If you were walking on a street one day and saw a starving, dying child, you would probably feel the need to do something about it. Buy the person something to eat, call the cops, or something. But if the person is dying somewhere else, and we know this happens, we feel utterly no moral imperative at all. So the suffering has to be in our face for us to care. Would you save somebody in your school or work for a few dollars? You probably would. But for some stranger? You still might. But you would keep saving people until you realize you don't have money left to buy yourself a new Xbox, then you'd stop. No such point exists where you give out so much money, it is morally correct to stop giving out money to save some people from death. It just becomes more inconvenient to you, but is your convenience worth their death? Every single thing you buy, you are accepting the opportunity cost of that purchase. Every $100 you spent could've been spent to prevent that starving kid from dying. It's not your problem? Of course not. I can do all sorts of very illegal things to you this instant, and if it were not for the law, it wouldn't really be my problem now, would it? Would you say, "not my problem" if you see a guy having a heart attack and you were the only witness? Out of sight, out of mind. No name, no face, no sleep lost.
There's this diffusion of responsibility. If many people can fix the issue, you feel less liable. When I was in psychology class, the teacher showed a video clip about a few psychological studies regarding the diffusion of responsibility. The people in the study saw (or in some cases heard) what seems to be somebody having a heart attack. You have one person in the room seeing this, and they run out for help. You have three people, and the three just sit there going 'oh my god'. This is why when people have a heart attack, medical training says to assign one specific person to call 911 instead of just yelling 'SOMEBODY CALL A MEDIC'.
How many people are in poverty today? In true poverty, not unemployment in the United States. Your bad day is their great day. You are too lazy to go to the store to get food to eat. Or, you're trying to eat less because you're getting fat. The guys over there don't have food to eat. Not my problem, I got dance classes, cya.
Not just you, of course. Everybody. Me as well. We're not programmed by evolution to be selfless. But I'm saying we are indirectly killing people all the time and we feel no remorse. I believe nobody can meet the standards of morality this sets. But if you're not going to donate money, the least you can do is the acknowledge the reality and not blatantly say 'it's not my problem'.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Public Service Announcement
This is a public service announcement:
Gay does not mean "any sort of sexual deviance" or "not fitting into gender norms".
Fag is a slur referring to a homosexual. It does not mean "bad" or "stupid" or "n00b at Battlefield 3". Calling others this means you can either tell other people's sexual orientation across the internet or you're just being a bigot who doesn't know how to insult somebody with any level of creativity.
Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. We are all ignorant of countless things. The issue comes when you are presented with the answer and the evidence and you cannot tell what is right from what is wrong. The road to knowledge starts by admitting you don't know something. If one is willing and able to learn, there is no need to dock somebody for being ignorant.
Newbie isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd take a newbie who is responsive to feedback compared to an arrogant asshole. Beating you in a game does not make the other person a newbie or a n00b necessarily and in fact often means the exact opposite.
Asking "Can I ask you a question?" is a complete waste of breath. Because you just asked one without permission. So what the hell are you getting at? Yes, you may. Anybody is 'allowed' to ask a question. It's called free speech. The problem is whether I am willing and able to answer or whether I will be offended by your question. Which I won't know until YOU ASK ME.
That is all.
Gay does not mean "any sort of sexual deviance" or "not fitting into gender norms".
Fag is a slur referring to a homosexual. It does not mean "bad" or "stupid" or "n00b at Battlefield 3". Calling others this means you can either tell other people's sexual orientation across the internet or you're just being a bigot who doesn't know how to insult somebody with any level of creativity.
Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. We are all ignorant of countless things. The issue comes when you are presented with the answer and the evidence and you cannot tell what is right from what is wrong. The road to knowledge starts by admitting you don't know something. If one is willing and able to learn, there is no need to dock somebody for being ignorant.
Newbie isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd take a newbie who is responsive to feedback compared to an arrogant asshole. Beating you in a game does not make the other person a newbie or a n00b necessarily and in fact often means the exact opposite.
Asking "Can I ask you a question?" is a complete waste of breath. Because you just asked one without permission. So what the hell are you getting at? Yes, you may. Anybody is 'allowed' to ask a question. It's called free speech. The problem is whether I am willing and able to answer or whether I will be offended by your question. Which I won't know until YOU ASK ME.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Cannibalism
Below is a debate outline I wrote, which I think you might find to be interesting.
Do you consider cannibalism to be intrinsically immoral? Why?
On occasion I think it's a good idea to play devil's advocate or simply question some things we take to be true, regardless of whether they are actually true. I want you guys to understand I am not arguing for legalization of cannibalism or suggesting you go out and eat people. Re-read the first sentence of this post. It says nothing about legalization or recommendations to eat people.
Here are some things I think are worth thinking about:
-Any arguments against something being unnatural is not a valid argument. Lots of things are unnatural. Like computers. There are also other animals that eat each other.
