhibit B: http://nobadmemes.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-logic-and-morality-once-more.html
Posted by Vortigern99 in the thread:
The OP and thread question strike me as a false dilemma and a nonsense question. The two concepts, morality and logic, are not mutually exclusive so there is no compunction to choose one to "replace" the other.
You might as well ask, "Is it possible to replace a banana with a game of Monopoly?" It's nonsensical.
Clarification:
1. All personal moralities should conform to scientific standards and principles, as all facets of reality stem from or are themselves empirical phenomena; nothing is exempt from this -- not even whether you should be allowed to kill people for fun!
2. "Suffering is bad," while true, isn't the whole story. Value equations are the rest of it; see here.
3. However, there is a profound difference between "Suffering is bad" and "An action which causes suffering is bad." If causing harm in a particular instance negates a greater amount of harm elsewhere, then the potential action -- that is, the action that reduces suffering while in the process causing it to some degree -- is logically "good," while the harm itself is obviously still intrinsically bad in the same sense that circles are round.
4. Whether morality is an "objective" matter is beside the point of the original posts. Regardless of the status of morality as an empirically verifiable tool, it is valid; it's just that its scope is so narrow as to miss the vast majority of that which is "bad" in the universe. Humans are the only entities that we're currently aware of that are capable of being immoral; volcanoes, earthquakes, lions, and the AIDS virus may not be immoral beings, but they cause "bad" -- as far as we can tell.
Posted by mike3 in the thread:
...they seem to be saying we should toss out "morality" ("remove it from our philosophy"), leaving, apparently, only "logic". Does the false-dilemma response apply here?
"Morality" is in quotes in my original passage because I meant the word "morality" -- not the practice of framing things in moral terms. We should ask whether it's logical to rape women for fun -- not whether it's moral. Are both questions basically the same? Yes, but the latter causes us to focus on the human element of the bad parts of the universe, which isn't nearly a fundamental enough focus. I'm merely requesting that the human species update its vocabulary and broaden the scope of its ideals.
P.S.: It's more like asking if it's possible to replace a banana with a piece of fruit.
Monday, March 28, 2011
The importance of free education and reforming general education
The free nature of Wikipedia and YouTube demonstrates a potential direction for education -- if we're smart enough to allow it to happen. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's relevance criteria for articles is based on the argument from popularity (the American Idol/democracy argument), while YouTube is a for-profit website owned by scummy capitalists in league with advertisers devoid of real values; both are interested in pleasing people en masse, either as a symbol of some arbitrary image, or to make massive amounts of money at the expense of everyone else. Never mind the issues with inheriting wealth, allowing profit-generating entities to have owners (or to NOT be owned by everyone), the lack of alternative service providers, or using symbols in the place of hard, empirical observation; that all sucks, but what this post will be about is how such incentives and lack of regulation will keep us retarded for decades, if not centuries, to come.
Let's put it this way: You don't have to pay for an ISP in order to gain Internet access (try a library, school, or other academic location), so if you can read free articles and watch free vlogs that are of higher value than the average, hugely expensive college lecture, then someone better realize the potential that's currently being wasted and pull a Napster for education. Knowing who Napoleon replaced when he came to power or how to factor trinomials makes no sense in the context of the modern person's highly technicized existence, so why are we continuing to teach people such functionally useless nonsense? Do we really get off on artificially conjuring up value in order to give our society the false appearance of being interesting and productive? What about all the stuff that's out there in the real world that actually matters?
Furthermore, now that, thankfully, the music and film industries are dying* (and the porn industry†, believe it or not), I think it's time that the same started happening to the education industry. Let's not pretend that it isn't an industry, either, because that's exactly what it is. Remember when I said that it makes no sense for the average person to learn about Napoleon and complex math? Well, it does make sense -- for the banks and academic institutions administering all the tests, texts, and other materials. Firstly, yes, there are some colleges that are for-profit (I go to one), and secondly, regardless of motive, it's nevertheless still the case that millions of dollars get wasted every year on producing and using crap that not only could be learned by browsing Wikipedia in far less time, but is also totally irrelevant to anyone's ability to:
1. Treat people properly or behave in a competent manner within a social environment
2. Produce things that actually improve society's overall quality by removing or reducing negative impediments
The monetary incentive aside, colleges are still usually interested in upholding an image, which is a symbolic gesture that, in this case, has positive social consequences for the colleges, but hurts both the minds and wallets of those used to this end. Offering needlessly complex math and history courses in order to show off your "standards of quality" and "reputation" is no different from a woman showing off how "graceful" and "respectable" she is by wearing dresses. So all you feminists out there who advocate the slutification of your culture as a means to "realizing gender equality" or some such silliness, drop your personal predilection for the one symbolic standard that hurts your cause and start promoting free education -- for the betterment of all!
Alright, facetious rundown over. Three points:
1. In the future, if we're all going to be streaming movies from hulu.com and downloading mp3s, we might as well take our "online" classes for free as well; it's more efficient than the alternatives, and the technology is already available (even if everyone is too interested in music videos and online shopping to care).
2. If we're doing all education online and for free, then we might as well choose "courses" -- or even individual lectures -- ourselves, and leave out the authoritative administrators altogether. If you want to fix toilets for a living, find a free online service provider who specializes in providing information and examinations for that stuff, then read up on it, participate in the discussions, do your real-life practice lessons, and take a few (hopefully not too memorization-based) tests. This will allow you to earn a certification for your desired skill set without all of the wasted resources and bureaucracy.
3. Even though general education in the modern sense sucks, there should still be a foundational set of ideas that gets taught to everyone at a young age, regardless of what they go on to pursue later in life.
If we as a society ever become interested in this direction, in order to make sure that 3. is established as a societal baseline, we'll first need to scrap the following:
1. Psychology - especially Freudian psychology (if your textbook admits that a concept that it's bringing forth is no longer accepted even by modern psychiatrists, you know you're holding a waste of trees in your hands), but all psychology, really, as it focuses on the individual rather than the environment, doesn't involve empirical observation and testing, and contrives arbitrary "disorders" where almost all people have at least some of the qualifications, even if they don't have enough to qualify for "treatment"
2. Math - Keep arithmetic and times tables, but get rid of trigonometry, geometry, calculus, etc.
3. History - I don't need to know about King Hammurabi or the Boxer Rebellion in order to fix your computer
4. Creative writing - Most fiction writers never go to college for writing, and the few who do often don't get anything out of it. Being graded for such a subjective activity is really silly, anyway.
