Posts Tagged ‘ essay

No one’s ever said that before?!?!

A common theme in living life is the slow, dawning realization that there are 6.6 billion other people out there, and that we are almost exactly alike. It’s hard to look at humanity and see yourself as something better than an ant, never mind being the best at something. And yet, everybody thinks they’re special. And also, we all think we’re special. That special little ant that, well, you know the song. Everyone the same in our uniqueness and all that. I believe that it’s to a large extent an illusion.

Look at sentences. Some time ago the writer of dinosaur comics wrote something pretty weird that, out of some perverse curiousity or just regular curiousity, he proceeded to google. And no i don’t remember what it was. But he was surprised that nobody had ever said it before, or at least google didn’t know about anybody ever having said it before. It struck me that this didn’t seem nearly as odd as he thought it was. That i say things all the time that, even if the basic concepts are very similar if not identical to what other people have said, are unique in their phrasing. And you do too, i’m pretty sure. And i spent a while preparing this post, trying to figure out an equation that shows how huge a number it is that is the number of possible sentences. (Ha! Try googling that.)

Turns out that, as part of an artistic collaboration between Edge.org and the Serpentine Gallery in London, Steven Pinker did it for me. I highly recommend taking a look at that picture, it’s worth about one hundred quintillion words. The art exhibit is named “Formulae for the 21st Century” and it’s both fantastic and a fantastic illustration of the point i’m trying to make. I highly recommend taking a look around the exhibit, (scroll down) or maybe following this guide from Sean Carroll at Cosmic Variance, one of the contributors. It’s got contributions from all over the spectrum, from life scientists to musicians. But i digress.

Pinker came to the conclusion that there are approximately one hundred quintillion (1020) possible sentences that we can utter or understand. That’s a lot. That is so many sentences. Let’s think about it for a second: we talk at about, let’s say 4 syllables per second is accurate enough for the scale we’re talking about. One second for every two words is fair. An average spoken sentence in Pinker’s estimation is 10 words, so 5 seconds. So Speaking really fast without pause, we get about 12 sentences per minute. So 720 sentences per hour. So 17280 words per 24 hour day. So 6,307,200 sentences per year. At that rate it would still take 1.5×1013 years for someone to run out of new ways of saying things. That’s 15,000,000,000,000 years. That’s fifteen trillion years. That’s more than one thousand times longer than the universe has existed years. And, as Steve (i wonder if he signed the petition?) points out, the number of possibly utterable sentences roughly corresponds to the number of possibly thinkable thoughts. Actually, that’s not even close to true, and it’s not what he says. The equation is roughly similar, but it’s an exponential equation, and people have a notoriously limited speaking vocabulary when compared even to their written.

When you think about all the concepts that you have available to you, concepts that are variously grounded in memory and imagination, how so many of your concepts are so ripe for being recombined with with others to form new and interesting thoughts. How every thought you have is new and increases your store of concepts, even if just a little. How your thoughts are composed of innumerable concepts and permutations. It starts to become apparent that that number doesn’t even approach the number of thoughts a person is capable of. And while there are an almost unimaginable number of possible thoughts that even one person is capable of having, when you think about how complex is the structure we call ‘I’ at the center of it, made up of so many thoughts of ourselves, understandings of the world, pieces of knowledge, attitudes and etc. and etc. et. et. and!

We are the generalizing species, it’s one of our greatest skills. The ability to see a group of things and immediately notice what they have in common. Oh, but how they love their britney spears. Oh, how we look down on them. They They They. Aside from how irritating it is that it is the negative things that we notice when we notice generalities in ourselves and others, that people most often bring up our similarities in some kind of despair at the swarming nature of the masses instead of how far and fast we’ve come. Aside from that, it’s an illusion brought on by our natural tendency to generalize. There are so many different possible ways for each of us to be that the fact that any of us have anything in common is a fucking miracle. It is only the fact that people don’t strive for greatness and don’t pay attention to those that their closest to that we can harbor this illusion of uniformity. Think about the possible combinations and permutations two people can get up to. So just go out and love somebody is the point.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Technorati Tags:

More words against Siegel

In the two days since my post on the topic of Siegel’s prejudiced essay, more (plenty more) has been said.  So, i’m going to try and keep this brief and just touch on one thing that i feel hasn’t been said; which is excruciatingly difficult, every single sentence that tries to contain a fact is wrong! There is so much in his critique of imagination that is stupid and insulting that i almost don’t know where to begin. So i’ll start at the beginning :

In their contempt for any belief that cannot be scientifically or empirically proved, the anti-God books are attacking our inborn capacity to create value and meaning for ourselves.

No. Hasn’t he ever heard of existentialism? It’s been pretty big for over a century, and one of its core contributions to human self-understanding is the idea that all meaning is created by us, individually as parts of a collective whole. Take god out of the picture and all of a sudden meaning is not some thing thrust upon us by an angry father-figure, it is something we create for ourselves. It’s specifically ironic that he phrases it the way he does: it’s not that we “are attacking our inborn capacity to create value and meaning for ourselves”, we’re showing that it has always been us making value and meaning, and that if we would just recognize that fact then maye we could make progress towards people leading lives filled with meaning and happiness, instead of fear and anger.