-It may cause diseases. That's just for the person eating. If he gets fucked, that's his problem. People do unhealthy shit to themselves all the time.
-Arguments about violation of the rights of the deceased isn't an argument about the intrinsic immorality of cannibalism but the immorality of cannibalism without prior consent. Having sex with a person without consent is immoral but it does not make sex itself immoral. Consequences of actions are situational and must of course be judged for each situation, but they do not make the act itself immoral.
-Obviously cannibalism that follows murder is immoral. But for the sake of argument, that's not what I'm talking about. Assume the person that's dead would be perfectly cool with you eating him or her.
-Arguments about family and friends being sad would be irrelevant given a person has no relatives that know about or care or are still alive. One has to balance the feelings of family members versus personal freedom versus the need for food, ei, is human flesh all that is available as food for the time being? This is a more complex question but one that does not render all of cannibalism regardless of the situation to be immoral.
-Arguments about cannibalism is wrong because it leads to 'universal widespread abhorrence': Are wrong. Some cultures are fine with eating other humans. In fact, in the past humans used to eat humans all the freakin' time. What one particular culture feels about an action isn't an argument. We can also reverse the argument: You may feel child pornography is wrong, child rape is wrong, child marriages are wrong, but past cultures have found it acceptable enough. In short, how people used to or still feel about an issue isn't a valid argument.
On top of that, the fact that many people have an opinion does not prove anything. This is an argument ad populum, a logical fallacy. You can feel guilty for something you've done that's not necessarily immoral; if I run over a dead cat with a car, I'd feel disgusted and some would feel guilty, saying 'poor cat' even though the cat is already dead. I consider something to be immoral when it unfairly visits suffering to an individual. Dead people can't suffer. If dead people had feelings, how would their bones feel being buried in a wooden box and then stuff under dirt? Or perhaps we cremate bodies, in which case it's worse than eating it, we've utterly obliterated their body. If a person asked to be eaten once dead, how can this possibly go against the wish of the once-alive person?
-This is not an argument for legalization of cannibalism, this is purely an academic, hypothetical discussion. This term has raised some hackles so let me clarify: This is discussing the concept, whether it is moral or inherently immoral and has no bearing on actual changes in policy. I call it 'academic' because instead of convincing you of a change in policy or importance of my message, I'm merely debating to try to glean some new insight, in this case, insight on cannibalism. This means, any argument about how tricky it is to implement legalization of cannibalism is completely irrelevant and attacking this would be a strawman. Saying allowing cannibalism leads to a slippery slope or necessarily leads to issues due to supply/murder for cannibalism/etc is also a strawman.
-In addition, just because something is currently illegal does not mean something is immoral. That's a non-sequitur.
-The argument isn't that it causes happiness, therefore cannibalism is not immoral. It's that it does not visit unfair suffering to the parties involved. Instead, cannibalism offends our sensibilities, somewhat irrationally. Ensure your argument is not an appeal to emotion, brought about by socialization and conditioning.
-Please do not make personal attacks against me, this is purely a hypothetical, something I think is interesting.
On occasion I think it's a good idea to play devil's advocate or simply question some things we take to be true, regardless of whether they are actually true. I want you guys to understand I am not arguing for legalization of cannibalism or suggesting you go out and eat people. Re-read the first sentence of this post. It says nothing about legalization or recommendations to eat people.
Here are some things I think are worth thinking about:
-Any arguments against something being unnatural is not a valid argument. Lots of things are unnatural. Like computers. There are also other animals that eat each other.
-It may cause diseases. That's just for the person eating. If he gets fucked, that's his problem. People do unhealthy shit to themselves all the time.
-Arguments about violation of the rights of the deceased isn't an argument about the intrinsic immorality of cannibalism but the immorality of cannibalism without prior consent. Having sex with a person without consent is immoral but it does not make sex itself immoral. Consequences of actions are situational and must of course be judged for each situation, but they do not make the act itself immoral.
-Obviously cannibalism that follows murder is immoral. But for the sake of argument, that's not what I'm talking about. Assume the person that's dead would be perfectly cool with you eating him or her.
-Arguments about family and friends being sad would be irrelevant given a person has no relatives that know about or care or are still alive. One has to balance the feelings of family members versus personal freedom versus the need for food, ei, is human flesh all that is available as food for the time being? This is a more complex question but one that does not render all of cannibalism regardless of the situation to be immoral.
-Arguments about cannibalism is wrong because it leads to 'universal widespread abhorrence': Are wrong. Some cultures are fine with eating other humans. In fact, in the past humans used to eat humans all the freakin' time. What one particular culture feels about an action isn't an argument. We can also reverse the argument: You may feel child pornography is wrong, child rape is wrong, child marriages are wrong, but past cultures have found it acceptable enough. In short, how people used to or still feel about an issue isn't a valid argument.
