1·27·10
"Bring your hips to me"
What a weird idea. Still seems very likely impossible though. It's hard to imagine a plant that can grow significantly faster than the fastest growing plants we have.
1·29·10
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist."
Logicomix just enlightened me to the tragic parallels of Socrates' hemlock and Turing's chemical sentence, which is thought to have driven him to suicide. It's discouraging that in more than 2400 years, humanity still hasn't learned not to commit terrible acts against one another, especially for such innocent acts. How many Geniuses have will killed for jesus? And what price has humanity paid for it?
Too much fantasy and not enough reality is a bad thing.
2·2·10
Is there a contradiction between the phrase "buy American" and "no socialism" or "capitalism only" or that whole line of thinking?
I think possibly the real issue with mind-blindness is that all humans communicate expecting others to understand them, it seems that is an implicit presumption when communicating. But if the words or symbols, or the pattern of ideas, is not shared between the communicators, then both the speaker and listener run the risk of thinking that the communication is successful, when in fact it isn't. If the disagreement between patterns of thought is very great, then it will be obvious that communication has broken down, but, if instead it is only slight, with words and phrases taking on slightly distorted meanings, or interpretations, then a much more sinister problem arises, with both sides believing, the listener believing they have received correctly, and the speaker believing they have sent correctly, when in fact both have failed.
2·3·10
Lots of weird dreaming last night. I only remember two, in the first, I was with my roommate, we were going somewhere, so we got in a helicopter, which is weird since neither of us are pilots. I think he was flying it, and we were doing fine, but then we went much higher and it just turned off. It was weird, my reaction was like, "really? the helicopter just turned off? bummer…" So we crashed. I remember a sort of calmness during the descent, even though I thought it would most likely kill us both. Instead when it crashed we both got thrown into the ground real hard. I laid for a minute, sort of amazed I didn't die, then I heard him groan, and I was even more amazed we both survived. Then, sometime after that I either woke up and realized it was a dream, or began to realize in the dream, but I don't remember anything after that.
The other dream, I was playing a video game, taking turns with someone else, but I don't know who. I wasn't very good, and it was some weird mario-like game, in 3d. And thats about all I remember.
2·4·10
I <3 Criticism. No, really, I really really really want to know what I do wrong, what I am wrong about, where I am wrong. I really want to know how to be a better person, a smarter person, a kinder person. A more emphatic person. (Thats a joke, I mean empathetic.)
I want to have my hand on mystery again.
I like the term clock recovery.
De novo.
"It's made with real bits of panther, so you know it's good."
2·5·10
Perish the thought.
2·6·10
Puzzles about secrets are not meant to keep secrets, but to challenge the curious. When it's desired that a secret remains so, the carrier simply never speaks of it.
2·7·10
The Kopp-Etchells effect is beautiful.
Looking through the list of requests on facebook, and seeing that a group I just joined, (looking for a million evolution supporters by june), is encouraging me to invite my list of friends, I had an epiphany: the most ingenious use of social networking sites is to pass on the activity of spamming to the users! Friends, or even acquaintances (like much of facebook), must respond much better to junk mail from people they know, instead of computers or nigerians, right?
What gives? Give it to me.
It can't come and go that quick, can it?
I need thawing. I need time to learn, and recall, and adjust. Clarity is tremendously helpful. It is motivating and inspires confidence. I just need to keep it in my head, to avoid the doubts that do nothing constructive; to stay on track, on aim for the target.
I think it's important to remember that these aren't things I want to change to make you happy, they are things I want to change to make me happy. I don't want to be distant, or unexpressive. I want to be able to pick up on your feelings.
But it will take me time to grow out of my shell. As I learn to be more comfortable around you, I can then think more rationally, and not over-think, and maybe even just feel, eventually. I don't want to live my whole life without feeling.
"When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire."
I'd love to turn you on.