…When our anti-religionists attack the mechanism of religious faith by demanding that our beliefs be underpinned by science, statistics and cold logic, they are, in effect, attacking our right to believe in unseen, unprovable things at all. Their assault on religious faith amounts to an attack on the human imagination. For the imagination is what embodies concepts, ideas and values that cannot be scientifically verified and that have no practical usefulness. Because the existence of God is undemonstrable, unverifiable and the object of an impractical leap of faith, religion, it seems to me, is one of imagination’s last strongholds.

Once again this is just wrong. First of all the only thing that we’re attacking is your right to lie to (through ID creationism etc.) or kill (through holy wars fought by our army) our children. And second of all imagination is the single most important attribute in the modern world. Information technology has de-valued mindless labor while increasing the wealth that imaginative people can accrue. And science is just pure imagination:

Imagination is not that which “embodies concepts, ideas and values that cannot be scientifically verified and that have no practical usefulness,” it is the human capacity for exploring the unknown and the desire for a better world. It is our ability to think of anything that has not been thought before. It is our ability to use words to represent thoughts and things. It is not our ability to believe things that are not true. To suggest that attacking the truth of bronze age myths is an attack on one of the most fundamental human faculties is insulting and idiotic.

…The more difficult it is to believe, the stronger the faith that flies in the face of absurdity. Your willingness to stake your life on the possibility of an impossibility makes a fact out of a fantasy.

That’s just stupid. Jumping off a cliff believing that pegasus will save me won’t make him save me.

You don’t have to be a religious person to cherish the idea of faith in the absurd. When artists have an unverifiable, unprovable inspiration, and then seek to convey it in words or images, they take a leap of faith every bit as vertiginous as that of the religious person.

No, they don’t. They–taking a simple view of art for the purpose of this conversation–try to express an underlying truth or experience. They hope you understand what they’re trying to say, and they try to say it as well as they can. There is no faith involved. This is as stupid as saying “when [speakers] have an unverifieable, unproven [thought], and then seek to convey it in words…, they take  a leap of faith every bit as vertiginous as that of the religious person.”

…After all, you cannot prove the existence of truth, beauty, goodness and decency; you cannot prove the dignity of being human, or your obligation to treat people as ends and not just as means. You take a gamble on the existence of these inestimable things. For that reason, when you lay scientific, logical and empirical siege to the leap of faith at the core of the religious impulse, you are not just attacking faith in God. You are attacking the act of faith itself, faith in anything that can’t be proved. But it just so happens that the qualities that make life rich, joyful and humane cannot be proved.

You only need to prove controversial things, everything obvious is taken as true unless it is disproved. How silly would i sound if i tried to prove the existence of a rock? If i tried to prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? If i tried to prove that humans have, or at least want to have, dignity? These things all had to be said, and proofs have been attempted, but in the end all these things are just fundamental parts of reality and proofs of them are just matters of ostension. And their nature as part of reality and not some superphysical spirit-layer is what makes rational people see them, and what makes it so easy for religious fundamentalists to ignore them in favor of their non-physical beliefs. If you don’t believe in anything except reality then there is no way of getting out of the fact that people have dignity without being a lier or a hypocrite. But if your entire worldview is based on deluding yourself it is easy to convince yourself that your opponents are joyless, inhumane, and undignified.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Technorati Tags: ,

LA Times says Atheists are Jerks

Lee Siegel from the LA Times doesn’t understand what the “latest rash” of atheists are doing. Despite that, he has written a piece in the LA Times in which he questions our techniques, language, and most importantly goals. I’m not just saying that he doesn’t understand us to be trite, or to cast facile  aspersions upon him: there is nothing in this article (via samharris.org) to suggest that he knows what we are doing.  It does not contain any positive statements about the social programme this new wave of acerbic reasonable people have said or are trying to achieve. Instead it is filled with questions that lead somewhere that no atheist i have read or met would even suggest. It is filled with so many of the misunderstandings of atheism that occur in the liberal left, the kinds of misunderstandings that people whom i like have. So it seems like an excellent opportunity to join some others in knocking some holes in common misconceptions. In a future post i’ll tackle his absurd views on secular philosophy in some detail.

[No one could] know from reading the latest rash of anti-God books that promiscuous sex and polymorphous sexuality are taken for granted in modern-day America (let’s see a conservative Supreme Court try to roll that back); that the separation of church and state is inscribed in our Constitution; that no priest, minister or rabbi holds any top position in the federal government; and that even the state board of education in Kansas recently forbade the teaching of creationism.

The first four phrases of that paragraph are concerned with showing how secular, perhaps how irreligious, our culture is. But that fourth phrase is telling: “even the state board of education in Kansas recently forbade the teaching of creationism.” The fact that even this well-known bastion of religiosity Kansas–they outlawed barney, remember–is legislating a secular worldview means “OMG look how progressive we are!” First of all, this is 2007. Evolution has been well-established scientific fact for well over 100 years. There is no excuse for any person responsible for educating children not understanding how important evolution is, period. And second of all it was a close decision that has a good chance of being reversed next time there is a school board election in Kansas–it’s happened several times before and Kansas is not alone in having a populace that wants to deceive its children.