On top of that, the fact that many people have an opinion does not prove anything. This is an argument ad populum, a logical fallacy. You can feel guilty for something you've done that's not necessarily immoral; if I run over a dead cat with a car, I'd feel disgusted and some would feel guilty, saying 'poor cat' even though the cat is already dead. I consider something to be immoral when it unfairly visits suffering to an individual. Dead people can't suffer. If dead people had feelings, how would their bones feel being buried in a wooden box and then stuff under dirt? Or perhaps we cremate bodies, in which case it's worse than eating it, we've utterly obliterated their body. If a person asked to be eaten once dead, how can this possibly go against the wish of the once-alive person?
-This is not an argument for legalization of cannibalism, this is purely an academic, hypothetical discussion. This term has raised some hackles so let me clarify: This is discussing the concept, whether it is moral or inherently immoral and has no bearing on actual changes in policy. I call it 'academic' because instead of convincing you of a change in policy or importance of my message, I'm merely debating to try to glean some new insight, in this case, insight on cannibalism. This means, any argument about how tricky it is to implement legalization of cannibalism is completely irrelevant and attacking this would be a strawman. Saying allowing cannibalism leads to a slippery slope or necessarily leads to issues due to supply/murder for cannibalism/etc is also a strawman.
-In addition, just because something is currently illegal does not mean something is immoral. That's a non-sequitur.
-The argument isn't that it causes happiness, therefore cannibalism is not immoral. It's that it does not visit unfair suffering to the parties involved. Instead, cannibalism offends our sensibilities, somewhat irrationally. Ensure your argument is not an appeal to emotion, brought about by socialization and conditioning.
-Please do not make personal attacks against me, this is purely a hypothetical, something I think is interesting.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Value of Debating
From my experience in debating religion in an online forum, in every
single discussion of this nature there would be at least one person who posts
long angry posts about “who cares?!” and about how we should just let people
believe what they want to believe. These people are not interested in
responding to refutations of their logic because they didn't care in the first
place. But I hope the reader cares so I’d like to describe my reasons for
debating, apart from the fact that beliefs inform our actions, etc.
First we need to understand that debates should not be
contests ideally. How does one “win” a debate? If by winning it means being the
person who comes up with the most valid reason and evidence, I think I
basically almost take the place of the winner. Is winning the debate being the
person that convinces the opponent to side with them? Then let me start by
asking, when was the last time any debate of any kind directly changed a
person’s beliefs on the spot? Basically never. With that out of the way, let us
tear down all debates ever. Let’s start with debates among presidential
nominees. Maybe asking the correct questions will start a person on a path
where they eventually arrive at a right answer. We don’t know if that’s the
case. Now, people can change their minds, just not right away. Rarely is the
change ever immediate. There are theists out there who are very isolated from
people with differing points of view. There are theists who don’t know the
arguments posted by atheists… many don’t even know what atheism is. If I can
get people to question their beliefs, then something good is taking place. It
doesn’t matter if they change their side. The very act of questioning things,
the act of skeptical inquiry, of understanding more clearly what’s going on,
that is by itself a good thing. Thinking beats not thinking. And in debates you
have to think. If I can get a Christian to turn atheist, kewl. But if I can get
them to actually read their own Bible and understand their own religion even if
that means they’ll continue to cling onto it, I still find that better than
when we started. The act of debating activates people’s wish to win a debate.
If you look at places like Europe which now beats America in oh-so-many things,
debating isn’t a dick move. Complete strangers would hash out issues over a
coffee table instead of sitting alone with their Macbooks pretending to write a
book. Because people want to win debates, they need to be informed. To be
informed is not enough; developing critical thinking skills is required, and
that my friends, is beneficial to not just the person but to society as a
whole.
Hell, even if people don’t change their minds, does it not
occur to people that the never-ending search to verify what beliefs they have
are true is considered noble? We can do this by discussing ideas with people
who disagree. We can categorize, sort, link together information we have in our
heads. I have an entire book’s worth of things tied to religion in my head.
What better way to ensure your reasoning is sound than to expose them to people
who will try to prove you wrong? It’s like proofreading but even better. Wasn’t
America founded upon the idea democracy and the informed decision, of a
constant clash of ideas and debate? I learn new things as I go along. Trust me,
I wrote a book. I’ve got lots of info locked up inside my noggin’ here. But I
do get new info that come in from different people with different perspectives
on this whole issue. As such I actually have more content I wish to pursue.
Further still I wish to defend as often as I can, what atheism is and what
agnostic atheism is. I dislike people misusing the term, and people who
stereotype atheists, etc.
There was a time, when I lost a debate on religious matters.
I didn't admit I was wrong at first but that stayed with me throughout the time
I was looking at more and more evidence until I recognized I was wrong. I lost
contact with the person who proved me wrong, I never got to tell him I was
wrong. But at least I changed my mind with incoming evidence. So there at
least, is an exception to your rule. If you wished to argue, at the start, that
debates of this sort means changing fundamental belief systems, then sure. But
if you wish to argue still, that necessarily means nobody will ever change
their opinions, you can't possibly know that. The very fact that fundamental
belief systems are deeply rooted and fiercely defended means it takes time to
process and recognize what's going on. And even more importantly, it means
rarely will the person who realizes they are wrong will openly declare themself
a loser.
