Malcorian Monism

"Lucky isn't the best you can do, it is just what happens to you"

2011-07-07T10:12:00.000-07:00

From this morning's "Family Circus" (which is weirdly restricted online so I will not be including an image).

Mother to Billy: "ALWAYS TRY YOUR BEST." (parents seem to talk in uppercase in the strip)
Billy's response is: "Why can't I just be lucky?"

Within seconds I had a new formulation for my motto: "Lucky is better than Smart" (with its vital addendum "As long as you can stay Lucky"). Now we have the more rhythmic version:

"Lucky isn't the best you can do, it is just what happens to you."

I can see myself using this phrase with children, but it isn't the sort of sing-song one would use with another adult.

I have a few more versions I have been kicking around recently:

"Lucky is how I live my life, but I get paid to be smart"
-or-
"Hope for good luck, plan for bad"

One part of the search for a new phrasing is that the contrast between "Lucky" and "Smart" sounds like you are calling someone dumb, and there are situations where that is not going to inspire people to be smart. The other part is trying to minimize the confusion. I often get the impression people think I am advocating "lucky" over "smart" when in fact it is the opposite (thus the addendum).

:-Dan

What would you change in history?

2010-10-12T21:13:00.000-07:00

I had one of those kid questions: "If you could change one thing in history what would it be?"

I didn't have an answer right away. As I was still thinking about it I was also listening to some debate about the nature of the bible. Then it occurred to me, if movable type was invented thousands of years earlier people would not be able to view any one book as so amazingly special. Also think of the improved literacy throughout history.

Jill Bolte Taylor's story about her story-teller

2010-07-25T23:47:00.000-07:00

This is one of those simple and somewhat obvious truths about ourselves. It is amazing to me that anyone can hold on to any religion based on the stories of other people.

From: MY STROKE OF INSIGHT: A Brain Scientist’s Personal Journey. by Jill Bolte Taylor
Pages: 143-4

As my left brain language centers recovered and became functional again, I spent a lot of time observing how my story-teller would draw conclusions based upon minimal
information. For the longest time I found these antics of my story-teller to be rather comical. At least until I realized that my left mind full-heartedly expected the rest of my brain to believe the stories it was making up! Throughout this resurrection of my left mind’s character and skills, it has been extremely important that I retain the understanding that my left brain is doing the best job it can with the information it has to work with. I need to remember, however, that there are enormous gaps between what I know and what I think I know. I learned that I need to be very wary of my story-teller’s potential for stirring up drama and trauma.

In the same vein, as my left brain enthusiastically manufactured stories that it promoted as the truth, it had a tendency to be redundant - manifesting loops of thought patterns that reverberated through my mind, over and over again. For many of us, these loops of thought run rampant and we find ourselves habitually imagining devastating possibilities. Unfortunately, as a society, we do not teach our children that they need to tend carefully the garden of their minds. Without structure, censorship, or discipline, our thoughts run rampant on automatic. Because we have not learned how to more carefully manage what goes on inside our brains, we remain vulnerable to not only what other people think about us, but also to advertising and/or political manipulation.

I wish I was thoughtful enough, and took enough notes to do book reviews. Since mostly I listen to audiobooks while driving I cannot easily take notes. That said, I can easily recommend this book. There is a very compelling personal story, and some really good life advise in general.
She does seem to abuse the word "energy" in a very New Age way, but I found myself forgiving her usage as typical metaphor runaway.

Note: just missed the "once a year" mark for posting on the blog.

Critical thinking creeps up on little kids feet

2009-07-04T14:14:00.000-07:00

It is hard to know if casual Dad talk ever turns into thinking critically. Sometimes they say "remember that thing you told me?" and then we can clarify or teach each other a few things.

My favorite feedback came from talking to John(7) about noises in the house. I gave the standard talk about houses heating up in the day and cooling down at night, and stairs releasing strain after you walk up them. Then to make a particularly personal point, I told him about the illusion I deal with most mornings. While I'm waiting for the water to heat up so I can shave, the pipes are expanding and pinging as they heat up. Both the running water and pipe noises combine to make me think that one of my children is sneaking up to say "Boo!" to me (as is their want). I cannot resist looking, even though it is almost never the case. Sometimes I even say "I know you are there..." to nobody.