The other three phrases of that sentence are even more misleading, if not quite so self-contradictory: “promiscuous sex and polymorphous sexuality are taken for granted in modern-day america”? Has he ever known a conservative, let alone a conservative christian? And what’s that crack about the supreme court, is he joking about the potentially imminent reversal of fundamental liberties in this country, and all the suffering that would engender? Next he points out that “the separation of church and state is inscribed in our constitution”, but doesn’t bother to mention the sustained efforts of a vocal minority to overthrow that and turn this country into a theocracy. Let’s not forget his last point: “that no priest, minister or rabbi holds any top position in the federal government”. OK, yeah, nobody in any government HR department is dealing with them, but there is the funny story of Ted Haggard, (good name) a man who claimed weekly meetings with the president. It apparently doesn’t strike Siegel as contradictory to his purpose to mention this, “the religious right’s enormous influence on president bush” explicitly in his next paragraph. Perhaps he’s hung up on material legalities of the law, instead of its spirit.

I’ve established that Lee (i hope he doesn’t mind me calling him that) doesn’t understand the state of religion in America. I hope that is what i’ve demonstrated, because the only other option is that he understands it and decided to mislead his readership. Religion may be weaker in America than it has ever been anywhere else in the world–though i’m certainly not making that claim–but we are also the country with nukes and 1/3 of global military spending. (there’s a pie chart about 1/5 of the way down that page) Even a small force in such a huge machine has dramatic effects.

Now i want to just point out that he doesn’t know what we’re saying or who we’re saying it to. This shouldn’t be controversial, he says it himself:

Who is the ideal reader of these attacks on belief in God? … It’s hard to imagine anyone abandoning his faith after reading Harris’ condescending polemic, or the science of Dawkins and Dennett, or Hitchens’ vitriol.

And he’s right, except for all the ways he’s wrong. He’s right in the sense that essentially all of the people we’re railing against pride themselves on their irrationality, and are just about the last people i would expect to ever go out of their way to understand the kinds of arguments we present, let alone be persuaded by them. So then who is our audience? The quiet ones who thought they were alone or insane, the smart ones who were raised with an odd default perspective, the men and women who have never really thought about it. Most importantly our audience is society’s discourse with itself.

That discourse has been taking on more and more of the character of that one guy hogging all the champagne at his cousin’s wedding. Yes atheists are strident, acerbic, and at times bombastic. But for pete’s sake the guy just jumped up and down in the cake. It’s well past time for the best man to stand up, get some friends together, and make sure that the drunk guy doesn’t run off with the wife screaming and slung over his shoulder. These new voices are the best men asking for our friends to stand up and help get the situation under control.

Next!

The attacks in the books often don’t make much sense either. For instance, Bush and his gang preach Christian values while lying us into a slaughterhouse overseas, ransacking our public coffers and ignoring social inequities and iniquities at home—and so our heroic anti-religionists attack . . . Christian values.

OK, this is just equivocation plain and simple. And i really don’t know how to talk about this without implying that Siegel is being deceitful. The thing is, “Christian Values” is a broad term that means different things in different situations, and here Lee uses two different meanings without changing the words. The first “christian values” obviously refers to such things as empathy, valuing life, caring for your neighbor, truth, goodwill. The values that, no matter who you are or who you’re talking about, you praise people for. These are human values.

The second use of “christian values” is the pernicious meme that atheists don’t value all those good things. Ironically and unfortunately, the only reason this idea can spread is because of how strongly humanists believe in them. So strongly that it forces us to reject so many other religious values: ridiculous surety in our own correctness, war against everything that does not support our correctness, valuing our beliefs over the lives of others, belief in a coming apocalypse, belief in an all powerful war god. Notice that these are all the kinds of things that strongly religious people praise when they agree with what is being said and consider evil when it is other beliefs that are being said.

Both groups of beliefs are espoused by the bible and by the religions of the world. It is terrible that the second kind of value always overrides the first, leading to war and pain. However, atheists praise the human values and universally criticize the religious values. We are consistent, not changing what we value just because someone who disagrees with us said it. Perhaps a religious reader would read this and say “that’s not true: they have ridiculous surety about the lack of a god, don’t they? Isn’t that what this is about?” Well, no. You can’t prove a negative, and atheists don’t claim to. If you ask any of us, we quickly and easily admit to being technically agnostic. But we don’t believe.

The saddest part about Siegel’s argument that we are throwing out all of christian values just because some of them are bad–which as i just said we don’t do–is that he relies on the philosophic notion of a ‘category mistake’, and that his equivocating is a wonderful example of one. The second time that he makes the mistake he is accusing us of making.