So in short if you think dialogue is bad, then don't be a part of it. But there are those among us who seek out the dialogue because we find it worthwhile for a multitude of reasons. And if both sides feels the same way, there's no harm in a debate. Are such threads about religion really useless in a forum among random threads such as “rate my outfit”? The very definition of a forum is “a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged”. Even IF debate is useless, don’t tell me you never do anything useless.
So in short if you think dialogue is bad, then don't be a part of it. But there are those among us who seek out the dialogue because we find it worthwhile for a multitude of reasons. And if both sides feels the same way, there's no harm in a debate. Are such threads about religion really useless in a forum among random threads such as “rate my outfit”? The very definition of a forum is “a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged”. Even IF debate is useless, don’t tell me you never do anything useless.
People are more likely to be open to other possibilities or
answers in topics they don’t take as seriously. But in an effort to be as
rational a person I can be, I need to try to push that emotion aside and stick
to reason and evidence. And the things we take seriously are often the things
that most need changing if they are wrong, am I correct? Now, we all have our
own opinions on matters of religion and some people don't want to take part.
That's not a problem. I don't go to random strangers on the street wearing a
cross to tell them how misguided I think they are. I discuss this stuff with
people who seek out a debate. The flip side is, I don't go to Anime Threads and
tell them how boring and useless it is to talk about anime characters. I
understand it's not my cup of tea so I leave it be. This is a matter of
preference. On the other hand, people drop posts about how they hate religion
discussions and how futile they are. If for some reason you found my initial
reply to be lacking, so what, if you think they are useless, then leave it for
people who enjoy it to get into it. Even if I grant that most religion
discussions turn into hatefests, does that mean all of them turn into hate
fests? No, it means then, that you have some diamonds in the rough. People
debate about politics fiercely. And people have gotten pretty fired up over an
Intel vs AMD debate, personal experience. It's not a reason to deny all other
people from having debates because some get out of hand... to me that just means
I need to look harder for those conversations worth having. And when I find it,
all the better. And how do we attempt to fix this? By discussion with people
who volunteer to jump into the discussion, not by ducking the issue forever and
ever. And to some extent it's also an interest, which is removed from the
notion that all debates are only about finding truth. Yes, more investment is
often made into religion but not always. There are casual theists who barely
understand or care about their own religion, yet rebuke those who challenge
beliefs. So a large part of it is due to the culture. Culture has a huge impact
on the way we look at things, which we often don't want to admit. The hard
topics are harder to talk about but often more rewarding and more important to
talk about in the first place. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I
also hope you understand, there are people who think as I do when it comes to
debates.
You don’t have to be a painter to enjoy paintings. You don’t
have to be an artist to enjoy music. Why do you have to be a scientist to
appreciate science? Why must you be an angry atheist to appreciate a debate?
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Witchhunts for Pseudo-Intellectuals
Recently I got branded as a pseudo-intellectual. Somebody thinks I'm a pretentious guy, who thinks he is smart but is in fact stupid. I don't want to turn this blog into a dumping ground for my opinions on people who attack me because who wants to read that? I don't even want to read that.
But let's explore this for a moment. Do I use big words when I type? Not really, I don't think. I may whip out a couple of 'argument from ignorance fallacy' or 'ad hominem' phrases. So what? We use these all the time for discussing religion. It's second nature to me, I don't use it because less people are familiar with it. People don't understand it, there's a dictionary. You can ask me, I'll try my best to help.
I've already written about how I feel I relate to other people in terms of intelligence. I'd LIKE to think I try to be as rational as I possibly can. There's a big difference between thinking you're super smart and thinking one specific person is a complete idiot. It's like not knowing the answer, but knowing a really wrong answer when you see one. Do I get caught up in the moment once in a while in a debate? Yeah. I'm human, but so are you. We're not perfect. Just because I attack somebody for saying stupid stuff doesn't mean I automatically think I'm the best in the world, EVEN IF I use words you think are super academic. It's not like I use big words for the sole purpose of showing off, or even to show off. Do you really want to replace 'argument from ignorance fallacy' with the definition each time you want to use that phrase in effort to run away from being labeled a 'pseudo-intellectual'? I know I don't, that's a pain in the ass is what it all comes down to.
I don't think I'm a pseudo-intellectual and I don't particularly care to call some other people as one either. We're just people. We hold beliefs that may or may not be justified and it's important we try to figure that out together. I know full well I'm not some phd scientist, lol. I'm a teenager that wants a place to collect his thoughts into one place so it is easy to organize. And if other people want to read them, awesome. But I know full well I have an audience of less than 10 people. But that's OK, and it doesn't bother me because being #1 wasn't my intention.