2/07/2010
1/27/2010
mind-blind
It wasn't a decision, it was simply the truth, so far as I could discern it. And it was such a coherent and complete explanation, that the alternatives provided no contest.
1·22·10
"Like all shaman, they returned to the sky."
There is a box on which I work, with many copper pipes entering & exiting, most of which carry steam at about 250 degrees fahrenheit. I've bumped into the pipes & burnt my forearms many times, but today, while working on top of the box, I reached across to swap a tube, and in the process, was prepared to rest both my forearms, and probably much of my weight, on a copper pipe. Just a moment before I would do so, an intense feeling of doom & panic consumed me, and I aborted—somewhat awkwardly shifting my weight and arms to not land on the pipe. Of course, after another moment I remembered that this particular copper pipe carries air, and is always cool to the touch, but humans are not steam carrying copper pipes now are we?!
1·24·10
Dreamt a lot last night. That we were going on a trip, with many people. But then you, and the people who you were with, would go on, when I, and the people who had come with me, would stop. So we did, but then we expected to hear from you, but no one did. So I went to a town that you worked in, and I went somewhere you worked, but no one had heard from you there either. I wanted to explain where you had gone, but I felt like since they didn't know me, you might not want me talking to them. When I left, I crossed the street and was heading home, when I passed a warehouse that appeared to have a restaurant inside, so I went in, and decided to see if you worked there too. But then I had the same problem, thinking it was invasive of me to talk about you. They told me you did work there, and they hadn't heard from you, like everyone else. I explained a little bit, that you had gone on a trip, and no one had heard, and you were probably fine. Then I realized I should order something. I was really nervous trying to find something to order right away. I bought a hamburger and fries, and instead of giving me change back, they gave me some sort of gift card, which at first I accepted. It was light gray, semi-transparent, thick in the middle with the edges chamfered slightly. A piece of paper with some text printed on it was taped to the card with scotch tape. Then I got kind of angry, asking why they gave me a gift card at a restaurant. But then I didn't care, and left. I don't recall any other details.
1·25·10
Skepticism of the establishment, when taken too far, is not productive and provides no benefit—extreme skepticism walks a fine line between circumventing ill-guided navigation and outright paranoia. When skepticism grows so extreme as to reject all external references it risks crossing into paranoia, with little hope of preserving its orientation, since considering outside references is the greatest hope of avoiding psychosis. Unfortunately, the suggestion that we "heed cautions of skepticism inhibiting worthy rational thought without reason" itself is not a well reasoned assertion. Am I going mad?
1·26·10
Ouch. I watched a program once on the discovery channel, about climbing mt. everest, and how above 15,000 or 20 or whatever it was, the oxygen deprivation can cause severe judgement impairment. And suddenly I was really freaked out. Far more than any physical danger you can encounter while climbing a mountain, the idea that the thing you rely on to make sensible decisions, to make survival decisions, could be greatly impaired, by nothing other than the environment, is terrifying. Though having insufficient information to make a decision can have the exact same effect, in which case you don't need to be in a greatly oxygen-deprived environment, you maybe just need someone to not give you everything they know. With the additional handicap that perhaps you can never quite decide what other people are thinking, or feeling, the slightest obvious ambiguity in information can be enough to prevent any decision from being made. The terror emerges from the fact that a mind disabled in a particular way is incapable of even observing that it is disabled, incapable of detecting fatal flaws in very simple reasoning. You watch otherwise intelligent people do entirely insane things; damaging the reasoning machinery risks the whole organization even without a real threat. Likewise, a mind, seemingly incapable of empathizing with other minds, risks much greater consequences of mis-calculation than a empathetic mind, without having any clue whatsoever that it is taking such sharp risks. It's far more than ignorance is bliss, its a complete inability to become informed. It is an eternal condemnation of comprehension. It's as close to a curse as might be realized in a strictly physical world. And so how to recover? Can one compensate? Or must I admit defeat, and accept that verifying one's sanity will always demand external input, despite such reliance on others appearing to be the very definition of vulnerability?