There’s a lot more in that article, as usual with critiques of atheism all of it has been said before though. And it’s late, and this is already pretty long. I’m planning on going on to the second half and criticizing his ‘unique’ take on the value of absurdity, and definitely attacking his misunderstanding of the value of imagination in a secular society. So, stay tuned.
[tags]atheism, siegel, LA Times[/tags]

Technorati Tags: ,

Allegory of the myspace

This is an analysis of modern entertainment culture in terms of Plato’s allegory of the cave, and it owes a lot to a conversation i had with lily. As such, it will probably make more sense if you have read the allegory. (you’ll have to scroll down about 5 paragraphs to get to it. If you’re not familiar with it i highly recommend reading it just because it’s possibly the best and most important thing ever written about the relation between knowledge and freedom. And also it’s pretty short, shorter than the essay below)

——————————–

Plato creates, in “The Allegory of the Cave,” a story which illustrates the difficulties inherent in breaking free of a life where one has been chained to an idea of reality, and also to show the comparative richness and shallowness of the free and chained life, respectively. The allegory continuously uses light as a metaphor, with the captives initially looking at and judging shadows contrasting against the freed prisoners looking directly at the sun; the gradient of awareness which the allegory explicates applies as well to life today as it did 2500 years ago, but the shadows have grown larger, as have the fires which they silhouette. The chains have grown as well, from the simple ignorance of Plato’s time into a manufactured culture of images, one in which the participants who are most deeply entrenched cannot recognize more complexity than a caricature. This is the culture that has been growing in  the first world since the early 1950′s, and which has today created “the myspace generation,” an entire generation who have become so good at recognizing and analyzing shallow images, so good at caricaturizing themselves and the objects of their affection, that the shadows projected into the world via myspace have taken on a life almost as meaningful as the experience of the so-called “real world.” The ascent from the cave is just as applicable to the ascent from a life of consumption to a life of production in today’s society as it was to an ascent to a life of thought in Plato’s day. Mindless entertainment has been the norm for all of my generation’s life; dragging any person away from submergence in that culture is just as difficult, and is met with just as much resistance, as the journey out of the cave. But just as the shadows have grown deeper, the chains stronger, and the ascent steeper, so has the sun grown brighter, and the world more rich in color. If only we could tear ourselves away from the internet which is no longer primarily used as disseminator of information.

We live in a world with an overabundance of things to know and experience, there is, however, very little incentive to go out and learn; we are continuously shown enough that the superficial kinds of knowledge which permeate our culture can – through a process of aggregation which leads to a sort of mental obfuscation – seem like a body of worthwhile knowledge which one can derive benefits by actively thinking about. The content of entertainment culture is meaningless outside of itself, but it because it is the core culture which we are exposed to it has taken on a much more significant role than it warrants. We have been, from a very young age, taught and indoctrinated with the information of entertainment culture and the tenets of entertainment consumption. We want to be entertained, we know that others want to be entertained: we don’t care about things that don’t entertain us, we want to entertain others so that they will care about us. Enlightenment in this culture is a matter of how much you fit into the world of chains and shadows. Appearing different, whether through lack of knowledge about the shadows or lack of grace in wearing the chains, is a sign of ignorance, and due to the conflation of even somewhat related concepts that occurs when every complex idea is caricaturized the ignorance is interpreted as stupidity, as the opposite of enlightenment.

Our assimilation into this culture is so complete that by the time we are old enough to craft a personality for ourselves – to think – we want to be shadows. Just as the puppets in Plato’s allegory create a shadow reality for the captives, the images on the TV screen and the internet define the reality that we inhabit. Since our reality consists primarily of shadows of constructs, and to a lesser extent on shadows of people, we want to fit in by becoming shadows ourselves, we strive to become caricatures of ourselves. We think that people are their shadows, we do not realize that people are themselves, we do not even recognize ourselves as anything but shadows. In fact, we do not want to recognize ourselves as anything but shadows:  if reality is all shadow and shadow play, everything which is not shadowed by culture is unreal. Thus, by suffusing our sight with a manufactured iconography the entertainment culture has manufactured participants in its own image, and dedicated to its proliferation.

A person with the ontology described above will be as unlikely to search for enlightenment outside of culture as a person raised in Plato’s allegorical cave to search for enlightenment in the world outside. It is not merely the mannerisms or casual likes and dislikes of a person, but rather it is the soul – not the religious, spiritual soul, but rather the soul as Plato and other more modern philosophers conceive of it as the essence of one’s being – that becomes enmeshed in society and that is shaped by it. The more entwined one is with her culture, the more that she views herself and the world in terms of it, so she is exceedingly unlikely to remove herself from her entanglement voluntarily and will probably resist every attempt to take her from it with utmost force. The journey upward will, however, hold even more surprises and benefits for a modern human than could even have been imagined in ancient Greece.