Attack the message, not the person. The person generally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The other crap is unnecessary. Yes, it is true I have insulted others on different occasions but it is for blatant, racism or prejudice against other people. EG, Americans are honestly the most stupid people on the planet! (Once said in a video featuring an American professor, which ironically the commentor adores) These are things that are obviously just wrong, wrong, wrong. But that was one line, not the entire post. If I wrote an entire post centered on how stupid a person is, that would be pointless. Yet some people find it in them to stalk people to get information on them, in order to tailor their insults to put you down in the worst way they can find.
I get hate on just about every aspect of me as a person that a person could find out on their own. I grow more used to it but by god, people find ways to get their message across, to make it more personal each time. I'll be fine of course, but it can be exhausting at times. You write a book, you get hatemail. That should be a no-brainer anyways.
But let's explore this for a moment. Do I use big words when I type? Not really, I don't think. I may whip out a couple of 'argument from ignorance fallacy' or 'ad hominem' phrases. So what? We use these all the time for discussing religion. It's second nature to me, I don't use it because less people are familiar with it. People don't understand it, there's a dictionary. You can ask me, I'll try my best to help.
I've already written about how I feel I relate to other people in terms of intelligence. I'd LIKE to think I try to be as rational as I possibly can. There's a big difference between thinking you're super smart and thinking one specific person is a complete idiot. It's like not knowing the answer, but knowing a really wrong answer when you see one. Do I get caught up in the moment once in a while in a debate? Yeah. I'm human, but so are you. We're not perfect. Just because I attack somebody for saying stupid stuff doesn't mean I automatically think I'm the best in the world, EVEN IF I use words you think are super academic. It's not like I use big words for the sole purpose of showing off, or even to show off. Do you really want to replace 'argument from ignorance fallacy' with the definition each time you want to use that phrase in effort to run away from being labeled a 'pseudo-intellectual'? I know I don't, that's a pain in the ass is what it all comes down to.
I don't think I'm a pseudo-intellectual and I don't particularly care to call some other people as one either. We're just people. We hold beliefs that may or may not be justified and it's important we try to figure that out together. I know full well I'm not some phd scientist, lol. I'm a teenager that wants a place to collect his thoughts into one place so it is easy to organize. And if other people want to read them, awesome. But I know full well I have an audience of less than 10 people. But that's OK, and it doesn't bother me because being #1 wasn't my intention.
Attack the message, not the person. The person generally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The other crap is unnecessary. Yes, it is true I have insulted others on different occasions but it is for blatant, racism or prejudice against other people. EG, Americans are honestly the most stupid people on the planet! (Once said in a video featuring an American professor, which ironically the commentor adores) These are things that are obviously just wrong, wrong, wrong. But that was one line, not the entire post. If I wrote an entire post centered on how stupid a person is, that would be pointless. Yet some people find it in them to stalk people to get information on them, in order to tailor their insults to put you down in the worst way they can find.
I get hate on just about every aspect of me as a person that a person could find out on their own. I grow more used to it but by god, people find ways to get their message across, to make it more personal each time. I'll be fine of course, but it can be exhausting at times. You write a book, you get hatemail. That should be a no-brainer anyways.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Challenging Beliefs
To me, the idea that beliefs should be challenged is a very basic and fundamental ideology I subscribe to. First of all let me seperate opinions and claims of truth from merely claims about preference. You can like a band. I can go apeshit and say that's not logical but we all know how subjective music is in its very nature; but more importantly we also know what music one likes is relevant to the listener only. In other words, nobody cares what you feel about music and it will never negatively impact the world in any way.
On the other hand, unjustified beliefs about the nature of the universe, about morality and ethics, that is something else. We all know a truth claim must be held to the highest scrutiny based on its category. Beliefs inform our actions. The very fact that I'm sitting here typing this post out rests on beliefs about my circumstance. If I believe my house will collapse in 60 seconds, I won't be here typing this. What is the likelihood that a person who believes God condemns homosexuality will vote against gay marriage should the person vote? Pretty much 100%.
If our mind is all we have, then basing what we know and understand and think about and believe on realty must be chiefly important. What IF the god of Abraham is real and I've been oblivious to him the whole time? What if he left evidence, but I simply never found it even though it was staring at me? Those could be huge problems. That would change the course of my life forever. And by forever I mean, literally, forever as heaven would last quite a while I'd imagine.
So when people go on Facebook, like a page called 'Rationalist' and dare post homophobic, anti-science, anti-common-sense, anti-evolution posts, people are free to fire at will on those guys. They may THINK they are rational, that they DO INDEED have god on their side. But what are your beliefs worth without justification? Jackshit. Probably less than that. Wasn't the Declaration of Independence written by a bunch of free-thinkers, many of whom were deists or atheists? Wasn't the entire spirit of the country a spirit of debate, of new ideas, maddening ideas, challenging ideas, and then finding the best answer? Now we're all fucking lazy, we don't want to debate, we don't care what is true, or maybe... and for me even worse... we think we are right when we are dead wrong. So if America was founded on the clashing of different ideas... isn't this what it means to have a society of free speech?
