so im accidentally going to california.
"ive never been good with words which is why im in such a delicate conundrum."
but we're fooling ourselves. one last first kiss. whats a synonym for antonym? ive written about this before, but once again i have experienced water so hot that my hand first told me it was cold.
"youll do any terrifying thing youre asked to do but you have to do it running... the only thing that really scares you guys, is stillness.
...
this is my voice darling. this is what i sound like, dont forget okay?
...
evil falls suddenly. whos to say when it falls?"
"It is unclear whether her primary loyalty while working as an asset lay with the United States, the People's Republic of China, or herself."
i was re-reading what i wrote previously, about my disinterest in the supernatural, yet openness to the possibility that we are inadequately equipped to fully understand the universe, and i am now thinking there is another aspect to mysticism that i reject, and it has to do with certainty. the mystic declares some events to be supernatural, which implies a kind of certainty regarding the nature of the event. science on the other hand is supposed to imply a sort tentativeness everything it does... it is well understood that at its very core, science is built on subjective experience, though we work very hard to negate that bias (hopefully). another oddity of this whole situation is that while mysticism and science both declare certain truths about events, the declaration made by mysticism is much more fundamental than that of science: science discusses what are in some sense, very superficial aspects of the natural world, while mysticism is making statements about the fundamental nature of the universe (such as the existence of supernatural forces). okay, now im starting to think that i have abused the word mysticism some.
the ith sign of the apocalypse, where i goes from 0 to the apocalypse.
on friday night, stefan and i hung out on the stoop outside my apartment building for several hours. a man named andy saw us and talked for a few hours, he was cool. i watched a state trooper drive up and down main street, pulling over people who ran the temporary stop sign that has been placed for the construction work. after two hours of this we went over to see if the cooking place was open attached to the bar, but it wasnt, which made sense because it was almost three o clock i think. on the way back the trooper drove by again, this time when i stared at him he looked back. then he disappeared. about five minutes after he disappeared, a (seemingly) drunk guy pulled up to our makeshift bench and came out and sat down and pretty much didnt say anything, or very little. his name was chris. chris drives a nice buick SUV with the liscense plate "-DASH-". chris dresses well, has a clean haircut, and maintains his goatee nicely. chris is probably an undercover cop for the town of keene. in retrospect, i know that what we were doing looked very sketchy; i stared at every car and person that moved up and down main street, but whatever. next time we are going to try and get him to admit he is an undercover cop.
the difference between deterents and right and wrong is very important, and i dont think most people know the difference. use stefans dog example: the dog understands that peeing in the house is punishable, it does not necessarily understand it is wrong.
but the sky is so empty and quiet and beautiful.
5/22/2007
overcast intentions
are you here to read the future?
this is a little bit interesting: i reject the notion of any existence of supernatural phenomena, yet i accept the idea that we may be inadequately equipped to decipher the universe completely (that is, fine the 'ultimate physical theory'). yet if we do not find the ultimate theory, there will remain a certain mystery inherent to the universe that could be described as supernatural, as we will not be able to explain it. but ah, now that i have typed this thought, i see the distinction; supernatural phenomena as they are perceived now, are not congruent to the supernatural phenomena which will remain after human intelligence maximizes its physical understanding. that is, the mysteries which are currently retained by the universe due to our incomplete physical theories are already much less fantastical than the phenomena mystics adhere to.
i guess we feel its safer holding back. is it safer holding back?
why is it that people fear other people so much? why is it so easy to suspect other people find it easy to do things that we find it hard to do? when the vast majority of people on earth, and i really do mean vast majority, are nearly identical in their needs, desires, beliefs, hopes, fears.
mass energy equivalence... what does that lead to? what does that imply about inertia? and gravity? seems like it should have some pretty important implications with those concepts. but ill think about that later.
there are two kinds of people in this world, people who categorize people, and people who dont.
there are two kinds of people in this world, people who think there are two kinds of people in this world, and people who do not think there are two kinds of people in this world.