Forcing someone away from the screen is the first step, and just as difficult if not more so than all of the other steps which follow. People love their screens; having a television, and probably a computer, is one of the requirements for living in modern America, and the more thoroughly enmeshed in entertainment culture that one is the more inconceivable it is to live without it. An oft repeated story from my life serves to demonstrate that it is not just that the thought of it is painful: I do not have a television in my house, and generally speaking when people find out about this they are flabbergasted. Sometimes they assume that I do not have the money to buy one and pity me, sometimes they just pity me, but in general the immediate response is:  “how do you watch TV?” Those exact words have been aimed at me almost as regularly as “how tall are you?” Modern life is inextricably bound up with television, at least in the minds of the participants of television culture. The screen is the new god of culture, it is the source and goal of life and in many cases – whether directly or indirectly – of livelihood. Growing up with TV as the focus of life means that people do not any more know how to live without it than they know how to sew a field, or harvest a crop, or tell the difference between poison ivy and more benign forms. This is to be expected: if one grows up without needing a skill, then that skill will not be developed.

The screen fills the mind with images and colors where there would otherwise be thought or learning. The screen fills the time with entertainment where one would otherwise be forced to create or do. The screen fills the body with lethargy where otherwise there would be vitality and desire. The screen fills the soul with a deadness that it does not even know is there.

The first reaction to actually losing the screen is a need for some new sort of distraction, anything to fill the void that has not yet been filled with thought, creation, vitality, and life. Losing the source of distraction from the harsh beauty of reality means that the prisoner, with nowhere else to direct her gaze, is forced to look at herself – at reality – for the first time. Forcefully freed of her bondage, she is shocked, she is upset, and in some considerable amount of pain. There is at first a need to understand her own existence. She has been in chains her whole life, she does not know how to walk, and she will need to be dragged up the steep ascent, gaining new depth of understanding as she goes, with new pains and pleasures for each stage.

The first thing she will see as she is being dragged up out of the cave is the fire which is the source of her former distractions. In this new analogy the fires can easily represent the underlying structures of society: the corporations, the government, philanthropic and narcissistic organizations. These are all things lying just underneath the surface of society but which are for the most part ignored and unknown; their inner workings a mystery and their outer workings hidden in the umbra of entertainment culture. Becoming aware of oneself means becoming aware of these organizations because of how much of them is in everybody; as the old adage has it “you are what you consume.”

Once she ascends into the light of the sun the pain will be continue, with more details apparent. In this case the metaphor expands its applicability by orders of magnitude. Being exposed to the entire world at once, and for the first time, is exactly what happens when someone lives for the first time without a screen in front of their face. Generally, though, it illustrates a deepening of understanding, something that is the hallmark of good learning. At first, she will see the reflections of true things, this could be thought of as her coming into contact with vague ideas and concepts related to the operation of the social, or physical, or metaphysical, universe. She could, perhaps, start reading books that have something to say, and start thinking about the concepts that they touch upon; or maybe she starts walking in the park and realizes that she cares about the birds and trees and their connection to one another and to the world. The precise thoughts that she touches upon are not important, what is important is that she will certainly, with time to think, start thinking. Which leads to her apprehending – in the language of the allegory – the objects themselves. This is the stage where direct and real knowledge is desired and sought after, in which she starts actively learning instead of through a process of osmosis. This could be through any of the branches of knowledge, if she grows interested in books she may start studying literature, or criticism, or philosophy. If she grows interested in the birds and the trees perhaps something more scientific, something like biology or ecology. No matter what though, without a distraction to prevent her from learning she will certainly do it. And then, as she progresses down the path of knowledge she will gain more and more awareness of the ways in which every branch of knowledge is intimately related to every other. She will start to see knowledge as the moon and stars, points of light occupying the same plane. And the more clearly she sees them, the more beautiful they will be and the more she will learn about them all and the more bright they will become, and the webs connecting them will grow wider and brighter. Eventually a dawn will come and she will see with clarity the world around her and the sky above, filled with the sun. And the light from the sun will illuminate all of the shadows, the gaps in her wisdom.

The woman who has made this journey will see how full the world is, and how much there is to know and reason about. She will know that her peers still locked in the cave do not even know what they are missing, and she will want to help them. But to try and help them is to reach the final barrier, and the final source of pain, and of course, the source of the greatest possible reward. To help them she must learn to deal with people not as caricatures, but as full and self-willed entities. Unfortunately, nobody in the cave wants to be thought of that way, nor do they want to think of themselves that way. If she returns to the dimness with no consideration for all of her old culture-games she will be ridiculed and out of place. They will be seen for the shadow play that they, the prizes bequeathed for success will be seen as ridiculous, and she will not want to re-learn the old culture that she left so long ago. But her new-found wisdom will have also developed her conscience, which will not let her be, and she will try to help them. And, if she does not practice the old mores and grow skilled in them, she will be seen as a fiend, ostracized, and killed. This fate is almost as likely today as it was for Socrates, since the entertained person, never having had any reason to seek enlightenment, is just as ignorant of the nature of the world around them as the Athenians who sentenced him to death.

Technorati Tags:

Hypnosis Bullshit (ribbit)

this might be kind of rambly, on account of the vicodin i took 6(?) hours ago. Freakin’ disease. But i’ll try and keep it concise and reasonably lucid. If it’s not, and you find it interesting, you should let me know and i’ll re-write it with actual structure and a clear point. Also I haven’t done any fact checking yet. When I have checked all my facts I will remove this sentence. Until then (and after) please hassle and degrade me for my incomplete grasp of the world wherever you can find it. I’m just letting you know that this is even more tenuous than usual for the aforementioned reasons. 