You may spew out all the nonsense you want, that is your right. It is my right to refute them one-by-one or just troll you into tomorrow. Why the hell is it ok to say your opinion if it's not ok for me to say my opinion? Your opinion could be, you think gays ought to burn in hell. My opinion is, you're a religious, uneducated, close-minded, homophobe that doesn't know SHIT. That's my opinion. You may disagree. But quit playing the victim, where you say stupid shit and get burned for it. It's free speech. Get used to it. If you don't like it, then shut up, nobody wants to listen to your homophobic rants about how 911 was caused by gay people anyways. Welcome to the new world, it's the same as the old world.
We can partially thank religion for pushing this idea... that challenging one's beliefs is something people ought not to do to be polite. What's not polite is thinking a friend is incapable of handling a conversation or possibly even a debate without ruining your friendship. That's quit belittling. Do I want irrational friends? Probably not. I really don't understand this mentality, that "all answers are ok". No they are not all ok. In math, 1+1 is fucking 2. If you were to answer the question by writing "sausages" in the answer column, GUESS WHAT SON? You'll get the question WRONG. In life some things have a right answer and any other answer is just plain ol' wrong. Some other questions are less linear in this fashion but many are. Did the God of Abraham as describe by the Bible exist? That's a yes or no question about the nature of the universe. And if your answer is not justified, why must I accept it? Would you sincerely accept an answer from anybody no matter how looney it sounds, or even just respect it? What if a mentally ill patient walks up to you and spews out some ridiculous conspiracy theory? Would you accept that as well? If you answered yes, you're fucking insane and you need to follow the guy back to the mental hospital after showing him the way. If the answer is no, then clearly you do not accept all answers. If you don't accept the crazy person's opinion but you accept all other people not officially diagnosed with mental illness' opinions, then you are judging which opinions are worth respecting. Which is what I'm doing.
When you're not sure if you're right or wrong, what do you do? You verify your arguments and facts. You debate and discuss until you're more certain what you think has some sort of basis on reality.
Hey, I ain't saying I know it all. I'm not saying all of my positions are 100% rational 100% of the time. At least I get to say I'm trying, Are you?
On the other hand, unjustified beliefs about the nature of the universe, about morality and ethics, that is something else. We all know a truth claim must be held to the highest scrutiny based on its category. Beliefs inform our actions. The very fact that I'm sitting here typing this post out rests on beliefs about my circumstance. If I believe my house will collapse in 60 seconds, I won't be here typing this. What is the likelihood that a person who believes God condemns homosexuality will vote against gay marriage should the person vote? Pretty much 100%.
If our mind is all we have, then basing what we know and understand and think about and believe on realty must be chiefly important. What IF the god of Abraham is real and I've been oblivious to him the whole time? What if he left evidence, but I simply never found it even though it was staring at me? Those could be huge problems. That would change the course of my life forever. And by forever I mean, literally, forever as heaven would last quite a while I'd imagine.
So when people go on Facebook, like a page called 'Rationalist' and dare post homophobic, anti-science, anti-common-sense, anti-evolution posts, people are free to fire at will on those guys. They may THINK they are rational, that they DO INDEED have god on their side. But what are your beliefs worth without justification? Jackshit. Probably less than that. Wasn't the Declaration of Independence written by a bunch of free-thinkers, many of whom were deists or atheists? Wasn't the entire spirit of the country a spirit of debate, of new ideas, maddening ideas, challenging ideas, and then finding the best answer? Now we're all fucking lazy, we don't want to debate, we don't care what is true, or maybe... and for me even worse... we think we are right when we are dead wrong. So if America was founded on the clashing of different ideas... isn't this what it means to have a society of free speech?
You may spew out all the nonsense you want, that is your right. It is my right to refute them one-by-one or just troll you into tomorrow. Why the hell is it ok to say your opinion if it's not ok for me to say my opinion? Your opinion could be, you think gays ought to burn in hell. My opinion is, you're a religious, uneducated, close-minded, homophobe that doesn't know SHIT. That's my opinion. You may disagree. But quit playing the victim, where you say stupid shit and get burned for it. It's free speech. Get used to it. If you don't like it, then shut up, nobody wants to listen to your homophobic rants about how 911 was caused by gay people anyways. Welcome to the new world, it's the same as the old world.