abandoned in place
so i was reading about metaphysical naturalism, and wow, it fits my understanding of life perfectly. anyway, they mention the golden rule, (or now called the ethic of reciprocity), and the way it was taught to me was, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". but now im thinking, that sounds a bit restrictive... there might be things that i dont want done for/to me necessarily, but that others would find quite pleasing. for instance, if i had lots of money, and i gave it to people, i certainly wouldnt want people giving me money. so i feel like there should be a better statement to use... looking on the site, i find: "what you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." – Confucius, (ca. 551-479 BC)
gotta be careful about bringing my backpack as carry-on, since the pins might be removed and discarded as threats.
also, what sort of constraints does the physical world put on systems? its hard to imagine life thinking much quicker than us, or much slower really.
so, for a while ive thought that time travel and immortality are two good examples of the ability of the human mind to out-imagine reality; they are concepts for which reality does not readily provide evidence, and yet it is easy for us to speculate about the impact and behavior of these concepts (if they were to show up in reality). more recently ive began to think that interstellar space travel has a good chance of falling into this category as well, and i would say that intergalactic space travel is most definitely in this category (though oddly, i imagine there are many people who would agree intergalactic travel is probably impossible, yet would not concede that time travel is most likely impossible, which i believe is due to the attractive qualities of time travel distorting their ability to admit impossibility).
beyond time travel, immortality, interstellar and galactic travel, omnipotence is too an impossible concept; though i believe their should be (at least) two concepts of omnipotence, a strong and a weak.
strong omnipotence is the sort that people use to describe their gods: knows everything, can do anything--literally "all powerful". it could range anywhere from completely uninhibited by physical reality, to completely uninhibited by the laws of logic. (it is debatable whether this 'strong omnipotence' should include the ability to transcend logic or not, i tend to think either way is stupid).
strong omnipotence doesnt really make any sense, even in its weakest form (in which the laws of physics do not apply). if you know everything, if you can do anything, then what is the fucking point? there is no longer such things as mistakes, mystery, accidents, problems, surprise, discovery, learning, change, evolution, maturing... i think without these things love makes little sense, along with fun and excitement. it is precisely the mystery that makes things interesting.
the stronger form of strong omnipotence, in which even the laws of logic or reason are broken, really doesnt make any sense. the existence of someone able to defy logic is (as might be expected) simply illogical. say there existed a being who could create a rock so big 'he' couldnt lift it, and then could lift it... well, it just doesnt make any sense.
weak omnipotence is the ability to do anything physically possible, so while a strongly omnipotent being could say, travel faster than light, a weakly omnipotent being could not. if constructing a dyson sphere is physically possible (which i really doubt), then a weakly omnipotent being would be one capable of doing so.
in this sense, considered as a species and given enough time, humans are probably weakly omnipotent, since it seems that anything that is physically possible can be accomplished by humans.
all of these thoughts lead me to think that we probably created god in our image, rather than the oft-quoted converse statement.
abandoned in place.
this is a little bit interesting: i reject the notion of any existence of supernatural phenomena, yet i accept the idea that we may be inadequately equipped to decipher the universe completely (that is, fine the 'ultimate physical theory'). yet if we do not find the ultimate theory, there will remain a certain mystery inherent to the universe that could be described as supernatural, as we will not be able to explain it. but ah, now that i have typed this thought, i see the distinction; supernatural phenomena as they are perceived now, are not congruent to the supernatural phenomena which will remain after human intelligence maximizes its physical understanding. that is, the mysteries which are currently retained by the universe due to our incomplete physical theories are already much less fantastical than the phenomena mystics adhere to.
i guess we feel its safer holding back. is it safer holding back?
why is it that people fear other people so much? why is it so easy to suspect other people find it easy to do things that we find it hard to do? when the vast majority of people on earth, and i really do mean vast majority, are nearly identical in their needs, desires, beliefs, hopes, fears.
mass energy equivalence... what does that lead to? what does that imply about inertia? and gravity? seems like it should have some pretty important implications with those concepts. but ill think about that later.
there are two kinds of people in this world, people who categorize people, and people who dont.
there are two kinds of people in this world, people who think there are two kinds of people in this world, and people who do not think there are two kinds of people in this world.