And all this without any consideration of the destruction incurred in the other direction.
1·22·10
"Like all shaman, they returned to the sky."
There is a box on which I work, with many copper pipes entering & exiting, most of which carry steam at about 250 degrees fahrenheit. I've bumped into the pipes & burnt my forearms many times, but today, while working on top of the box, I reached across to swap a tube, and in the process, was prepared to rest both my forearms, and probably much of my weight, on a copper pipe. Just a moment before I would do so, an intense feeling of doom & panic consumed me, and I aborted—somewhat awkwardly shifting my weight and arms to not land on the pipe. Of course, after another moment I remembered that this particular copper pipe carries air, and is always cool to the touch, but humans are not steam carrying copper pipes now are we?!
1·24·10
Dreamt a lot last night. That we were going on a trip, with many people. But then you, and the people who you were with, would go on, when I, and the people who had come with me, would stop. So we did, but then we expected to hear from you, but no one did. So I went to a town that you worked in, and I went somewhere you worked, but no one had heard from you there either. I wanted to explain where you had gone, but I felt like since they didn't know me, you might not want me talking to them. When I left, I crossed the street and was heading home, when I passed a warehouse that appeared to have a restaurant inside, so I went in, and decided to see if you worked there too. But then I had the same problem, thinking it was invasive of me to talk about you. They told me you did work there, and they hadn't heard from you, like everyone else. I explained a little bit, that you had gone on a trip, and no one had heard, and you were probably fine. Then I realized I should order something. I was really nervous trying to find something to order right away. I bought a hamburger and fries, and instead of giving me change back, they gave me some sort of gift card, which at first I accepted. It was light gray, semi-transparent, thick in the middle with the edges chamfered slightly. A piece of paper with some text printed on it was taped to the card with scotch tape. Then I got kind of angry, asking why they gave me a gift card at a restaurant. But then I didn't care, and left. I don't recall any other details.
1·25·10
Skepticism of the establishment, when taken too far, is not productive and provides no benefit—extreme skepticism walks a fine line between circumventing ill-guided navigation and outright paranoia. When skepticism grows so extreme as to reject all external references it risks crossing into paranoia, with little hope of preserving its orientation, since considering outside references is the greatest hope of avoiding psychosis. Unfortunately, the suggestion that we "heed cautions of skepticism inhibiting worthy rational thought without reason" itself is not a well reasoned assertion. Am I going mad?
1·26·10
Ouch. I watched a program once on the discovery channel, about climbing mt. everest, and how above 15,000 or 20 or whatever it was, the oxygen deprivation can cause severe judgement impairment. And suddenly I was really freaked out. Far more than any physical danger you can encounter while climbing a mountain, the idea that the thing you rely on to make sensible decisions, to make survival decisions, could be greatly impaired, by nothing other than the environment, is terrifying. Though having insufficient information to make a decision can have the exact same effect, in which case you don't need to be in a greatly oxygen-deprived environment, you maybe just need someone to not give you everything they know. With the additional handicap that perhaps you can never quite decide what other people are thinking, or feeling, the slightest obvious ambiguity in information can be enough to prevent any decision from being made. The terror emerges from the fact that a mind disabled in a particular way is incapable of even observing that it is disabled, incapable of detecting fatal flaws in very simple reasoning. You watch otherwise intelligent people do entirely insane things; damaging the reasoning machinery risks the whole organization even without a real threat. Likewise, a mind, seemingly incapable of empathizing with other minds, risks much greater consequences of mis-calculation than a empathetic mind, without having any clue whatsoever that it is taking such sharp risks. It's far more than ignorance is bliss, its a complete inability to become informed. It is an eternal condemnation of comprehension. It's as close to a curse as might be realized in a strictly physical world. And so how to recover? Can one compensate? Or must I admit defeat, and accept that verifying one's sanity will always demand external input, despite such reliance on others appearing to be the very definition of vulnerability?