5. Arbitrary guidelines for research papers - It doesn't matter whether your student indented twice or only once for his block quotation, so stop throwing a fit about it and do something meaningful with your credentials for once
6. Political Science - This is just "Spend hundreds of dollars to listen to the news in person 101"
7. Sex Ed
8. Phys Ed
9. "Philosophy" - This is just "Spend hundreds of dollars to have someone give you a list of their favorite philosophers while refusing to in any way indicate that one might have better ideas than the others, or that other not-so-famous people probably have the same ideas... 101"
10. Music
11. Art
12. Any other liberal arts courses
13. Creation "science" and Intelligent Design
14. The pledge of allegiance
15. Prayer
16. Grades - Either you're good enough to do it in real life or you're not -- no arbitrary, base-10 nonsense necessary.
After we've scrapped all the junk, we'll need to teach the following to all young people before they go on to pursue an occupational field, regardless of what they become interested in learning about later on:
1. Arithmetic
2. English
3. Logic
4. Philosophy (the real kind -- not the "all ideas are equal and memorizing the names of famous people is more important than thinking coherently" kind)
5. Meta-cognition
6. Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy)
7. Computer Science (or at least basic computer competency and troubleshooting skills)
8. Statistics
9. Economics
Obviously, anyone who wants to specialize in something will be able to go more in-depth in some of the above areas than what the general requirement entails; additionally, they'll be able to take entirely separate courses for the purpose of acquiring the above mentioned certifications. However, when it comes to what is a requirement, there are certain skills and concepts that should be stressed.
Specific things that everyone should be taught at a young age:
1. How to formulate logical premises and conclusions; logical fallacies and why they're fallacies; how to construct a logic flowchart; what things like non sequiturs are
2. The ever-present possibility of being in error, or of being deceived by one's senses
3. A methodology for living, including methods for how to manage processes, formulate values, and accomplish goals; an understanding of why something is more valuable than something else, or at least appears to be based on sensory information; an understanding of how to determine what to do in various situations and how to make decisions based on opportunity cost, value equations, etc.; how to isolate variables for problem-solving; how to perceive the world as an integrated system dictated by cause-and-effect, relations, input, processing, and output that can be infinitely broken down into subsystems
4. Waste management, which expands upon 3., but is a bit more specific
5. How to conduct an experiment (of the thought variety of otherwise); how the scientific method works; why peer review is important; the differences between dependent variables, independent variables, and controls
6. How to spot any kind of prejudice, bias, superstition, fear/attachment, emotionally-made decisions, or religious thinking (regardless of whether it applies to what people refer to as "religion")
7. The nature of pleasure as a termination of deprivation
8. The arbitrary nature of most criteria in all areas of life, including deadlines, work hours, and weekends. For example, there is no scientific evidence in favor of the idea that working eight hours a day is more effective than working seven or nine, or somehow optimal. In any case, the ubiquity of the arbitrary criteria phenomenon needs to be stressed at a young age.
9. The arbitrary nature of the self; why a peer of yours who is very similar to you ideologically is more "you" than your seven-year-old self; why memory is the only neurological component that prevents individual sentient organisms from realizing that they're the same, in substance, as all other sentient organisms; why your pain and someone else's pain are substantively equivalent in the same way that one chunk of iron and another chunk of iron are substantively equivalent; how chemicals enter and leave the body, and what they do during metabolic activities; why living organisms are sort-of-open systems, complete with processors, memory, storage devices, buses, input devices, output devices, system software, etc.
10. Statistics; how to collect a sample; how to deduce probability outcomes; the significance of sample size; how to calculate odds; how to interpret odds (to avoid wishful thinking, etc.). Note: If 3. and 8. are properly taught, then the idea of percentages will not be taken seriously, even if percentages will still be used on occasion (or maybe not, depending).
11. Attachment avoidance - for death, life, work, loved ones, ideas, beliefs, isms, and material possessions. I'm not sure if I'd take it as far as meditation and related practices, but there should definitely be an emphasis on preparing for the inevitable decay of the "fun" things around you, as well as how to maintain a productive psychology in the absence of fulfilled desires.
12. How to use a personal computer; how to use a mouse and keyboard; how to navigate the Windows operating system; how to keep your PC free from malware, security threats, and performance problems; how to upgrade your PC. Note that this doesn't need to be incredibly comprehensive or technical; it just needs to allow the general population to be computer literate. This deserves far more attention in school than dinosaurs or Pilgrims. Sorry.
13. The different spheres of influence on the individual, and how to recognize them in everyday life. For example, the media wants you to stop smoking not because it's the only thing (or the most painful thing, or the first thing) that can kill you, but because there's plenty of money to be made in ineffective products advertised as being capable of helping you to quit. It's unlikely that lung cancer will be less pleasant for you than the average cancer; likewise, it's likely that you'll live almost as long as you would have had you never started smoking. Besides, quality is more important than quantity, which is always absurdly tiny when weighed against eternity. Oh, and all that marijuana that you think "isn't a drug, man"? Yeah, no one has gotten lung cancer from it yet because your grandparents didn't consume it in massive quantities every day for years. In a nutshell: Do you hold a fairly popular belief or presumption? If yes, then odds are good that someone is making money off of your gullibility.
14. The flaws inherent in the English language and why, despite our needing conventions in order to effectively communicate, most of the rules of English are totally arbitrary and meaningless. For example, synonyms are often superfluous, and capitalization was only necessary in times of hard-to-read Gothic script devoid of paragraphs.
15. What the Bible actually says; comparisons between modern values and ancient Semitic values to demonstrate the huge contrast between the two; emphasis on the barbarism of the Old Testament and why it makes sense in the context of a pastoral people with few resources; emphasis on the previously henotheistic nature of proto-Judaism; how religions, like languages and species, share common ancestors and are related to one another, in spite of the commonly held view that they are spontaneously generated
16. The differences between harmful radiation and harmless radiation (wavelengths, frequencies, photons and electrons, etc.). Honestly, people being afraid of ghosts and Satan is bad enough in 2011. Do they really need to be afraid of cell phones and microwaves, too?