Story over, now maybe he will stop dragging me to his room to get his PJs because he is afraid of ghosts (the practical reason for telling the story).

Next morning I'm waiting for the water to heat up so I can shave, and this time I'm sure there is a child sneaking up on me. I poke my head around the corner, and there is John grinning ear to ear. He announces "This time it WAS me!"

Sharing critical thinking can be fun :-D

:-Dan

You learn to have a life

2009-05-03T15:26:00.000-07:00

Just listened to this song a few times in a row. Still thinking. By the end am I still a child with too much to prove?

Artist: Suzanne Vega
Song: As A Child
Album: 99.9f

As a child
You have a doll
You see this doll
Sitting in her chair

You watch her face
Her knees apart
Her eyes of glass
In a secretive stare

She seems to
She seems to
She seems to
Have a life

Pick up a stick
Dig up a crack
Dirt in the street
Becomes a town

All of the people
Depend on you
Not to hurt them
Or bang the stick comes down

And they seem to
They seem to
They seem to
Have a life

As a child
You see yourself
And wonder why
You can't seem to move

Hand on the doorknob
Feel like a thing
One foot on the sidewalk
Too much to prove

And you learn to
You learn to
You learn to
Have a life

-end-

Mormon Malcor?

2008-12-14T14:15:00.000-08:00

Google Books has some amazing stuff. And it integrates really well with the Google Notebook and Blogger. I have discovered that many Malcors were also coal mine inspectors (and it lists their ages and post offices as well as the date they were certified.)

This next discovery needs more connection, "Clement" isn't a family name I'm familiar with:

Journal of History By Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: "organist Morgan John Smith stake president was with them November 12 to 15 By nomination of a priesthood meeting recommendation of the branch and approval of the stake authorities Clement Malcor was ordained a teacher and David J Williams a deacon January 3 1904 On December 24 the Sunday school gave a cantata entitled Santa Claus at his best netting $27.50 It was repeated the following evening for the benefit of William Erb now in the hospital at Des Moines netting $26.50 The branch has lost six members by removal"

Ultimate Treehouse

2008-12-10T22:56:00.000-08:00

Some things just ring true....

When I was a kid did have a cool tree full of wood and chairs and stuff. It was far from "Ultimate Treehouse" (that is better developed in your brain [where there is no building code]).

:-Dan

Scientist vs. Engineer

2008-12-08T22:28:00.000-08:00

This really speaks to me:

Sad Truth: Most "mad scientists" are actually just mad engineers

Same goes for confusing science with technology....

:-Dan

Defining science

2008-07-06T23:41:00.001-07:00

I just started reading: The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul by Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett. It has been on the shelf for a while and really needs reading.

In the Introduction on page six we have (in my opinion) both a good and a bad use of the word "science" (it really does not matter what the surrounding text says):

Good: "It took science to discover the answer."
Bad: "Science teaches us that there are no such things as souls."

It is best to viewed science as a method, that can be used to discover answers. Once we start talking about what science teaches we are heading for trouble (and a possible accusation of scientism).

We might say that there has been no evidence for souls that the methods of science can work on. Or that science has been used to disprove every testable theory for how something like a soul might work (I'm thinking of things like Descartes' suggestion that the pineal gland was the seat of the soul).

Typing this (AKA: Thinking with my Fingers), reminds me that defining "science" is a non-trivial topic and even if I were qualified to pursue it, I would not produce anything both simple and generally agreed upon. Take this as personal preference.

:-Dan

Note: I so dislike reading the word "science" in proper case that I reworded every sentence where I started with "science", just to avoid the capital "S". Maybe I have issues :-).

Understanding Evolution, the Daniel Dennett Way

2007-08-28T20:21:00.000-07:00

From Daniel C. Dennett's: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

I'm sure he does it just as well other places, it is actually kind of fun the way he drops this whole well crafted paragraph completely parenthetically at the bottom of page 120:

(Evolution it's all about processes that almost never happened. Every birth in every lineage is a potential speciation event, but speciation almost never happens, not once in a million births. Mutation in DNA almost never happens--not once in a trillion copyings-- but evolution depends on it. Take the set of infrequent accidents--things that almost never happen--and sort them into the happy accidents, the neutral accidents, and the fatal accidents; amplify the effects of the happy accidents--which happens automatically when you have replication and competition--and you get evolution.)