And all this without any consideration of the destruction incurred in the other direction.
1/23/2010
Building a "Religion"
This post seems very relevant to my roomate's response to my idea of a website that tracks politician's stances on scientific matters. I expressed an urge to expand the idea to other political ideas, but a reluctance due to those issues being opinion, rather than fact-driven.
He liked this idea, and pointed out that politics is an opinion game, which in some instances is perfectly reasonable (truly political issues), while other times it interferes with actual facts (for instance, evolution).
The goal of this organization would be to gather powerful political leaders' stances regarding certain scientific facts, first and foremost: evolution. We want a list of every politician, from the top down; name, location, influence, and sourced quotes describing their acceptance, rejection, or ignorance of scientific theories.
Suddenly I wondered if the phase "jump the gun" could mean, "charge the shooter".
Sean Carroll wrote:
I find the categorization of "politicians and critics" interesting, and I can't help but bring this up: scientists, in general (at least real scientists), must always be critics, in this sense. Truth must always be the #1 priority. Limited funding and competition conspire to distort that ideal, but in the limit, any veering from the truth will one day be revealed, that's just how science works.
But now we might wonder, should one hold a default skepticism, doubting everything they are told, only accepting it when sufficient evidence is presented? Or could one tentatively accept anything that fits into the previous body of evidence & best-fit model? Obviously it is undesirable to accept non-evidenced (no data one way or the other) claims as being validated, and obviously invalidated claims should be scrutinized, but for claims in which no relevant data exists, scrutinizing the claim in terms of it's consistency with unrelated data and accepted models, and accepting the claim tentatively, ought to be acceptable, as it allows one to advance their thinking into new areas more rapidly. This may also lead to new theoretical considerations which could ultimately lead to new experiments to validate or falsify both the new claims as well as the older models.
Perhaps I should start a "religion". It's tenets would be strict physicalism and metaphysical naturalism, and a complete rejection of any notion of supernaturalism.
In those sense, it wouldn't be much of a religion, but why not call it one?
We can emphasize personal responsibility and a sense of community, equality, and truth.
Personal testimony could be shared between members with our experiences of the numinous, and Sam Harris's notions of mysticism, or something resembling spirituality.
Our reverence for nature and humanity will be our sacred tenets.
Our principles will include requiring our worldview be consistent with empirical evidence above all else, combined with a utilitarian-like approach to moral issues, which, although relative, should be fairly solid and perhaps only laid out by a majority vote of church members.
Sometimes moral views will change, and some morals, if divided among two large majorities, will be given a "no comment" stance by the church, citing insufficient evidence, understanding, and/or consensus to make a decision.
Individuals could perhaps abstain from voting, in which case they have no influence on the outcome, or perhaps allowed to vote a "I don't know" vote, which if in a majority, may prevent an official stance by the church. (Though it seems likely that anyone involved with such an institution would tend to be informed, or if not, rapidly remedy that themselves.)
We could call it "Saganism." We could always write "religion" and "church" in "quotes."
If we had a political stance, I would prefer they promote a linear combination of socialistic and capitalistic models, as well as a mix of meritocracy and democracy, better voting systems (that is, multi-vote systems or the other alternatives, unrelated to computers), issue-based rather than party-based elections, (as well as issue-based metrics for feedback), and a more scientific approach to what does and doesn't work, to eliminate debate over the correctness of social and economic models. (E.g., abstinence-only doesn't work, lazza-faire economics failed, and free-markets don't necessarily evolve into creatures that will efficiently promote the best interests of the people.)
"The favored method of those who would claim that science and religion are compatible — really, the only method available — is to twist the definition of either “science” or “religion” well out of the form in which most people would recognize it. Often both. Of course, it’s very difficult to agree on a single definition of “religion” (and not that much easier for “science”)..."
We would use Richard Feynman's 'definition' of science, as the process of testing old information to make sure it is valid.