17. Maybe a LITTLE bit of drawing technique or music theory as part of a larger course on something else, just to demonstrate why no one should make millions of dollars by painting portraits of women without eyebrows or by singing songs about love
18. How slaughtering livestock actually works; why meat is just a preference and not a basic human need; how much money and resources could be saved by feeding grain to all of the starving people on the planet as opposed to the pigs and cows on your burgers, which don't need to exist in the first place
Updated 6/2/11: 19. First aid; a mild amount of medical knowledge
Doing all of the above will only be possible in an environment where everyone with innovative ideas is allowed to start his own organization or website and subsequently generate publicity for his efforts; it won't be possible in an environment run by corporations, and it certainly won't be possible in the current academic environment. We must, to the best of our abilities, separate not only education but all forms of human conditioning from money-making; if we don't, we'll never promote proper skill acquisition or social understanding and competency, and courses will continue to waste resources and brain space in the meantime.
Why doesn't anyone talk about this stuff? Well, the majority of people are not in school, so they don't care, because it doesn't affect them -- at least not directly. If more people would stop treating education as either some compartmentalized facet of existence that "just happens" or a pathway to corporate enslavement, then maybe it would be easier for them to see just why our inability to raise children properly leads to war, world hunger, and any other huge, generic problem in the world.
Feel free to add onto one or more of the above lists in the comments section if you have any additional ideas. I'm always looking for more.
_________________________________________________
* This is the place where I'm supposed to link you to articles proving that I'm right, but I don't feel like Googling for the obvious.
† Apparently, because so much porn is available for free all over the Internet, producers are struggling to stay in business. I find this kind of amusing for some reason.
Let's put it this way: You don't have to pay for an ISP in order to gain Internet access (try a library, school, or other academic location), so if you can read free articles and watch free vlogs that are of higher value than the average, hugely expensive college lecture, then someone better realize the potential that's currently being wasted and pull a Napster for education. Knowing who Napoleon replaced when he came to power or how to factor trinomials makes no sense in the context of the modern person's highly technicized existence, so why are we continuing to teach people such functionally useless nonsense? Do we really get off on artificially conjuring up value in order to give our society the false appearance of being interesting and productive? What about all the stuff that's out there in the real world that actually matters?
Furthermore, now that, thankfully, the music and film industries are dying* (and the porn industry†, believe it or not), I think it's time that the same started happening to the education industry. Let's not pretend that it isn't an industry, either, because that's exactly what it is. Remember when I said that it makes no sense for the average person to learn about Napoleon and complex math? Well, it does make sense -- for the banks and academic institutions administering all the tests, texts, and other materials. Firstly, yes, there are some colleges that are for-profit (I go to one), and secondly, regardless of motive, it's nevertheless still the case that millions of dollars get wasted every year on producing and using crap that not only could be learned by browsing Wikipedia in far less time, but is also totally irrelevant to anyone's ability to:
1. Treat people properly or behave in a competent manner within a social environment
2. Produce things that actually improve society's overall quality by removing or reducing negative impediments
The monetary incentive aside, colleges are still usually interested in upholding an image, which is a symbolic gesture that, in this case, has positive social consequences for the colleges, but hurts both the minds and wallets of those used to this end. Offering needlessly complex math and history courses in order to show off your "standards of quality" and "reputation" is no different from a woman showing off how "graceful" and "respectable" she is by wearing dresses. So all you feminists out there who advocate the slutification of your culture as a means to "realizing gender equality" or some such silliness, drop your personal predilection for the one symbolic standard that hurts your cause and start promoting free education -- for the betterment of all!
Alright, facetious rundown over. Three points:
1. In the future, if we're all going to be streaming movies from hulu.com and downloading mp3s, we might as well take our "online" classes for free as well; it's more efficient than the alternatives, and the technology is already available (even if everyone is too interested in music videos and online shopping to care).
2. If we're doing all education online and for free, then we might as well choose "courses" -- or even individual lectures -- ourselves, and leave out the authoritative administrators altogether. If you want to fix toilets for a living, find a free online service provider who specializes in providing information and examinations for that stuff, then read up on it, participate in the discussions, do your real-life practice lessons, and take a few (hopefully not too memorization-based) tests. This will allow you to earn a certification for your desired skill set without all of the wasted resources and bureaucracy.
3. Even though general education in the modern sense sucks, there should still be a foundational set of ideas that gets taught to everyone at a young age, regardless of what they go on to pursue later in life.
If we as a society ever become interested in this direction, in order to make sure that 3. is established as a societal baseline, we'll first need to scrap the following:
1. Psychology - especially Freudian psychology (if your textbook admits that a concept that it's bringing forth is no longer accepted even by modern psychiatrists, you know you're holding a waste of trees in your hands), but all psychology, really, as it focuses on the individual rather than the environment, doesn't involve empirical observation and testing, and contrives arbitrary "disorders" where almost all people have at least some of the qualifications, even if they don't have enough to qualify for "treatment"
2. Math - Keep arithmetic and times tables, but get rid of trigonometry, geometry, calculus, etc.
3. History - I don't need to know about King Hammurabi or the Boxer Rebellion in order to fix your computer
4. Creative writing - Most fiction writers never go to college for writing, and the few who do often don't get anything out of it. Being graded for such a subjective activity is really silly, anyway.