abandoned in place
so i was reading about metaphysical naturalism, and wow, it fits my understanding of life perfectly. anyway, they mention the golden rule, (or now called the ethic of reciprocity), and the way it was taught to me was, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". but now im thinking, that sounds a bit restrictive... there might be things that i dont want done for/to me necessarily, but that others would find quite pleasing. for instance, if i had lots of money, and i gave it to people, i certainly wouldnt want people giving me money. so i feel like there should be a better statement to use... looking on the site, i find: "what you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." – Confucius, (ca. 551-479 BC)
gotta be careful about bringing my backpack as carry-on, since the pins might be removed and discarded as threats.
also, what sort of constraints does the physical world put on systems? its hard to imagine life thinking much quicker than us, or much slower really.
so, for a while ive thought that time travel and immortality are two good examples of the ability of the human mind to out-imagine reality; they are concepts for which reality does not readily provide evidence, and yet it is easy for us to speculate about the impact and behavior of these concepts (if they were to show up in reality). more recently ive began to think that interstellar space travel has a good chance of falling into this category as well, and i would say that intergalactic space travel is most definitely in this category (though oddly, i imagine there are many people who would agree intergalactic travel is probably impossible, yet would not concede that time travel is most likely impossible, which i believe is due to the attractive qualities of time travel distorting their ability to admit impossibility).
beyond time travel, immortality, interstellar and galactic travel, omnipotence is too an impossible concept; though i believe their should be (at least) two concepts of omnipotence, a strong and a weak.
strong omnipotence is the sort that people use to describe their gods: knows everything, can do anything--literally "all powerful". it could range anywhere from completely uninhibited by physical reality, to completely uninhibited by the laws of logic. (it is debatable whether this 'strong omnipotence' should include the ability to transcend logic or not, i tend to think either way is stupid).
strong omnipotence doesnt really make any sense, even in its weakest form (in which the laws of physics do not apply). if you know everything, if you can do anything, then what is the fucking point? there is no longer such things as mistakes, mystery, accidents, problems, surprise, discovery, learning, change, evolution, maturing... i think without these things love makes little sense, along with fun and excitement. it is precisely the mystery that makes things interesting.
the stronger form of strong omnipotence, in which even the laws of logic or reason are broken, really doesnt make any sense. the existence of someone able to defy logic is (as might be expected) simply illogical. say there existed a being who could create a rock so big 'he' couldnt lift it, and then could lift it... well, it just doesnt make any sense.
weak omnipotence is the ability to do anything physically possible, so while a strongly omnipotent being could say, travel faster than light, a weakly omnipotent being could not. if constructing a dyson sphere is physically possible (which i really doubt), then a weakly omnipotent being would be one capable of doing so.
in this sense, considered as a species and given enough time, humans are probably weakly omnipotent, since it seems that anything that is physically possible can be accomplished by humans.
all of these thoughts lead me to think that we probably created god in our image, rather than the oft-quoted converse statement.
abandoned in place.
5/21/2007
only so stunning
burn you up.
burn you down.
thinking about the keynesian beauty contest, as well as the party game, i find it a bit odd that i see a real-world solution to the first, but not the second. it only sort of makes sense. i suppose, isnt that how it always is? this might help too (though probably not).
at this distance ill never be touched.
so im becoming fairly certain that i am a moral relativist, and that i practice moral skepticism, not to be confused with moral nihilism, which i do not agree with. how nice, that i can categorize and label all my beliefs, eh? pretty soon ill be nothing more than a list of ideas.
also, i dont completely subscribe to moral skepticism: i believe that while our morals are relative, they can be useful guides. i feel like this has always been how i think, though i am only aware of discussing it outright for the last year or two probably. can any older friend of mine recall past conversations concerning the relative nature of right and wrong?
okay, cool. im also a metaphysical naturalist.
i feel like im untying a knot. the knot is all the conflict among humanity, and the string is the individual views. as if all conflict arises from simple differences of view, and inability to communicate and detect the differences. moral realists, it is beginning to appear, are probably identical to my view of moral relativism, only they have started one step in front of me. i have taken the step back to see where the morals first must start, which is no where. once ive established that, the next step results in the morals that they want, and the use of them they want. or i might be kind of tired and making all this up, i dont yet know. ill need to find a moral realist with whom i might discuss these ideas.