And of course, "Saganism" would be an immense distortion of the definition of "religion," at the expense of preserving the definition of "science" in all it's glory.
I'd be really nervous about such a distortion, and the potential damage it could cause. But on the other hand, it seems like it might attract swaths of previously elusive faitheists who just haven't quite seen the incandescence of atheism for the rainbow of benefits it really is.
Of course, the purpose of such distortion is really to create a competitive, non-destructive alternative for religion. Something people can do on Sundays, and that instills a greater sense of purpose in them. Real science isn't for everyone, it requires a lot of time and effort, and sometimes a de-prioritizing of what many people consider "more typical" goals (i.e., a sacrifice; a cost incurred against the possibility of a more 'normal' life).
"Religions have always made claims about the natural world, from how it was created to the importance of supernatural interventions in it. And these claims are often very important to the religions who make them; ask Galileo or Giordano Bruno if you don’t believe me." -Sean Carroll
I should emphasize: morals can not be derived directly from science, they require a set of axioms that can only be defined by human opinions and interests. However, such opinions should not be considered "true" indefinitely, as technology has a way of spurring real-world moral dilemmas that exceed the previous societies' moral sophistication. The only seemingly sensible way I can imagine to deal with this is to bring the full brunt of human discussion down on it (I think Sam Harris advocated this approach as well), relying on the best scientific knowledge available to inform a debate in which we, as a society, develop a consensus view of where exactly to draw the line between right and wrong.
He liked this idea, and pointed out that politics is an opinion game, which in some instances is perfectly reasonable (truly political issues), while other times it interferes with actual facts (for instance, evolution).
The goal of this organization would be to gather powerful political leaders' stances regarding certain scientific facts, first and foremost: evolution. We want a list of every politician, from the top down; name, location, influence, and sourced quotes describing their acceptance, rejection, or ignorance of scientific theories.
Suddenly I wondered if the phase "jump the gun" could mean, "charge the shooter".
Sean Carroll wrote:
When Chris and Matt talk to the PZ/Dawkins crowd, they do a really bad job of understanding and working within the presuppositions of their audience — exactly what framing is supposed to be all about. To the Framers, what’s going on is an essentially political battle; a public-relations contest, pitting pro-science vs. anti-science, where the goal is to sway more people to your side. And there is no doubt that such a contest is going on. But it’s not all that is going on, and it’s not the only motivation one might have for wading into discussions of science and religion.
There is a more basic motivation: telling the truth.
What Matt and Chris (seemingly) fail to understand is that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are not trying to be successful politicians, persuading the largest number of people to come over to their side. They have no interest in being politicians. They are critics, and their goal is to say correct things about the world and argue against incorrect statements. Of course, they would certainly like to see evolution rather than creationism taught in schools, and ultimately they would be very happy if all of humanity were persuaded of the correctness of their views. But their books and blogs about science and religion are not strategic documents designed to bring about some desired outcome; they are attempts to say true things about issues they care about. Telling them “Shut up! You’ll offend the sensibilities of people we are trying to persuade!” is like talking to a brick wall, or at least in an alien language. You will have to frame things much better than that.
However, we also need critics. If everyone were a politician, it would be equally disastrous. In Bernard Shaw’s famous phrasing, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” The perfect can be the enemy of the good, but if we don’t have a loud and persistent chorus of voices reminding us of how far short we fall of perfection, we won’t work as hard as we can to get there.
I find the categorization of "politicians and critics" interesting, and I can't help but bring this up: scientists, in general (at least real scientists), must always be critics, in this sense. Truth must always be the #1 priority. Limited funding and competition conspire to distort that ideal, but in the limit, any veering from the truth will one day be revealed, that's just how science works.