There is an article in November 2005’s scientific American called the neurobiology of the self, which is mostly about the general accretion of knowledge re: the brains construction of the “self” which we experience. All the various little bits, and maybe a couple sections where the get combined into bigger bits. Maybe. The relevant part of the article for this ‘discussion’ is that part where they talk about the way that hypnosis acts upon the brain.

Now, Penn & Teller (not the authors of the article) in their show “Bullshit” think that hypnosis is, well, Bullshit. They’re cool guys. They come right out and say it. They don’t actually make a very strong case for it. They make a decent case for the idea that people voluntarily undergo hypnosis, and that everything that they do under hypnosis is done voluntarily. For example, at one point there are a bunch of college students hypnotized to think that their (right?) shoe is a cute puppy, and they all treat it like one: awwww, look at the puppy, lick me! Lick me! Hahaha it’s so cute! Anyway. After the clips of the puppy/shoe thing (which was kind of funny. There were better moments) they showed clips of an interview with this girl who said (and I’m paraphrasing and on drugs, I’ll go back and check for accuracy and delete this parenthetical when I do) “I knew that it was a shoe, but it also looked so much like a puppy. And it seemed like it would be fun to go along with/pet it” Ha! Hypnosis is bullshit! Well, no. That’s not they’re point, either. They’re not just bastards, they’re bastards on the watch for money-grubbing bastards, and making money while they do it.

In the same bullshit episode they focus on some chick named Wendi.com. She makes a living selling bullshit, they mean hypnosis, just like the guy who convinced the college kids to let their shoes lick them. The problem is that, unlike the shoe thing, which is funny and harmless, she had tapes for penis and breast enlargement (which is also funny and harmless) and curing cancer (which is not). Also she hypnotizes girls to cum easier, which is funny and hot and probably even beneficial. That might actually do something. Because, you know, orgasm is a mostly psychological phenomenon (which, according to the science article makes it a wholly biological phenomenon expressible only as psychology, but those distinctions, interesting as they are, don’t really belong here).

So, have you ever heard of Stanley Milgram? If you went through the correct one of Linda’s classes at concord you should have a least a vague idea of his experiments (don’t ask me, I was gone by the time she started teaching that BS). He ran his experiments shortly after WWII, I believe in the 50s. Basically he was trying to determine how much harm a standard person would be willing to do to other people, people who by the end of the experiment were screaming in pain, begging to be let out of the chair, and eventually unconscious; with no coercion other than three phrases one of which was approximately “science needs you to do this” and the strongest was, also approx. “you have to keep going”. The pain was administered in ever-increasing voltages (up to 450 or 500 I think) and the participant was told that he was participating in a study on “how pain helps people learn”. The only subject of the study was the guy administering the volts (by flicking switches) the guy getting electrocuted was an actor and the scientists were all scientists.

The surprising thing about the study was that it was only extremely abnormal people who did not administer the full dosage of voltage. I’ll check the stats later, but I think that in the initial run something like 97f Americans (from college students/professors to construction workers) kept on applying the voltage until well after the learner had “died”, many of them crying while they did it. This was far beyond shocking to the psychological, indeed the entire intellectual community. God knows how much of the public has even heard about it. Not enough, is my opinion. He managed to show that people will do a lot more than they think they are capable of if they think that they are not responsible for it occurring. Can you see where this is going?

Hypnosis is a very strong surrendering of autonomy to another person. It’s so strong that in the SciAm article that I started with, while they are discussing the way that brains react to things happening to them versus the way that brains react when they actively do something, the fundamental difference being that when the brain does something it sends two signals: one is the signal to your arm/hand say, and that signal tells you arm/hand to move and grasp the doorknob. It sends essentially the same signal to the perceptual part of your brain, though. This second signal is basically a preview of what is about to be experienced. If you’ve ever opened a doorknob then your brain has a fundamental idea of how that feels, and so this second sensation acts as a “check” to make sure that your hand does, in fact, come into contact with and turn the doorknob. Here’s the freaky part though, some scientists hypnotized some subjects and told them that a lever and pulley were lifting their arms. Their brain moved the arm, but reacted to the arm movement as though it had been caused by something else. The brain reacted to its own action as though it had been done by someone else.

Hypnosis is voluntary. It’s not possible (as far as I’ve ever heard or read, I’d be dying for some information contrariwise if you have any) to involuntarily hypnotize someone, and you cannot make someone do something that it is fundamentally against their nature to do. Apparently it is possible to convince someone’s brain that something which it is doing is merely happening to it. That is a fairly extreme jump from the Stanley Milgram study, where people simply ignored their conscience in favor of perceived responsibilities. That’s a sort of rough circumlocution of point one.