We can partially thank religion for pushing this idea... that challenging one's beliefs is something people ought not to do to be polite. What's not polite is thinking a friend is incapable of handling a conversation or possibly even a debate without ruining your friendship. That's quit belittling. Do I want irrational friends? Probably not. I really don't understand this mentality, that "all answers are ok". No they are not all ok. In math, 1+1 is fucking 2. If you were to answer the question by writing "sausages" in the answer column, GUESS WHAT SON? You'll get the question WRONG. In life some things have a right answer and any other answer is just plain ol' wrong. Some other questions are less linear in this fashion but many are. Did the God of Abraham as describe by the Bible exist? That's a yes or no question about the nature of the universe. And if your answer is not justified, why must I accept it? Would you sincerely accept an answer from anybody no matter how looney it sounds, or even just respect it? What if a mentally ill patient walks up to you and spews out some ridiculous conspiracy theory? Would you accept that as well? If you answered yes, you're fucking insane and you need to follow the guy back to the mental hospital after showing him the way. If the answer is no, then clearly you do not accept all answers. If you don't accept the crazy person's opinion but you accept all other people not officially diagnosed with mental illness' opinions, then you are judging which opinions are worth respecting. Which is what I'm doing.
When you're not sure if you're right or wrong, what do you do? You verify your arguments and facts. You debate and discuss until you're more certain what you think has some sort of basis on reality.
Hey, I ain't saying I know it all. I'm not saying all of my positions are 100% rational 100% of the time. At least I get to say I'm trying, Are you?
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Matrix Problem, Snobby Food, and Death
Matrix Problem
The Matrix Problem is a classical example of an unfalsifiable thesis. What if this world isn't real and is simply a simulation? We have no way of knowing until we are unplugged and freed. Sure, it's a possibility but there is no evidence to suggest it. It's meaningless even if the very nature of the idea implies it cannot be provenm... that this is a simulation, means we won't be able to to prove it with any sort of data because we are inside it. The same logic can be applied to any god claim. For example, the very idea of a god necessitates that it is undetectable, hence the idea of a personal god is given with no evidence whatsoever. That's not good enough. I can make an infinite number of claims of this sort.
Snobby Food
I've been perusing videos on Youtube about some fancy food, including the Fat Duck, a very expensive restaurant that employs molecular gastronomy. Some people... many people feel the urge to troll it because it's not cooking in as strict sense as frying potatoes. People think it's snobby food, that you'd leave hungry. Do you really think a restaurant would survive if its customers left hungry? Think about it for a second, ok? Snobby, overpriced? So is the Mona Lisa and like every single famous painting, ever. Or any expensive precious stone, or expensive computer or car or house or whatever. What is the difference? OH YEAH! You don't care about food as much. So others are snobby elitists who have no life and are pretentious fools because they have different interests than you do? Or is it because food doesn't last forever? In that case, so does sex, movies, and life. Doesn't render pursuing those useless.
Death
These ideas are plucked straight from Sam Harris. But think about it. You will be no more distressed after you die than the billions of years before you were born.
'Most of us do our best not to think about death. But there’s always part of our minds that knows this can’t go on forever. Part of us always knows that we’re just a doctor’s visit away, or a phone call away, from being starkly reminded with the fact of our own mortality, or of those closest to us. Now, I’m sure many of you in this room have experienced this in some form; you must know how uncanny it is to suddenly be thrown out of the normal course of your life and just be given the full time job of not dying, or of caring for someone who is... But the one thing people tend to realize at moments like this is that they wasted a lot of time, when life was normal. And it’s not just what they did with their time — it’s not just that they spent too much time working or compulsively checking email. It’s that they cared about the wrong things. They regret what they cared about. Their attention was bound up in petty concerns, year after year, when life was normal. This is a paradox of course, because we all know this epiphany is coming. Don’t you know this is coming? Don’t you know that there’s going to come a day when you’ll be sick, or someone close to you will die, and you will look back on the kinds of things that captured your attention, and you’ll think ‘What was I doing?’. You know this, and yet if you’re like most people, you’ll spend most of your time in life tacitly presuming you’ll live forever. Like, watching a bad movie for the fourth time, or bickering with your spouse. These things only make sense in light of eternity. There better be a heaven if we’re going to waste our time like this.
There are ways to really live in the present moment. What's the alternative? It is always now. However much you feel you may need to plan for the future, to anticipate it, to mitigate risks, the reality of your life is now. This may sound trite... but it's the truth... As a matter of conscious experience, the reality of your life is always now. I think this is a liberating truth about the human mind. In fact, I think there is nothing more important to understand about your mind than that if you want to be happy in this world. The past is a memory. It's a thought arising in the present. The future is merely anticipated, it is another thought arising now. What we truly have is this moment. And this. And we spend most of our lives forgetting this truth. Repudiating it. Fleeing it. Overlooking it. And the horror is that we succeed. We manage to never really connect with the present moment and find fulfillment there because we are continually hoping to become happy in the future, and the future never arrives.