Evolution and reverence for Scientists

2007-07-10T01:05:00.000-07:00

The other night while I was bathing my two small children my six year old little girl start telling her five year old little brother: "we were once monkeys." I chimed in with the typical parental correction "we were never monkeys, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys." Correcting any six year old is problematic, they are on the cusp of knowing everything and corrections just get in the way. A small intellectual scuffle ensues:

Girl6: Yes we were monkeys
Daddy: Its OK sweetheart lots of adults get that wrong, it is a tricky thing
Girl6: I'm not wrong!
Daddy: Everyone is wrong sometime, nobody knows everything...
Boy5: Scientists know everything!
Daddy: (in his best sweet Daddy voice), Oh no.... The first thing scientists have to do is figure out what they don't know so they will know what to research. And then when they think they know something they write papers and books and create experiments for their friends to check and see if they got it right.

I would have gone on here, but I have noticed that bath time lectures on the philosophy of science are best if kept short. I think it settled in a bit, won't know for sure until later. Meanwhile Jimmy Neutron and his cartoon ilk keeps confusing "science" with magic and technology. Don't know where we would be without Bill Nye the science guy.

I have a constant worry that we really should be teaching the philosophy of science first, and then facts and wonder and awe at what we have been able to learn using the method later (see my previous language rant post). Sort of like teaching children to admire calligraphy and bookbinding before teaching them to read.

:-Dan

Substitution phrases for "Science" and "Energy"

2007-07-02T01:09:00.000-07:00

This is a language rant, but I hope to be concise:

Two of the most consistently abused words I see are "Science" and "Energy". I propose when you encounter these words in conversation or the media just substitute the phrases below and see if it still makes sense:

Science: "Fallible individuals interacting in an evaluating community"

Energy: "The ability to do work"

:-Dan

Note: the science substitution was pulled from an audible.com book I recently listened to:
William James, Charles Peirce, and American Pragmatism by James Campbell

Note: The energy substitution was suggested in the podcast quoted below:

From: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002

Energy is a measurement of some thing's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.

Doubt, the Navy, and Anna Karenina

2007-07-02T00:46:00.000-07:00

I'm always interested in the history of my doubt, and I'm usually startled to discover reminders that it has been with me a long while. I just found this quote (slightly different translation) that I had copied into a journal in 1986 while I was on my western pacific cruise on board the Truxun (note: I was the only one reading Anna Karenina, I refused to read The Hunt for Red October while I was actually in the Navy).

Anna Karenina - Chapter 8

... he had been stricken with horror, not so much of death, as of life, without any knowledge of whence, and why, and how, and what it was. The physical organization, its decay, the indestructibility of matter, the law of the conservation of energy, evolution, were the words which usurped the place of his old belief. These words and the ideas associated with them were very well for intellectual purposes. But for life they yielded nothing, and Levin felt suddenly like a man who has changed his warm fur cloak for a muslin garment, and going for the first time into the frost is immediately convinced, not by reason, but by his whole nature that he is as good as naked, and that he must infallibly perish miserably.

(that was all I copied into the journal, seems to me it gets better a few paragraphs on)

The question was summed up for him thus: "If I do not accept the answers Christianity gives to the problems of my life, what answers do I accept?" And in the whole arsenal of his convictions, so far from finding any satisfactory answers, he was utterly unable to find anything at all like an answer. He was in the position of a man seeking food in toy-shops and tool shops.

Never forget the importance of asking the right questions. Asking: "What is the Meaning of Life?" presupposes that there is something outside of you generating and attaching this meaning to your life. Isn't a better question: "What purpose shall I give to this moment, what meaning shall I give to my life?"

:-Dan

Problems and Mysteries

2007-04-12T02:04:00.000-07:00

The debate about whether God is real misses the true nature of the question. Here’s why.
By Marc Gellman

The French existentialist Gabriel Marcel in his book "The Mystery of Being" helpfully distinguished between two types of questions: problems and mysteries. Problems are questions about things outside of us that we lay siege to. When we answer them correctly they go away forever.
...
Mysteries are not questions we constitute (those are problems). Mysteries are, according to Marcel, questions within which we ourselves are constituted. Mysteries are not problems that have not yet been answered.