but in the meantime... the arguments against moral relativism are really more arguments that it fails to provide a moral framework, which is true. because what moral relativism is really saying is that such a framework cannot really exist. its as if the non-relativists say "this exists, therefore moral relativism is wrong", and the relativists say, "no, that does not exist."
there was plenty of trouble.
this is an article by Larry Sanger, co-founder of wikipedia. i dont really agree with a lot (most) of what he says, but some of it is very interesting. i think im going to write to him.
i should feel sick. but im feeling fine.
so how about this as a model of public education: the first few years are general ed stuff, as they are now, but then instead of switching to the current style of 'well rounded' education based on periodic standardized testing, we switch to a discussion based testing of personal exploration of the interested subjects. holy crap thats a mouth full. im not really paying attention, but i feel like these ideas are important, and must be explored more.
dear Mirah, i have written to Paul Simon to inquire about the additional 38 ways to leave a lover. i know that youre a lesbian, but i was hoping i could sway you, and thus provide one of Paul's 'fifty ways' for you to leave any current girlfriend (assuming you are seeing someone, pardon my obtrusion).
is it possible that a sufficiently intelligent person can (by accident), convince people of incorrect things? could i have convinced my professor that wikipedia is better than he should think?
right now im reading about daniell integrals, and im starting to feel like im way too fucking smart. this despite consuming wine concurrently.
a mighty mustache.
to Larry Sanger:
with regards to epistemic egalitarianism and "wikipedians" in general, my view is that although we (the wikipedians) are all on equal ground when it comes to our online presence, we are not all equal when it comes to our ability to articulate and argue a point, and so the nobel laureate, though visibly indistinguishable (online) from the physics illiterate, they can explain themselves, not just without external references and examples, but also citing (internally) other articles and experiments which explain the reasons that physical theories are the way they are. at which point i believe ive abandoned the concept of epistemic egalitarianism.
also, i really enjoyed your mind/body problem papers that you contributed to wikipedia years ago, i think thats how i found the project, and though i have 'at heart' always been a physicalist, it was very interesting to see these views stated explicitly and clearly.
Sanger says: "Experts know particular topics particularly well. By paying closer attention to experts, we improve our chances of getting the truth; by ignoring them, we throw our chances to the wind. Thus, if we reduce experts to the level of the rest of us, even when they speak about their areas of knowledge, we reduce society's collective grasp of the truth."
my response is: im not really interested in ignoring the experts, nor reducing them to my level of credibility, but i do think it is important that the experts be able to explain themselves and their understanding, that they be as open to questioning as anyone else, which is the main difference between wikipedia and the reason we all hate authority so much. i dont hate authority because they are given more credibility than me, or because they can do their job better than i can do it, i hate them because they tend not to explain themselves.
"It is not just what we know that's important, it is what we don't. We not only need an encyclopedia of knowledge, we need an encyclopedia of ignorance, too. If our ignorance is not mislabeled, cataloging it in one place can be a useful tool."
-George Dyson
...this gives me an idea: we need an anti-encyclopedia. though wikipedia already stores open questions, itd be nice to have a database of open questions that anyone could contribute to, that was completely open. though maybe not. it seems itd be nice to have one in which it was very easy to find such questions. as if itd promote research.
all i want is to fall madly in love. what do you want?
burn me up.
burn me down.
burn you down.
thinking about the keynesian beauty contest, as well as the party game, i find it a bit odd that i see a real-world solution to the first, but not the second. it only sort of makes sense. i suppose, isnt that how it always is? this might help too (though probably not).
at this distance ill never be touched.
so im becoming fairly certain that i am a moral relativist, and that i practice moral skepticism, not to be confused with moral nihilism, which i do not agree with. how nice, that i can categorize and label all my beliefs, eh? pretty soon ill be nothing more than a list of ideas.