5. Arbitrary guidelines for research papers - It doesn't matter whether your student indented twice or only once for his block quotation, so stop throwing a fit about it and do something meaningful with your credentials for once
6. Political Science - This is just "Spend hundreds of dollars to listen to the news in person 101"
7. Sex Ed
8. Phys Ed
9. "Philosophy" - This is just "Spend hundreds of dollars to have someone give you a list of their favorite philosophers while refusing to in any way indicate that one might have better ideas than the others, or that other not-so-famous people probably have the same ideas... 101"
10. Music
11. Art
12. Any other liberal arts courses
13. Creation "science" and Intelligent Design
14. The pledge of allegiance
15. Prayer
16. Grades - Either you're good enough to do it in real life or you're not -- no arbitrary, base-10 nonsense necessary.
After we've scrapped all the junk, we'll need to teach the following to all young people before they go on to pursue an occupational field, regardless of what they become interested in learning about later on:
1. Arithmetic
2. English
3. Logic
4. Philosophy (the real kind -- not the "all ideas are equal and memorizing the names of famous people is more important than thinking coherently" kind)
5. Meta-cognition
6. Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy)
7. Computer Science (or at least basic computer competency and troubleshooting skills)
8. Statistics
9. Economics
Obviously, anyone who wants to specialize in something will be able to go more in-depth in some of the above areas than what the general requirement entails; additionally, they'll be able to take entirely separate courses for the purpose of acquiring the above mentioned certifications. However, when it comes to what is a requirement, there are certain skills and concepts that should be stressed.
Specific things that everyone should be taught at a young age:
1. How to formulate logical premises and conclusions; logical fallacies and why they're fallacies; how to construct a logic flowchart; what things like non sequiturs are
2. The ever-present possibility of being in error, or of being deceived by one's senses
3. A methodology for living, including methods for how to manage processes, formulate values, and accomplish goals; an understanding of why something is more valuable than something else, or at least appears to be based on sensory information; an understanding of how to determine what to do in various situations and how to make decisions based on opportunity cost, value equations, etc.; how to isolate variables for problem-solving; how to perceive the world as an integrated system dictated by cause-and-effect, relations, input, processing, and output that can be infinitely broken down into subsystems
4. Waste management, which expands upon 3., but is a bit more specific
5. How to conduct an experiment (of the thought variety of otherwise); how the scientific method works; why peer review is important; the differences between dependent variables, independent variables, and controls
6. How to spot any kind of prejudice, bias, superstition, fear/attachment, emotionally-made decisions, or religious thinking (regardless of whether it applies to what people refer to as "religion")
7. The nature of pleasure as a termination of deprivation
8. The arbitrary nature of most criteria in all areas of life, including deadlines, work hours, and weekends. For example, there is no scientific evidence in favor of the idea that working eight hours a day is more effective than working seven or nine, or somehow optimal. In any case, the ubiquity of the arbitrary criteria phenomenon needs to be stressed at a young age.
9. The arbitrary nature of the self; why a peer of yours who is very similar to you ideologically is more "you" than your seven-year-old self; why memory is the only neurological component that prevents individual sentient organisms from realizing that they're the same, in substance, as all other sentient organisms; why your pain and someone else's pain are substantively equivalent in the same way that one chunk of iron and another chunk of iron are substantively equivalent; how chemicals enter and leave the body, and what they do during metabolic activities; why living organisms are sort-of-open systems, complete with processors, memory, storage devices, buses, input devices, output devices, system software, etc.
10. Statistics; how to collect a sample; how to deduce probability outcomes; the significance of sample size; how to calculate odds; how to interpret odds (to avoid wishful thinking, etc.). Note: If 3. and 8. are properly taught, then the idea of percentages will not be taken seriously, even if percentages will still be used on occasion (or maybe not, depending).
11. Attachment avoidance - for death, life, work, loved ones, ideas, beliefs, isms, and material possessions. I'm not sure if I'd take it as far as meditation and related practices, but there should definitely be an emphasis on preparing for the inevitable decay of the "fun" things around you, as well as how to maintain a productive psychology in the absence of fulfilled desires.
12. How to use a personal computer; how to use a mouse and keyboard; how to navigate the Windows operating system; how to keep your PC free from malware, security threats, and performance problems; how to upgrade your PC. Note that this doesn't need to be incredibly comprehensive or technical; it just needs to allow the general population to be computer literate. This deserves far more attention in school than dinosaurs or Pilgrims. Sorry.
13. The different spheres of influence on the individual, and how to recognize them in everyday life. For example, the media wants you to stop smoking not because it's the only thing (or the most painful thing, or the first thing) that can kill you, but because there's plenty of money to be made in ineffective products advertised as being capable of helping you to quit. It's unlikely that lung cancer will be less pleasant for you than the average cancer; likewise, it's likely that you'll live almost as long as you would have had you never started smoking. Besides, quality is more important than quantity, which is always absurdly tiny when weighed against eternity. Oh, and all that marijuana that you think "isn't a drug, man"? Yeah, no one has gotten lung cancer from it yet because your grandparents didn't consume it in massive quantities every day for years. In a nutshell: Do you hold a fairly popular belief or presumption? If yes, then odds are good that someone is making money off of your gullibility.
14. The flaws inherent in the English language and why, despite our needing conventions in order to effectively communicate, most of the rules of English are totally arbitrary and meaningless. For example, synonyms are often superfluous, and capitalization was only necessary in times of hard-to-read Gothic script devoid of paragraphs.
15. What the Bible actually says; comparisons between modern values and ancient Semitic values to demonstrate the huge contrast between the two; emphasis on the barbarism of the Old Testament and why it makes sense in the context of a pastoral people with few resources; emphasis on the previously henotheistic nature of proto-Judaism; how religions, like languages and species, share common ancestors and are related to one another, in spite of the commonly held view that they are spontaneously generated
16. The differences between harmful radiation and harmless radiation (wavelengths, frequencies, photons and electrons, etc.). Honestly, people being afraid of ghosts and Satan is bad enough in 2011. Do they really need to be afraid of cell phones and microwaves, too?
17. Maybe a LITTLE bit of drawing technique or music theory as part of a larger course on something else, just to demonstrate why no one should make millions of dollars by painting portraits of women without eyebrows or by singing songs about love
18. How slaughtering livestock actually works; why meat is just a preference and not a basic human need; how much money and resources could be saved by feeding grain to all of the starving people on the planet as opposed to the pigs and cows on your burgers, which don't need to exist in the first place
Updated 6/2/11: 19. First aid; a mild amount of medical knowledge
Doing all of the above will only be possible in an environment where everyone with innovative ideas is allowed to start his own organization or website and subsequently generate publicity for his efforts; it won't be possible in an environment run by corporations, and it certainly won't be possible in the current academic environment. We must, to the best of our abilities, separate not only education but all forms of human conditioning from money-making; if we don't, we'll never promote proper skill acquisition or social understanding and competency, and courses will continue to waste resources and brain space in the meantime.