I think this is just word play. Historically we have often thought we were constituted of different "mysteries" that turned out to be "problems" after all. Belief in a god or the supernatural is the same sort of thing. The question isn't "Is there a God?" the proper question is "Why do we think gods (or ghosts, or ESP) are real?"

Time to start reading Dan Dennett's: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

:-Dan

Do you have any idea what archetypal narratives are?

2007-03-18T11:33:00.000-07:00

Perhaps a bit harsh, but the character on the receiving end of this tirade had really been asking for it:

They're the product of a few chance attractors in flesher neurophysiology. Whenever a more complex or subtle story was disseminated through an oral culture, it would eventually degenerate into an archetypal narrative. Once writing was invented, they were only ever created deliberately by fleshers who failed to understand what they were. If all of antiquity's greatest statues had been dropped into a glacier, they would have been reduced to a predictable spectrum of spheroidal pebbles by now; that does not make the spheroidal pebble the pinnacle of the artform. What you've created is not only devoid of truth, it's devoid of aesthetic merit.

From: "The Planck Dive" by Greg Egan

Gibberish does not improve the view

2007-03-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

I like the way humor makes the point so well.
:-Dan

From: "The Planck Dive" by Greg Egan

Timon regarded her nervously. “Prospero was rambling on about flesher culture as the route to all knowledge.” He morphed into a perfect imitation, and replayed Prospero's voice: “‘The key to astronomy lies in the study of the great Egyptian astrologers, and the heart of mathematics is revealed in the rituals of the Pythagorean mystics … ’”

Gisela put her face in her hands; she would have been hard-pressed not to respond herself. “And you said — ?”

“I told him that if he was ever embodied in a space-suit, floating among the stars, he ought to try sneezing on the face plate to improve the view.”

Reading Greg Egan

2007-03-10T14:37:00.000-08:00

This is not the only great passage out of Mr. Egan's collection, just one in keeping with my theme for this blog:

We thought we were passing on everything that mattered to our children; science, history, literature, art. Vast libraries of information lay at their fingertips. But we hadn't fought hard enough to pass on the hardest-won truth of all: Morality comes only from within. Meaning comes only from within. Outside our own skulls, the universe is indifferent.

-- From Greg Egan's short story Silver Fire collected in Luminous

:-Dan

We know that Penn reads Dawkins

2007-03-10T02:07:00.000-08:00

I was just noticing the similarities (below), I wonder if the connection is as clear to other people. Since right before this phrase Penn is talking about his family, it might seem like he is evaluating his good genetic health, and that of his children, instead of the improbability of his own existence:

I won the huge genetic lottery

-- Penn Jillette from There Is No God

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

-- Richard Dawkins from Unweaving the Rainbow

:-Dan

I think Penn is more succinct, and Dawkins is more detailed and poetic at the same time. I think both are needed.

At least she didn't post a picture of me :-)

2007-03-03T20:27:00.000-08:00

indexed: A meeting at midnight? Where?

Very close to home!

This is a brilliant blog (I think she just got a book deal). One of the last things Penn Jillette brought to our attention before packing up the radio show.

:-Dan

My Logo

2007-03-03T09:24:00.000-08:00

Just fooling around with blogging pictures.

:-Dan

Penn has left my head

2007-03-03T00:39:00.000-08:00

I miss him already.

Penn Jillette closed down his radio show (always a podcast for me). I cannot express how important it was for me to listen to Penn scream "There is NO GOD!" at the top of his voice.
I was well on the path to becoming vocal materialist by this time, but I was alway looking over my shoulder, to see Penn running ahead with such unbridled joy made me look forward.
He always brought a smile to my face, made me think, and warmed my heart, even when I could not agree with him.

I'm pretty sure I'm sad, still too soon to tell. I had a sense it was coming. I'm afraid watching Identity will be no replacement at all.

As a random example of the quality of Penn's discourse, I recently transcribed this quote from a show that aired a few days ago:

"You aren't supposed to deliberately misrepresent the world to your fellow human beings."
-- Penn Jillette (www.pennradio.com 2/28/2007 (26 min into the podcast version))

I hope someone with greater skill than I (and more time on their hands) puts together a few CDs with the "Best of Penn Radio". Clearly we would need "Penn Troubled by Frosty" and MANY others. I think I have them all either in my iPod or on backup DVD. Many if not all are still online somewhere.