The other thing concerns the whole “bullshit-ness” of hypnosis. All the science that I’ve ever read about hypnosis suggests that it does have an effect upon the brain. That at the very least people are significantly less inhibited. Hypnosis works. When you’re hypnotized, you’re bloody well hypnotized. And the more you let yourself be hypnotized the more you’re going to be. Which is kind of silly-sounding, but it’s just the same way everything else works, however much you let yourself fall in love, be afraid, to a lesser extent get drunk, that’s how far you’re going to get in that endeavor. There is, however a limit. I’m not sure where that limit is. I personally believe that all diseases are psychosomatic enough (even my present, horrible piece of shit one) that they may be curable if you’re extremely gullible and you submit to hypnosis. Extremely gullible. And probably you have to actually have something worth living for, as well. But you do see instances of spontaneous remission in cancer (And I wonder what the statistics of that are compared to the percentage of people that successfully overcome addictions). I have spent too much of the last day thinking about it though, I doubt that I could cure shit with it now. Or maybe ever again. Here’s hoping though. But I seriously doubt anyone is submissive enough to be able to survive on the surface of the sun without a significant space rig, no matter how much hypnosis they go through. Gene therapy, cyborg-ation, sure. Hypnosis? I’m pretty sure that’s past the limit. That’s the kind of shit that I’d only expect some particularly hardcore Tibetan or Hindu monks to be able to pull off.

Technorati Tags:

Just because you’ve proved it’s not provable doesn’t mean it’s not true

a note to readers: the following is an argument in favor of objective reality that I wrote for my friend Kim, who took an opposite position. If you agree or disagree with me please feel free to criticize any particular point, I doubt anybody cares enought to take the necessary several hours to respond to the entire thing. With that said, onward!

I just read the rotten.com library article and it has forced me to come to some conclusions. The first of which is that the guy who wrote that article writes a lot like I do, which statement can be read: the guy who wrote that article writes more for effect than clarity and actual promotion of the facts. But still, I will make my brief points.

You brought up quantum reality in the midst of your effort to argue that we both do not know/cannot talk about reality on the fundamental level; and that objectivity is something amounting to faith in our intersubjective perception of hallucination (which hallucination I will heretofore refer to as “reality” because it will make the argument clearer, and not because I necessarily believe it to be so). We were also talking about different levels of reality and objectivity and their respective values and the interrelationship between value and objectiveness (ontological status) but as soon as you start talking about levels of reality instead of just the possibility of objectivity you get into book-length dissertations, even if you’re going as fast and loose as I’m going here. So, much as it pains me, I’m going to ignore the fact that I think that numbers are more real than any of the bullshit which I state below.

With regards to your first point, that we cannot talk meaningfully about the fundamental nature of the universe, I will have to quickly define “meaningfully” in this context and hopefully you will agree that it is an appropriate definition. For the purposes of this conversation (until and unless you disagree) when I talk about “meaningful knowledge” or “meaningful conversation” I will be saying that ‘our understanding of these things which we have not and can not experience is sufficient to correctly affect the way that we interact with them on the level that we do experience”

Actually the main point of my argument is going to be that what I just described is in fact a good definition. To start, I say that it works because of what language is and can mean; language is strictly limited to our experience, it does and can express nothing that we don’t experience. But it does express every experience that we share. It is only limited to everything that we experience in common. We live in the world that we experience, and we don’t experience atoms or the weirdness of atoms on subatomic scales. We do however experience televisions, pressure, gravity, and nuclear devastation (although one can hope not to experience the first and last). We (or at least physicists) experience the concepts behind submicroscopic reality, and they can and do regularly converse about the concepts.

According to one school of thought (A fairly popular one in a lot of the fields of theoretical physics, possibly because of how fucking stupid quantum mechanics is) pragmatically called anti-realism, the things which we have no hope of ever seeing do not exist. Or at least they don’t need to exist. This philosophy considers science to be something like a programmers experience of a videogame: it doesn’t matter whether the gun you’re coding “actually” exists, because within the context of the game the gun exists. Within the context of our experience, atoms exist. The advantage that this philosophy (and it is philosophy, this is not even close to the realm of science it is meta-science) has is that it allows us to not have to deal emotionally with the various absolutely extreme weirdnesses of quantum realities.

Personally i find the anti-realist point of view kind of disgusting, at least partially because it represents scientists essentially adopting the view that what they’re doing is magic. Don’t get me wrong, I love magic, but science should not be striving to be magic. That’s just a personal aside though, not really relevant to the topic.

Now, the only option other than anti-realism (the only other mainstream scientific option, there are a couple of pseudoscientific, hard-line skeptical (think matrix), and religious options which I’m not considering because really they fall under the broad anti-realist perspective and mentioning them in depth would just obfuscate the issue) is, oddly enough, realism. Guess what that says. Atoms exist, particles are waves, time travel and instantaneous teleportation are not possible, (according to current theory. That’s a whole other debate, and a much more technical one than this) and black holes have mass because they consist of matter. All of these propositions are implied by current science if you take the realist view. If you take the anti-realist position then everything can be made of god, or gummy bears, or care bears for all the difference it makes. But no matter which perspective you take the world does behave as though it is made up of atoms.