Why doesn't anyone talk about this stuff? Well, the majority of people are not in school, so they don't care, because it doesn't affect them -- at least not directly. If more people would stop treating education as either some compartmentalized facet of existence that "just happens" or a pathway to corporate enslavement, then maybe it would be easier for them to see just why our inability to raise children properly leads to war, world hunger, and any other huge, generic problem in the world.
Feel free to add onto one or more of the above lists in the comments section if you have any additional ideas. I'm always looking for more.
_________________________________________________
* This is the place where I'm supposed to link you to articles proving that I'm right, but I don't feel like Googling for the obvious.
† Apparently, because so much porn is available for free all over the Internet, producers are struggling to stay in business. I find this kind of amusing for some reason.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Argument against conventional humanistic morality: Take 2
In my last post, I illustrated why logical actions should be pursued with earnestness by everyone, regardless of the actions' pertinence to the realm of human morality. There is a second reason to broaden one's scope of decision-making indicators, however: the potential for non-human agents to cause harm to themselves, to other non-human agents, and to human agents.
No one frames nature in moral terms, but we can tell when something like the AIDS virus is negative. You can't put the AIDS virus in jail, but it's still bad.
Can you put an earthquake in jail? No, because, while bad, earthquakes are not immoral activities, or entities perpetrating immoral activities.
Morality only takes us so far; logic, in the most general sense that we can fathom, currently takes us farthest -- even if this is ultimately a relative statement.
No one frames nature in moral terms, but we can tell when something like the AIDS virus is negative. You can't put the AIDS virus in jail, but it's still bad.
Can you put an earthquake in jail? No, because, while bad, earthquakes are not immoral activities, or entities perpetrating immoral activities.
Morality only takes us so far; logic, in the most general sense that we can fathom, currently takes us farthest -- even if this is ultimately a relative statement.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
On logic and morality once more
I've sort of gone over this before, but here's the basic premise: We should strive to take actions which appear logical,* regardless of to which arbitrary realms of agent interaction they belong. I've devised an extremely simplistic way of looking at this here. Consider the following two statements:
1. Mass murder is acceptable.
2. 2+2=5
As noted previously, there is no such thing as mathematical data uncoupled from empirical observation; there have to be empirically observable objects which can be added or subtracted in order for arithmetic to even exist.
So, then, is there a difference between the above statements? Consider their inverses:
1. It's wrong to commit mass murder.
2. 2+2=4
Do you agree with 1.? Do you agree with 2.? Great, so what's the problem, and why are we placing one in a different category from the other?
And technically, no, I can't "prove" that either statement is true, contrary to what some mathematicians and scientists might allege. With this limitation in mind, if I were to use the logic of most people, I'd have to declare 2+2=4 a "subjective opinion" in the same sense that that term gets applied to things like morality. This is where the pragmatic element comes into play: we have to make decisions. Period.
Note, however, that I bring this up not just to demonstrate that all truth claims should be measured by the same metrics, but also to elucidate my take on what's worth promoting. It's a statement both to those who view suffering as too subjective a phenomenon to care about addressing, and to those who are gung ho about ending suffering, but who are coming at things from a "moral" perspective, which probably isn't fundamental enough. If we want to end suffering, we can't just teach people that it's not a good thing; we have to make them into logic machines for any kind of situation.
* In this context, "logical" refers to any action which appears more logical than all competitors, thus relegating the competitors to being "illogical," given that none of them were or will be opted for.
1. Mass murder is acceptable.
2. 2+2=5
As noted previously, there is no such thing as mathematical data uncoupled from empirical observation; there have to be empirically observable objects which can be added or subtracted in order for arithmetic to even exist.
So, then, is there a difference between the above statements? Consider their inverses:
1. It's wrong to commit mass murder.
2. 2+2=4
Do you agree with 1.? Do you agree with 2.? Great, so what's the problem, and why are we placing one in a different category from the other?
And technically, no, I can't "prove" that either statement is true, contrary to what some mathematicians and scientists might allege. With this limitation in mind, if I were to use the logic of most people, I'd have to declare 2+2=4 a "subjective opinion" in the same sense that that term gets applied to things like morality. This is where the pragmatic element comes into play: we have to make decisions. Period.
Note, however, that I bring this up not just to demonstrate that all truth claims should be measured by the same metrics, but also to elucidate my take on what's worth promoting. It's a statement both to those who view suffering as too subjective a phenomenon to care about addressing, and to those who are gung ho about ending suffering, but who are coming at things from a "moral" perspective, which probably isn't fundamental enough. If we want to end suffering, we can't just teach people that it's not a good thing; we have to make them into logic machines for any kind of situation.
* In this context, "logical" refers to any action which appears more logical than all competitors, thus relegating the competitors to being "illogical," given that none of them were or will be opted for.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Aphorism: Nature
I've said it here before, but I might as well reiterate with an aphorism: If you don't pick sexual partners based entirely* on looks, then you shouldn't choose Mother Nature based entirely on hers.
Also, you can think that she beats you because she loves you all that you want, but that shouldn't stop someone from calling the cops when one of your domestic battles gets out of hand.
* I think that all sexual partners are ultimately chosen for more or less superficial reasons -- physical or otherwise -- but that's beside the point of the metaphor.
Also, you can think that she beats you because she loves you all that you want, but that shouldn't stop someone from calling the cops when one of your domestic battles gets out of hand.
* I think that all sexual partners are ultimately chosen for more or less superficial reasons -- physical or otherwise -- but that's beside the point of the metaphor.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Facts about the not-so-average person living in Western society
1. They often move seamlessly from government positions to high-paying corporate ones and back again, with no one asking any questions.
2. Very few of them wind up in their positions as a result of smart business ideas or luck. Most are where they are thanks to connections, cronyism, and inheritance.
3. They don't know what they're doing, even if it may seem as though they're part of some conspiring global hegemony. No one does anything to stop them not because of some brilliant conspiracy, but because the public also benefits from their profiteering, and are too selfish to give up their materialistic lifestyles to even out the global distribution of wealth.