:-Dan

Why do Philosophy?

2007-02-25T08:42:00.000-08:00

I just hit on a metaphor and had to share it. Since I am not in any way a professional philosopher (and never shall be) this question of what I'm doing reading philosophy in the first place has occurred more than once. Part of the confusion is the tendency to identify with the author (who usually is a professional philosopher). It is hard to admire someone and not in some way confuse your goals with theirs.

Suddenly while getting ready for a party it occurred to me. I'm rearranging my mental furniture. Perhaps a deeper metaphor will become visible once I get the chairs against the wall? Maybe there will be enough room to dance?

:-Dan

Currently reading John Searle's: Mind, Language, and Society : Philosophy in the Real World

And always influenced by Ayn Rand's essay: Philosophy, Who Needs It

Problem Solving and Memory

2007-02-24T00:57:00.000-08:00

One of Nietzsche's Maxims has been in my notebook for a long while:

"Many a man fails to become a thinker for the sole reason that his memory is too good."

It is one of those sayings that means different things depending on recent history and what you are pondering at the moment (I think I originally captured this quote as a defense for a friend's poor long suffering husband's oft maligned memory).

For years (decades?) I have been accumulating plans and ideas for class on problem solving I will most likely never teach (I think it is the decades part that is most telling). As I accumulated articles on Scientific Method and lists of logical fallacies I gradually realized that all this thinking is not the way 99% of the problems in the world are solved. Most problems are solved by people with good memories. They don't need to think their way through a problem, they just remember how it was solved last time. And with the books and internet to give us access to what other people remember solving, bigger problems can be solved (there is another way for that thought to go, something about we don't have to think as much, but I like the bigger problems angle).

I don't think this is particularly profound, but it does point the way for future planning. Teach more of HOW to think and let the student decide WHAT to think about.

I'm starting to understand that I can think with my fingers, and the pressure of finishing up an entry can help crystallize an idea, but all that does not make it a gem.....

:-Dan

Daniel Dennett Breaking the Spell with Bill Moyers

2007-01-24T00:46:00.000-08:00

Charlie Rose - Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

57 min 3 sec - Apr 3, 2006

Description: Guest host Bill Moyers talks to philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. Dennett is the director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. His latest book is “Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”.

If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605&pr=goog-sl

The nature of consciousness -- Logic vs. Pattern Recognition -- Spooky?

2007-01-12T01:15:00.000-08:00

This is a good interview and typifies the sort of material that started me questioning dualism and got me to think more logically about the nature of consciousness (there is also a lot of reading I did on logical fallacies and critical thinking in general [more on that in another post]).

From the NPQ interview with Professor Gerald Edelman on Neural Darwinism:

I do not believe consciousness arises from spooky forces. I don’t believe in some Cartesian dualistic domain that is inaccessible to science. The brain is embodied and the body is embedded in its environment. That trio must operate in an integrated way. You can’t separate the activity and development of the brain from the environment or the body.

A religious friend of mine was surprisingly upset at the use of the word "spooky". I'm afraid I cannot excuse the usage or back away from that term. I think "spooky" is exactly the right term.

When I look back in my personal history to satisfy my friend's interest in what event triggered my "loss" of religion or my anger at god (since there are no gods how can I be angry at an idea with no basis in reality?), I find nothing to satisfy this assumption of an event. Like most things in my life the current state of my mind and beliefs were gradually acquired and gradually changed. Never much drama. However, I do remember being afraid. I remember fear of the supernatural and religious prophcy. From the ridiculous childhood fear that the rapture would come before the weekend trip to Disneyland, to the more teenage fear of what might be around the next corner (reading the "Amityville Horror" while working alone in a Radio Shack at night). All of it a bit, "spooky".