also, i dont completely subscribe to moral skepticism: i believe that while our morals are relative, they can be useful guides. i feel like this has always been how i think, though i am only aware of discussing it outright for the last year or two probably. can any older friend of mine recall past conversations concerning the relative nature of right and wrong?
okay, cool. im also a metaphysical naturalist.
i feel like im untying a knot. the knot is all the conflict among humanity, and the string is the individual views. as if all conflict arises from simple differences of view, and inability to communicate and detect the differences. moral realists, it is beginning to appear, are probably identical to my view of moral relativism, only they have started one step in front of me. i have taken the step back to see where the morals first must start, which is no where. once ive established that, the next step results in the morals that they want, and the use of them they want. or i might be kind of tired and making all this up, i dont yet know. ill need to find a moral realist with whom i might discuss these ideas.
but in the meantime... the arguments against moral relativism are really more arguments that it fails to provide a moral framework, which is true. because what moral relativism is really saying is that such a framework cannot really exist. its as if the non-relativists say "this exists, therefore moral relativism is wrong", and the relativists say, "no, that does not exist."
there was plenty of trouble.
this is an article by Larry Sanger, co-founder of wikipedia. i dont really agree with a lot (most) of what he says, but some of it is very interesting. i think im going to write to him.
i should feel sick. but im feeling fine.
so how about this as a model of public education: the first few years are general ed stuff, as they are now, but then instead of switching to the current style of 'well rounded' education based on periodic standardized testing, we switch to a discussion based testing of personal exploration of the interested subjects. holy crap thats a mouth full. im not really paying attention, but i feel like these ideas are important, and must be explored more.
dear Mirah, i have written to Paul Simon to inquire about the additional 38 ways to leave a lover. i know that youre a lesbian, but i was hoping i could sway you, and thus provide one of Paul's 'fifty ways' for you to leave any current girlfriend (assuming you are seeing someone, pardon my obtrusion).
is it possible that a sufficiently intelligent person can (by accident), convince people of incorrect things? could i have convinced my professor that wikipedia is better than he should think?
right now im reading about daniell integrals, and im starting to feel like im way too fucking smart. this despite consuming wine concurrently.
a mighty mustache.
to Larry Sanger:
with regards to epistemic egalitarianism and "wikipedians" in general, my view is that although we (the wikipedians) are all on equal ground when it comes to our online presence, we are not all equal when it comes to our ability to articulate and argue a point, and so the nobel laureate, though visibly indistinguishable (online) from the physics illiterate, they can explain themselves, not just without external references and examples, but also citing (internally) other articles and experiments which explain the reasons that physical theories are the way they are. at which point i believe ive abandoned the concept of epistemic egalitarianism.
also, i really enjoyed your mind/body problem papers that you contributed to wikipedia years ago, i think thats how i found the project, and though i have 'at heart' always been a physicalist, it was very interesting to see these views stated explicitly and clearly.
Sanger says: "Experts know particular topics particularly well. By paying closer attention to experts, we improve our chances of getting the truth; by ignoring them, we throw our chances to the wind. Thus, if we reduce experts to the level of the rest of us, even when they speak about their areas of knowledge, we reduce society's collective grasp of the truth."
my response is: im not really interested in ignoring the experts, nor reducing them to my level of credibility, but i do think it is important that the experts be able to explain themselves and their understanding, that they be as open to questioning as anyone else, which is the main difference between wikipedia and the reason we all hate authority so much. i dont hate authority because they are given more credibility than me, or because they can do their job better than i can do it, i hate them because they tend not to explain themselves.
"It is not just what we know that's important, it is what we don't. We not only need an encyclopedia of knowledge, we need an encyclopedia of ignorance, too. If our ignorance is not mislabeled, cataloging it in one place can be a useful tool."
-George Dyson
...this gives me an idea: we need an anti-encyclopedia. though wikipedia already stores open questions, itd be nice to have a database of open questions that anyone could contribute to, that was completely open. though maybe not. it seems itd be nice to have one in which it was very easy to find such questions. as if itd promote research.
all i want is to fall madly in love. what do you want?
burn me up.
burn me down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)