4. Most of what they do is perfectly legal.
5. Their primary tactic is to install corporate strongholds in impoverished countries under the veneer of "helping" them, then force them to either repay the huge debts that they accrue or start exporting their most valuable resources in astronomical amounts. Over time, this parasitic relationship leads to increased levels of violence and poverty within the dependent countries, all to the benefit of contractors, bankers, et al.
6. They've set up the United States such that practically everything of material value that exists there comes from overseas, meaning that the rest of the world has been exploited and crippled to this end.
7. They've killed off all ideologies that have traditionally been associated with the elite (Christianity, for example), and have consequently transitioned from being ideologues to pure profit-seekers.
8. They use the electoral college to provide a layer of abstraction between "the people" and themselves, just in case someone from outside the bipartisan divide gains popularity.
9. Almost none of them is elected by anyone, as most of them are CEOs and their associates. Given that corporations influence politicians to an incredible degree, and control almost all of the world's resources, more of us should be deeply concerned that no one elects businessmen into "office." Furthermore, most of us work for them for the majority of our days -- and thus, lives -- so the choice between one kind of President and another is a facade which distracts from our inability to vote for those who actually influence our lives.
10. They possess no technical knowledge whatsoever, and have consequently never built or designed anything in their lives. Who was the last President to advertise his former success as an architect, engineer, systems designer, programmer, surgeon, or nuclear physicist?
11. They have to lie in order to do their jobs -- to prospective customers in an effort to downplay competitors' advantages, by defending the obviously guilty in courtrooms, etc.
12. They design things to not last. The quicker that something breaks, the quicker that a profit can be turned when a consumer inevitably purchases a replacement. This practice is known as planned obsolescence, and it isn't illegal.
13. They provide us with the illusion of power by giving us a choice between two virtually identical candidates in the realm of Presidential politics -- long after they've chosen the candidates without our involvement. Before the DNC and RNC, where do the prospective Presidential candidates come from? Why is it that we've usually never heard of the choices forced upon us until they're being suggested as candidates at the last minute? Furthermore, what wars, laws, or stimulus packages do we vote for? Why do the elite make those decisions for us?
14. They create money out of thin air based on government bonds, which are themselves created out of thin air. This process is further compounded by fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to create even more money out of thin air based on the reserve requirement. Finally, interest rates are applied such that the amount of money owed by borrowers always exceeds the actual sum total of money extant in the economy, with most of that money (as a result of the fractional reserve banking mentioned above) existing only in digital form.
15. They're going to die. No amount of money, yachts, or mansions can make morphine a stronger anesthetic against bone cancer, and the more terminal illnesses evaded over the years, the more likely that a given person will contract a similarly painful form of cancer in the end.
2. Very few of them wind up in their positions as a result of smart business ideas or luck. Most are where they are thanks to connections, cronyism, and inheritance.
3. They don't know what they're doing, even if it may seem as though they're part of some conspiring global hegemony. No one does anything to stop them not because of some brilliant conspiracy, but because the public also benefits from their profiteering, and are too selfish to give up their materialistic lifestyles to even out the global distribution of wealth.
4. Most of what they do is perfectly legal.
5. Their primary tactic is to install corporate strongholds in impoverished countries under the veneer of "helping" them, then force them to either repay the huge debts that they accrue or start exporting their most valuable resources in astronomical amounts. Over time, this parasitic relationship leads to increased levels of violence and poverty within the dependent countries, all to the benefit of contractors, bankers, et al.
6. They've set up the United States such that practically everything of material value that exists there comes from overseas, meaning that the rest of the world has been exploited and crippled to this end.
7. They've killed off all ideologies that have traditionally been associated with the elite (Christianity, for example), and have consequently transitioned from being ideologues to pure profit-seekers.
8. They use the electoral college to provide a layer of abstraction between "the people" and themselves, just in case someone from outside the bipartisan divide gains popularity.
9. Almost none of them is elected by anyone, as most of them are CEOs and their associates. Given that corporations influence politicians to an incredible degree, and control almost all of the world's resources, more of us should be deeply concerned that no one elects businessmen into "office." Furthermore, most of us work for them for the majority of our days -- and thus, lives -- so the choice between one kind of President and another is a facade which distracts from our inability to vote for those who actually influence our lives.
10. They possess no technical knowledge whatsoever, and have consequently never built or designed anything in their lives. Who was the last President to advertise his former success as an architect, engineer, systems designer, programmer, surgeon, or nuclear physicist?
11. They have to lie in order to do their jobs -- to prospective customers in an effort to downplay competitors' advantages, by defending the obviously guilty in courtrooms, etc.
12. They design things to not last. The quicker that something breaks, the quicker that a profit can be turned when a consumer inevitably purchases a replacement. This practice is known as planned obsolescence, and it isn't illegal.
13. They provide us with the illusion of power by giving us a choice between two virtually identical candidates in the realm of Presidential politics -- long after they've chosen the candidates without our involvement. Before the DNC and RNC, where do the prospective Presidential candidates come from? Why is it that we've usually never heard of the choices forced upon us until they're being suggested as candidates at the last minute? Furthermore, what wars, laws, or stimulus packages do we vote for? Why do the elite make those decisions for us?
14. They create money out of thin air based on government bonds, which are themselves created out of thin air. This process is further compounded by fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to create even more money out of thin air based on the reserve requirement. Finally, interest rates are applied such that the amount of money owed by borrowers always exceeds the actual sum total of money extant in the economy, with most of that money (as a result of the fractional reserve banking mentioned above) existing only in digital form.
15. They're going to die. No amount of money, yachts, or mansions can make morphine a stronger anesthetic against bone cancer, and the more terminal illnesses evaded over the years, the more likely that a given person will contract a similarly painful form of cancer in the end.
Facts about the average person living in Western society
1. They get divorced around half the time that they get married. If you believe in the meme of relationships and are currently in one, flip a coin; if heads, you and your partner will stay together; if tails, you won't.
2. They invest an absurd amount of time and energy into future events which they perceive to be building blocks for the ideal life. Often, this time and energy is proven a waste when a divorce, death, etc. with a high probability of occurring actually does occur.