My current rejection of dualism has freed me from all this worry. The only residual I feel is from books and movies, where the skeptic is always the one who is killed by the thing they disbelieve. Somewhat like this fun little scene from the movie Lady in the Water:

Why you're not a dog at all. My god, this is like a moment from a horror movie. This is precisely the moment where the mutation or beast will attempt to kill an unlikable side character. But, in stories where there has been no prior cursing, violence, nudity or death, such as in a family film, the unlikable character will escape his encounter, and be referenced later in the story, having learned valuable lessons. He may even be given a humorous moment to allow the audience to feel good about him. This is where I turn to run. You will leap for me, I will shut the door, and you will land a fraction of a second too late.
[Turns to run, and is killed by the scrunt]

OK, so the character was a movie critic and not a skeptic. And clearly M. Night Shyamalan was making a slightly different point/joke, but still, I'm going to be more careful suspending my disbelief in the future.

:-Dan

Note: I first got excited by Professor Gerald Edelman's ideas after I heard him on the Berkeley Groks Podcast - Science of Consciousness

.. the brain is not in fact a digital computer. That the brain is in fact something that evolution has put together in terms of an incredible circuitry, which is capable of carrying out pattern recognition rather than logic. Of course, it can carry out logic in civilization after you train a person who has higher order consciousness. But, it’s not a logic machine first and foremost. It’s a pattern recognition device, and it has not been engineered it has been developed by natural selection.

I remember where I was in the car when I heard this. Pounded the steering wheel and shouted "YES!" This makes real sense, perhaps it is the computer nerd in me.

I'm finally getting around to reading his book: Wider than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness

The whole Religion as Metaphor thing

2007-01-03T00:07:00.000-08:00

I have long heard "Religion is just a metaphor" (mostly from fans of Joseph Campbell). I have never been happy with it as an answer. So I thought I would try some thinking with my fingers to see if I can clarify my objections. As per usual the Wikipedia gives us a great jumping off point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

...
A root metaphor is the underlying association that shapes an individual's understanding of a situation. Examples would be understanding life as a dangerous journey, seeing life as a hard test, or thinking of life as a good party. A root metaphor is different from the previous types of metaphor in that it is not necessarily an explicit device in language, but a fundamental, often unconscious, assumption.

Religion provides one common source of root metaphors, since birth, marriage, death and other universal life experiences can convey a very different meaning to different people, based on their level or type of religious conditioning or otherwise. For example, some religions see life as a single arrow pointing toward a future endpoint. Others see it as part of an endlessly repeating cycle.
...

This seems to be the sense of metaphor we are concerned with.

As I see it calling religion a metaphor is another way to obscure the quest for knowledge and understanding.

"Jung says religion is a defense against the experience of god. I say our religions are." -- Joseph Campbell - Mythic Reflections

The problem is not getting religion out of the way so we can experience god. The problem is assuming there is a god to be experienced. The best plan is to solve the mysteries not just experience them.

However, the multiplicity of gods and religions is a very good teaching point. It does show that the ideas get confused somewhere. The error is to assume we are confused about something that is really there. Lots of people once thought disease was caused by spirits, now we know better. Dressing up the god of the gaps in lots of different metaphors does not make the idea more plausible.

:-Dan

Still a little rough, but it is late (not like anyone reads my stuff :-)

Reading Philosophy, as well as Podcasts and Audiobooks

2006-12-21T22:59:00.000-08:00

My studies in Cognitive Science, Philosophy and Critical Thinking are more hobby than anything subject to academic testing. I often enjoy reading or listening to something and afterwards realize that I didn't retain that much, or that I cannot apply what I learned. I know I could improve that by taking notes and writing up articles on what I just processed, but that is a lot like work. I tell myself that just being able to follow the main line is a good thing for my developing brain. Building good pathways for future thoughts to ride. Sometimes it is just the pleasure of thinking great thoughts.

I think the Ghost of Christmas Present (in the musical Scrooge) summed it up best with the lyric: "And I like thinking the thoughts I'm thinking".

:-Dan

Google Rules

2006-12-10T00:12:00.000-08:00

Have a look at the Google Notebook Feature. All I have to do is select text and right-click and what I'm interested in is there and very easy to edit and update.

Have a look at: What Dan is Reading

I have a lot of reading to do!

2006-11-18T23:38:00.000-08:00

This looks like a great blog for me to look to while I'm catching up on my philosophical readings:

Stop That Crow! has become: Minds, Meaning and Morals

This is the goal after all:

"An attempt to totally ground and understand design, purpose and values in a completely naturalistic worldview."