Ok, if you’ve read this far than I can make my first point about the capacities of language. If you take the anti-realist view then language is exactly sufficient for dealing with reality, because reality is only what we experience. Physics is, not bullshit, but not real. It’s just a way of affecting the world that we experience. A finely tuned way of affecting the world. God knows what the fuck part of the world we’re affecting, but you certainly experience the results of it because the computer screen you’re reading this on is built upon technology which is dependant on quantum physics for it to work.

On the other hand if realism is true then we have made enough progress understanding and talking about the quantum realm that thousands of scientists over the course of the last 85 years or so have managed to collaborate and share data about something that is so fucking mind-boggling that Einstein rejected it out of hand as ridiculous. The reason for his rejection? “god does not play dice.”

I think that the anti-realist perspective actually creates a stronger basis for the ability of language to talk about this shyte, if only because it kind of lends itself to formalism, and if formalism is reality then however we talk about reality is how reality is. Oh fucking jesus you have no idea how hard I am working to keep from qualifying that sentence with about 5 paragraphs of objectivist propaganda.

If the realist perspective is right though, and there really are atoms and subatomic “particles” (now often referred to as wave-forms, probability waves, or wavefunctions, depending on which scientific clique you’re associating with) then we can certainly talk about them to the extent that we know about them as well as we can talk about anything else we know about. Maybe the language gets confusing and paradoxical (according to the rules of physical reality that we experience) but the language does exist to such an extent that thousands upon thousands of people are talking about it more clearly than americans seem to be able to debate about evolution, or gay marriage, or abortion. What I’m saying with that sentence is that physics-speek is more meaningful than pretty much all of the language that has gone on in every national debate in amerikan history.

So then, even though I haven’t actually proven my point I think that I have made it sufficiently that you can at least see where I’m coming from. I’ve at least given you something reasonably clear to criticize. I hope. On to your second point!

Objective reality. What actually exists? How is it possible to say with a straight face that atoms exist, or that numbers exist? Or the fucked up simultaneity and atemporality of quantum mechanics? Because even though quantum physics does not seem to allow for time travel or teleportation (or faster than light travel of any sort) it certainly seems to completely ignore time. There is still such a thing as “truth,” though. It’s not just a matter of us deciding what we want the results of our experiments to be and then creating the experiments to justify our hypotheses. If our hypothesis is wrong, then the experiment will tell us that it is wrong. Even a quantum experiment.

So then is there such thing as “objective reality?” Well, that is a question that we can give a resounding and definite yes to. Descartes helped us out there (although he didn’t come up with the idea, I can’t remember who did right now, I think it may have been Anselm). I’m sure you know “cogito ergo sum,” I think therefore I am. There is absolutely no way for it to be possible that nothing exists. You might not exist, I might not exist, but something fucking exists. I believe it is me, you (probably) believe it is you. Whatever. We can say, objectively and with complete logical certitude, that something exists. So then what about experiential reality? Well, we know that our experiences exist. The amount of skepticism necessary to doubt the reality of our experience is kind of absurd, but it is definitely possible that we’re dreaming, or in a computer simulation, et cetera ad nauseum.

So then how do you prove that the world as we experience it exists? You can’t, it’s not possible. The only way to prove a system is from outside the system. That has been proven. An illustration of this concept: we can prove that we exist because we don’t only exist, we also move and die. So you have to assume experiential reality is true because of the way it affects you. You only have to take it one step farther to justify belief in atoms and subatomic structures. They exist because they affect the world which affects us. It is an almost identical amount of faith. If you can believe in the world that you experience, then you should have very little problem believing in atoms and whatnot.

Ok, so on to my last reason for believing in the reality of quantum mechanics, and this one is the quickest, and also the weakest. I just like it, and so I’m throwing it in here as a little treat for the one or two people (if that) who read to the end of this thing. You remember how, when you asked me to define reality, I said “reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, refuses to go away?” Well, first and foremost I need to credit Douglas Adams with the best definition of reality I’ve come across (that one I just repeated). But also I’m going to use it as the jumping-off point for my last reason. Who the fuck believes in quantum physics? I mean seriously, that shit makes no sense. It flies in the face of everything previously considered rational, and almost actually defies logic. For a long, long time physicists actually thought that it did defy logic. As in, they thought that it ignored logical truths. Something which, if true, would pretty much undermine everything ever. Luckily it doesn’t, but only barely. Also, if it did then we would know for a fact that it’s wrong, because logic can’t be wrong. It just can’t. But I digress. Here’s the thing: nobody believed in quantum physics for a long time. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Planck, they all thought that quantum mechanics was bogus in the beginning. And these are the guys who discovered it. Schrodinger even created a thought experiment to show how ridiculous he thought it was (it’s now referred to as Schrodinger’s Cat). The thing is, despite the fact that everybody who knew about quantum physics thought that it was ridiculous, they kept getting results in their experiments which supported it. Quantum physics was proved time and again despite the best efforts of pretty much every scientist in the world trying with every experiment to disprove it. That strikes me being symbolic of a type of actual reality, not just superstition or faith.

Technorati Tags: ,