Whatever you can possibly notice in your body, mind or world has only one place to appear: in your conscious experience. I'm not saying this is all just a dream, but as a neurological matter it is like a dream. It is dream that is constrained by inputs from the external world and the dreams we call dreams we call dreams at night are dreams that are not constrained by the external world. That's why you seem to get away with everything. But you mind is all you have. It is all you ever had. It is all you have to offer other people. And this might sound callus to say when there are many other aspects of your life that seems in need of being addressed when you're struggle to find a career or you're sick, but it's still true. If you are perpetually angry and depressed and confused and unloving, it doesn't matter how much success or who is in your life, you're not going to enjoy any of it. I suspect we could all make a list of things we want to accomplish, things that really need to be changed in your life. What is the significance of everything on that list? Each thing on that list seems to promise that if you could only do it, you would have reason just to be happy in the present moment. We are all trying to find a path back to the present moment and good enough reason just to be happy here.'
The Matrix Problem is a classical example of an unfalsifiable thesis. What if this world isn't real and is simply a simulation? We have no way of knowing until we are unplugged and freed. Sure, it's a possibility but there is no evidence to suggest it. It's meaningless even if the very nature of the idea implies it cannot be provenm... that this is a simulation, means we won't be able to to prove it with any sort of data because we are inside it. The same logic can be applied to any god claim. For example, the very idea of a god necessitates that it is undetectable, hence the idea of a personal god is given with no evidence whatsoever. That's not good enough. I can make an infinite number of claims of this sort.
Snobby Food
I've been perusing videos on Youtube about some fancy food, including the Fat Duck, a very expensive restaurant that employs molecular gastronomy. Some people... many people feel the urge to troll it because it's not cooking in as strict sense as frying potatoes. People think it's snobby food, that you'd leave hungry. Do you really think a restaurant would survive if its customers left hungry? Think about it for a second, ok? Snobby, overpriced? So is the Mona Lisa and like every single famous painting, ever. Or any expensive precious stone, or expensive computer or car or house or whatever. What is the difference? OH YEAH! You don't care about food as much. So others are snobby elitists who have no life and are pretentious fools because they have different interests than you do? Or is it because food doesn't last forever? In that case, so does sex, movies, and life. Doesn't render pursuing those useless.
Death
These ideas are plucked straight from Sam Harris. But think about it. You will be no more distressed after you die than the billions of years before you were born.
'Most of us do our best not to think about death. But there’s always part of our minds that knows this can’t go on forever. Part of us always knows that we’re just a doctor’s visit away, or a phone call away, from being starkly reminded with the fact of our own mortality, or of those closest to us. Now, I’m sure many of you in this room have experienced this in some form; you must know how uncanny it is to suddenly be thrown out of the normal course of your life and just be given the full time job of not dying, or of caring for someone who is... But the one thing people tend to realize at moments like this is that they wasted a lot of time, when life was normal. And it’s not just what they did with their time — it’s not just that they spent too much time working or compulsively checking email. It’s that they cared about the wrong things. They regret what they cared about. Their attention was bound up in petty concerns, year after year, when life was normal. This is a paradox of course, because we all know this epiphany is coming. Don’t you know this is coming? Don’t you know that there’s going to come a day when you’ll be sick, or someone close to you will die, and you will look back on the kinds of things that captured your attention, and you’ll think ‘What was I doing?’. You know this, and yet if you’re like most people, you’ll spend most of your time in life tacitly presuming you’ll live forever. Like, watching a bad movie for the fourth time, or bickering with your spouse. These things only make sense in light of eternity. There better be a heaven if we’re going to waste our time like this.
There are ways to really live in the present moment. What's the alternative? It is always now. However much you feel you may need to plan for the future, to anticipate it, to mitigate risks, the reality of your life is now. This may sound trite... but it's the truth... As a matter of conscious experience, the reality of your life is always now. I think this is a liberating truth about the human mind. In fact, I think there is nothing more important to understand about your mind than that if you want to be happy in this world. The past is a memory. It's a thought arising in the present. The future is merely anticipated, it is another thought arising now. What we truly have is this moment. And this. And we spend most of our lives forgetting this truth. Repudiating it. Fleeing it. Overlooking it. And the horror is that we succeed. We manage to never really connect with the present moment and find fulfillment there because we are continually hoping to become happy in the future, and the future never arrives.
Whatever you can possibly notice in your body, mind or world has only one place to appear: in your conscious experience. I'm not saying this is all just a dream, but as a neurological matter it is like a dream. It is dream that is constrained by inputs from the external world and the dreams we call dreams we call dreams at night are dreams that are not constrained by the external world. That's why you seem to get away with everything. But you mind is all you have. It is all you ever had. It is all you have to offer other people. And this might sound callus to say when there are many other aspects of your life that seems in need of being addressed when you're struggle to find a career or you're sick, but it's still true. If you are perpetually angry and depressed and confused and unloving, it doesn't matter how much success or who is in your life, you're not going to enjoy any of it. I suspect we could all make a list of things we want to accomplish, things that really need to be changed in your life. What is the significance of everything on that list? Each thing on that list seems to promise that if you could only do it, you would have reason just to be happy in the present moment. We are all trying to find a path back to the present moment and good enough reason just to be happy here.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)