3. They believe that the next idealized object of desire that they obtain will make them happy, even though this has never happened for anything to have ever lived, and there will inevitably be more such idealized objects for them long after the present ones have been obtained.
4. They're each about eight thousand dollars in credit card debt, to say nothing of the debt accrued as a result of loans from banks. Compound this with the fact that 19% or more of the original amount of the debt is repaid in interest over absurd periods of time.
5. When receiving loans or government aid, they waste it on cars, boats, televisions, and other luxury items, none of which helps their financial situations.
6. They complain about the price of gas, but drive to all kinds of unfulfilling, boring, and frivolous places of entertainment, thus wasting far more gas than they need to.
7. They complain about the wars that the government fights overseas, but when made aware that it is precisely these wars that permit them to use cheap gas, they don't mind looking the other way as innocent people die.
8. Almost all of them have to resort to drugs -- or alcohol, at the least -- to cope with the stresses of life. When a person refuses an alcoholic drink, he is often met with scorn, ridicule, or at least bemusement.
9. They all claim to not have the time to change the world, write books, start a blog, etc. -- because of work, school, children, etc. -- but seem to have plenty of time to watch sports, go to bars, and update Facebook pages.
10. When arguing or presenting information on a given topic, they are extremely confident in their certainty of holding the right position. Credentials, experience, and omniscience are not important to them, no matter how many millions of people are made aware of their suppositions. If they weren't there when it happened or didn't go to school to learn about the topic, it doesn't matter to them -- they are amazing and wise. Always.
11. Their lives are not as good as they think they are. A third of them is spent asleep; another third is spent enduring passive aggression, inhumanly fast work, and performance reports; the last third is spent feeling hungry, horny, lonely, thirsty, curious, depressed, anticipatory, or the need to go to the bathroom -- with the obtained goal of each of those drives lasting as few as several seconds, in some cases. Ever meditate? If not, try it; you'll become aware of just how uncomfortable you really are, both mentally and physically, throughout your day.
12. Nearly one hundred percent of them has had the flu, a stomach virus, or has experienced some form of vomiting or diarrhea at least once in their lives.
13. Almost all of them will lose loved ones, and may feel absolutely devastated as a result.
14. They're all going to die, and even the "religious" ones don't really believe in Heaven anymore.
2. They invest an absurd amount of time and energy into future events which they perceive to be building blocks for the ideal life. Often, this time and energy is proven a waste when a divorce, death, etc. with a high probability of occurring actually does occur.
3. They believe that the next idealized object of desire that they obtain will make them happy, even though this has never happened for anything to have ever lived, and there will inevitably be more such idealized objects for them long after the present ones have been obtained.
4. They're each about eight thousand dollars in credit card debt, to say nothing of the debt accrued as a result of loans from banks. Compound this with the fact that 19% or more of the original amount of the debt is repaid in interest over absurd periods of time.
5. When receiving loans or government aid, they waste it on cars, boats, televisions, and other luxury items, none of which helps their financial situations.
6. They complain about the price of gas, but drive to all kinds of unfulfilling, boring, and frivolous places of entertainment, thus wasting far more gas than they need to.
7. They complain about the wars that the government fights overseas, but when made aware that it is precisely these wars that permit them to use cheap gas, they don't mind looking the other way as innocent people die.
8. Almost all of them have to resort to drugs -- or alcohol, at the least -- to cope with the stresses of life. When a person refuses an alcoholic drink, he is often met with scorn, ridicule, or at least bemusement.
9. They all claim to not have the time to change the world, write books, start a blog, etc. -- because of work, school, children, etc. -- but seem to have plenty of time to watch sports, go to bars, and update Facebook pages.
10. When arguing or presenting information on a given topic, they are extremely confident in their certainty of holding the right position. Credentials, experience, and omniscience are not important to them, no matter how many millions of people are made aware of their suppositions. If they weren't there when it happened or didn't go to school to learn about the topic, it doesn't matter to them -- they are amazing and wise. Always.
11. Their lives are not as good as they think they are. A third of them is spent asleep; another third is spent enduring passive aggression, inhumanly fast work, and performance reports; the last third is spent feeling hungry, horny, lonely, thirsty, curious, depressed, anticipatory, or the need to go to the bathroom -- with the obtained goal of each of those drives lasting as few as several seconds, in some cases. Ever meditate? If not, try it; you'll become aware of just how uncomfortable you really are, both mentally and physically, throughout your day.
12. Nearly one hundred percent of them has had the flu, a stomach virus, or has experienced some form of vomiting or diarrhea at least once in their lives.
13. Almost all of them will lose loved ones, and may feel absolutely devastated as a result.
14. They're all going to die, and even the "religious" ones don't really believe in Heaven anymore.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
"Logical" vs "moral"
Another short entry for today
Something that a lot of modern people get wrong: the idea that, so long as an action is not "immoral," it doesn't matter how "illogical" it is -- it's everyone's "right" to take it, should they so choose. This kind of faulty reasoning should lead us to remove "morality" from our philosophy, because that abstraction is unnecessary in the first place (logical is logical, regardless of to what part of life it applies), and, additionally, it allows people to sidestep real, society-wide problems. It wouldn't make sense for me to neglect my health, for example, by gorging on fatty foods all day, but that action is not immoral (meaning that it doesn't directly harm anyone else, and doesn't interfere with the principle of consent) -- it's merely illogical. This distinction allows the majority of people in today's society to completely ignore the problem of their thoughts and behaviors, and to live irresponsibly -- in a phrase, "because it's not immoral."
Something that a lot of modern people get wrong: the idea that, so long as an action is not "immoral," it doesn't matter how "illogical" it is -- it's everyone's "right" to take it, should they so choose. This kind of faulty reasoning should lead us to remove "morality" from our philosophy, because that abstraction is unnecessary in the first place (logical is logical, regardless of to what part of life it applies), and, additionally, it allows people to sidestep real, society-wide problems. It wouldn't make sense for me to neglect my health, for example, by gorging on fatty foods all day, but that action is not immoral (meaning that it doesn't directly harm anyone else, and doesn't interfere with the principle of consent) -- it's merely illogical. This distinction allows the majority of people in today's society to completely ignore the problem of their thoughts and behaviors, and to live irresponsibly -- in a phrase, "because it's not immoral."