:-Dan

A Cognitive Science Dialogue

2006-11-10T02:10:00.000-08:00

I just heard a podcast with Dr. Wallace and I have heard/read many thing by Dr. Searle. I'm very excited about this debate, but I cannot stay up all night! More later....

A Cognitive Science Dialogue

This debate between Wallace and Searle will focus on a question at the foundation of Cognitive Science -- how can human consciousness be understood? The roots of contemporary scientific approaches to this question lie firmly in western philosophical traditions. The philosophical approach of attempting to understand human experience via pure reason is now accompanied by a wealth of empirical approaches in cognitive science aimed at understanding the various forces that shape human thought and perception. Observations of the brain in action are sometimes used to explore the underpinnings of subjective experience as well.

A central concern with understanding the human mind is also evident in Buddhism. Meditation has become quite popular in the west and is often used as a method of stress reduction. However, contemplative methods for training the mind were developed in Tibetan Buddhist traditions over many centuries as a strategy for understanding the nature of human experience. Insights derived in this way also involve an empirical approach, but one that is based on introspective experiences rather than objective measurements. Extensive training in meditation can lead to keen abilities to control and monitor one's attention, and ultimately, to expert observations of the human mind in action. This expertise can provide a novel perspective on human consciousness with important

What is your Special Purpose?

2006-11-08T16:50:00.000-08:00

Reasoning Repaired: Richard Dawkins' Philosophical Ineptitude 3: Atheism As Self-Stultification

This guy does a lot of very good reasoning, but there is WAY too much arrogance and assumption. He ends a response to a comment with:

You also appear to be ignorant about just what atheists argue. I suggest you do a bit more homework. You'll soon find out that (like Dawkins) atheist believe there is no purpose PERIOD, or they reduce it to complex patterns of electrochemical signals crossing brain synapses... but that's saying the same thing, isn't it?

Atheists argue that you have to give your life purpose. This is a much more dynamic and positive argument than assuming some inaccessable authority gives your life meaning. Or worse, someone else's "revealed" truth that only they have access to is your "purpose". Sounds like a great way to bend people to do your bidding. Just tell them you know what their purpose is. Much easier than doing the work of figuring out your own purpose.

:-Dan

Got a reply. Man this guy is condecending

Holopupenko said...
Dan:
Sorry for not posting your comment earlier: I was in Tbilisi, Georgia this week checking on, among other things, how the Russians (a.k.a., thugs) were beating up the Georgians.
Anyway, you note, "If someone else is giving your life purpose there is [a] special word for that: Slavery." So, in other words, I am a "slave" to my wife and my children since they bring purpose to my life? Isn't love all about losing yourself to the other person because they are more important to you than you yourself? I think you need to rethink what you say a bit before providing superficial sound-bite responses to the post. Now, "multiply" by, well, inifinity, the love my wife has for me and the purpose in serving her I feel, and you might a get small insight into understanding that serving God is pure joy itself. Serving one's own purposes, i.e., being self-centered is probably a very good definition of hell... and is the reason why Lucifer actually fell when he quipped: "it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven." At the end of the day, it's your choice... which means it's your responsibility.

Friday, November 10, 2006 8:12:17 PM

I'm not sure if my postings are getting thru (I think Beta vs. Regular Blogging is still a little weird). Here is one version of what I said. I might have sent a shorter one, because I stopped reading his repy after the "bring" purpose bit. Reading on got me a bit more upset:

RE: Choosing your Purpose

I too have a Wife and Children, and I love them and I make it my purpose in life to look after them and discover what will make them happy.

There is a HUGE difference between a free choice and someone forcing a purpose onto your life. It is my choice as it is yours. You are choosing to make your purpose one of service to others. Your family cannot "bring" that purpose to your life.

Lots of people have families, and not all make their family their purpose. They have to accept that purpose. It is up to the individual alone to choose.

:-Dan

Maybe everyone who is good on their own without some invisible friend telling them what to do will be in this hell place too. Sounds like a really nice gathering.

Mysteries are Questions not Answers

2006-11-08T16:46:00.000-08:00

"Mysteries are Questions not Answers" now available for bumper stickers!

I think everyone needs to be reminded that treating the mysterious things in life as questions produces more good in the world. Accepting mystery as an answer should be annoying, not comforting.

http://www.cafepress.com/maqna