But now we might wonder, should one hold a default skepticism, doubting everything they are told, only accepting it when sufficient evidence is presented? Or could one tentatively accept anything that fits into the previous body of evidence & best-fit model? Obviously it is undesirable to accept non-evidenced (no data one way or the other) claims as being validated, and obviously invalidated claims should be scrutinized, but for claims in which no relevant data exists, scrutinizing the claim in terms of it's consistency with unrelated data and accepted models, and accepting the claim tentatively, ought to be acceptable, as it allows one to advance their thinking into new areas more rapidly. This may also lead to new theoretical considerations which could ultimately lead to new experiments to validate or falsify both the new claims as well as the older models.
Perhaps I should start a "religion". It's tenets would be strict physicalism and metaphysical naturalism, and a complete rejection of any notion of supernaturalism.
In those sense, it wouldn't be much of a religion, but why not call it one?
We can emphasize personal responsibility and a sense of community, equality, and truth.
Personal testimony could be shared between members with our experiences of the numinous, and Sam Harris's notions of mysticism, or something resembling spirituality.
Our reverence for nature and humanity will be our sacred tenets.
Our principles will include requiring our worldview be consistent with empirical evidence above all else, combined with a utilitarian-like approach to moral issues, which, although relative, should be fairly solid and perhaps only laid out by a majority vote of church members.
Sometimes moral views will change, and some morals, if divided among two large majorities, will be given a "no comment" stance by the church, citing insufficient evidence, understanding, and/or consensus to make a decision.
Individuals could perhaps abstain from voting, in which case they have no influence on the outcome, or perhaps allowed to vote a "I don't know" vote, which if in a majority, may prevent an official stance by the church. (Though it seems likely that anyone involved with such an institution would tend to be informed, or if not, rapidly remedy that themselves.)
We could call it "Saganism." We could always write "religion" and "church" in "quotes."
If we had a political stance, I would prefer they promote a linear combination of socialistic and capitalistic models, as well as a mix of meritocracy and democracy, better voting systems (that is, multi-vote systems or the other alternatives, unrelated to computers), issue-based rather than party-based elections, (as well as issue-based metrics for feedback), and a more scientific approach to what does and doesn't work, to eliminate debate over the correctness of social and economic models. (E.g., abstinence-only doesn't work, lazza-faire economics failed, and free-markets don't necessarily evolve into creatures that will efficiently promote the best interests of the people.)
"The favored method of those who would claim that science and religion are compatible — really, the only method available — is to twist the definition of either “science” or “religion” well out of the form in which most people would recognize it. Often both. Of course, it’s very difficult to agree on a single definition of “religion” (and not that much easier for “science”)..."
We would use Richard Feynman's 'definition' of science, as the process of testing old information to make sure it is valid.
And of course, "Saganism" would be an immense distortion of the definition of "religion," at the expense of preserving the definition of "science" in all it's glory.
I'd be really nervous about such a distortion, and the potential damage it could cause. But on the other hand, it seems like it might attract swaths of previously elusive faitheists who just haven't quite seen the incandescence of atheism for the rainbow of benefits it really is.
Of course, the purpose of such distortion is really to create a competitive, non-destructive alternative for religion. Something people can do on Sundays, and that instills a greater sense of purpose in them. Real science isn't for everyone, it requires a lot of time and effort, and sometimes a de-prioritizing of what many people consider "more typical" goals (i.e., a sacrifice; a cost incurred against the possibility of a more 'normal' life).
"Religions have always made claims about the natural world, from how it was created to the importance of supernatural interventions in it. And these claims are often very important to the religions who make them; ask Galileo or Giordano Bruno if you don’t believe me." -Sean Carroll
I should emphasize: morals can not be derived directly from science, they require a set of axioms that can only be defined by human opinions and interests. However, such opinions should not be considered "true" indefinitely, as technology has a way of spurring real-world moral dilemmas that exceed the previous societies' moral sophistication. The only seemingly sensible way I can imagine to deal with this is to bring the full brunt of human discussion down on it (I think Sam Harris advocated this approach as well), relying on the best scientific knowledge available to inform a debate in which we, as a society, develop a consensus view of where exactly to draw the line between right and wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)