Saturday, December 4, 2010
A quick rumination on decision-making
1. When living, you are necessarily always acting.
2. In scenarios and cases involving decision-making, deciding not to act is not only a decision, it's an action -- if only a negative one.
3. By living, we are slaves to physics.
4. We can choose to what we are slaves, in some cases. If we must be enslaved, then logic currently appears to be a suitable master.
5. Even if we concede that relying on our senses to conclude that our senses are reliable is nonsensical, we still necessarily act on our senses continuously by merely existing.
6. Therefore, we must always act as though we believe that a given option is the most logical, even if we have no idea one way or the other, because "not acting" is still acting, and is often less logical than some other option. Note: This refers to instances in which one action appears more logical than the others -- not instances in which we don't even have leads derived from sensory input.
This illustrates the necessity of pragmatic action in life; just because I am humble and possess a finite, relative perspective of the world does not mean that I cannot make decisions to improve reality. I don't have to believe anything to be true in order to act as though I do. Furthermore, because action is an inevitable by-product of existing, that which is perceived as the most logical out of all potential actions will come to be the logical action, while all other actions, in spite of occupying a gradient of degrees of logicality, will come to all be illogical actions. This is because, even though these latter actions differ in to what extent they are logical, they all share the quality of having not been chosen.
Note, also, that my supposition that relying on my senses to conclude that my senses are reliable is nonsensical is itself relying on my senses, as is this very statement. In other words, there is an infinite regress of assumption that must necessarily be made in order to exist as an intelligent organism, so whether something is true is entirely irrelevant to how much work we should put into implementing it in our daily lives.
2. In scenarios and cases involving decision-making, deciding not to act is not only a decision, it's an action -- if only a negative one.
3. By living, we are slaves to physics.
4. We can choose to what we are slaves, in some cases. If we must be enslaved, then logic currently appears to be a suitable master.
5. Even if we concede that relying on our senses to conclude that our senses are reliable is nonsensical, we still necessarily act on our senses continuously by merely existing.
6. Therefore, we must always act as though we believe that a given option is the most logical, even if we have no idea one way or the other, because "not acting" is still acting, and is often less logical than some other option. Note: This refers to instances in which one action appears more logical than the others -- not instances in which we don't even have leads derived from sensory input.
This illustrates the necessity of pragmatic action in life; just because I am humble and possess a finite, relative perspective of the world does not mean that I cannot make decisions to improve reality. I don't have to believe anything to be true in order to act as though I do. Furthermore, because action is an inevitable by-product of existing, that which is perceived as the most logical out of all potential actions will come to be the logical action, while all other actions, in spite of occupying a gradient of degrees of logicality, will come to all be illogical actions. This is because, even though these latter actions differ in to what extent they are logical, they all share the quality of having not been chosen.
Note, also, that my supposition that relying on my senses to conclude that my senses are reliable is nonsensical is itself relying on my senses, as is this very statement. In other words, there is an infinite regress of assumption that must necessarily be made in order to exist as an intelligent organism, so whether something is true is entirely irrelevant to how much work we should put into implementing it in our daily lives.
A note on the future directive of this blog
In the future, I will be making fewer posts on specific, derivative problems, even if they are fairly fundamental, as in the cases of suffering, the agenda of life, the eternal struggle between logic and sensation, etc. As previously stated, solving problems requires that we first solve the problem of being bad at solving problems -- in a word, meta-cognition. Actively and pragmatically refine cognitive processes and hardware, and you'll become much better at decision-making and problem-solving. Better yet, do this in iterative increments involving lots of testing for errors, and you'll be more likely to maximize your productivity. In short, it's more important to teach people how to arrive at conclusions than that they should arrive at your conclusions (bonus points if you don't ever draw any conclusions at all, given the inability to confirm your senses' reliability without relying on your senses, and instead merely act as though you draw conclusions out of practical necessity).
Plus, there are so many descendant problems all around us that, unless we work alongside those who process data using the same algorithms and mechanisms that we do, it doesn't matter whom we choose to support; we'll never get anything done. You can agree with liberals that the war in Iraq was a dumb idea, but that doesn't make you a liberal. Most people get something right, so declaring yourself a something-ist every time that you encounter a good idea is going to be quite tedious and time-consuming!
If you agree with someone, but have different reasons from him or her for your tentative conclusions, then your agreement is ultimately trivial. It is of no practical value to share commonalities when it comes to what you think, so long as you do not share commonalities when it comes to how you think. You may agree now, but if your mode of thinking allows you to change your mind, or if the other person uses his mode of thinking to arrive at an erroneous conclusion in another realm, then you are effectively wasting time by associating or working with him -- that is, unless you can help him see his errors, or vice versa.
So, then, let's get down to business: Bad memes prevent progress, and faulty cognitive agents and mechanisms prevent good memes from doing their jobs. Until we clean ourselves up, it doesn't really matter who agrees with whom -- we're all part of the problem.
Plus, there are so many descendant problems all around us that, unless we work alongside those who process data using the same algorithms and mechanisms that we do, it doesn't matter whom we choose to support; we'll never get anything done. You can agree with liberals that the war in Iraq was a dumb idea, but that doesn't make you a liberal. Most people get something right, so declaring yourself a something-ist every time that you encounter a good idea is going to be quite tedious and time-consuming!
If you agree with someone, but have different reasons from him or her for your tentative conclusions, then your agreement is ultimately trivial. It is of no practical value to share commonalities when it comes to what you think, so long as you do not share commonalities when it comes to how you think. You may agree now, but if your mode of thinking allows you to change your mind, or if the other person uses his mode of thinking to arrive at an erroneous conclusion in another realm, then you are effectively wasting time by associating or working with him -- that is, unless you can help him see his errors, or vice versa.
So, then, let's get down to business: Bad memes prevent progress, and faulty cognitive agents and mechanisms prevent good memes from doing their jobs. Until we clean ourselves up, it doesn't really matter who agrees with whom -- we're all part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)