In regard to human consciousness, I consider myself a philosophical materialist: brains generate minds; minds are what brains do, with no other substance, concept, or mechanism needed to explain human thought processes. I think the evidence from neuroscience favors this view.
But what about dualism, the idea that there is more than the physical, the notion that the real you is your soul, and that your consciousness continues to exist even after your death? I think a computer CPU, with integrated RAM and a firmware operating system, is a good analogy for the human brain.*
* For those who aren't acquainted with the innards of computers: I'm talking about all the parts of a computer (the memory, information storage, and information processing) being completely fused together on one integrated, self-contained computer chip.
In the materialist view, the entire "self" is exclusively contained on that one chip. If a part of that chip fails, say, part of the RAM becomes corrupted, it's like suffering from Alzheimer's. That part of the self can never be restored; it is forever lost.
In the dualist view, the chip is a transceiver and physical projector of the non-material self (soul), which is transmitted over the ether(eal)net to the body. If part of the chip fails, the transmission and reception of information between the hardware body and the self becomes garbled, but the "true self" is still intact on a server somewhere.
Problems: we've never been able to find a method of transmission between the body and the soul, and no one has ever been able to provide good evidence for the existence of the heavenly server farm.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Moral Absolutes
Moral absolutes exist in a room with a Catholic, an Arminian, and a Calvinist each holding their bibles, all secure in the notion that the absolute truth contained in that book imparts to each of them the absolute certainty of the absolute morality of the fact that the other two are headed straight to hell.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Power(lessness) of Prayer
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, His plans are the only ones that matter, and so the prayers of mere human beings should not, and indeed can not, change the course of His divine and perfect will.
Prayers are for God the way funerals are for the deceased: they have no effect on the object of veneration.
Prayers are for God the way funerals are for the deceased: they have no effect on the object of veneration.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Pull'em up, pull'em waaay up.
George Will, in an effort to prove you don't have to believe in god to pompously pontificate on the "moral hazard" of harmless social behavior, decries the moral breakdown of modern society inherent in the wearing of denim.
Why denim? I mean, in the age of 24/7 worldwide coverage there's no such thing as a slow news day.
In my view, public places have largely become informal settings. T-shirts and denim are comfortable, often inexpensive, and wear well. Young sons almost always want to be just like dad, so dressing alike is a bonding experience for them. And where are all the stores that offer children's sizes exclusively in silk, polyester, and gabardine? I'm sure George and his considerably more well-heeled than the masses friends know.
Worn out t-shirts can be used for cleaning cloths, jeans with holes in the knees can be cut and hemmed for shorts, and old running shoes can be given a second life as casual footwear, before being ground up for that springy padding found beneath modern play structures at the local park or school.
The whole t-shirt, denim, running shoe combination is part and parcel of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra of responsible consumerism. I know George doesn't hate consumerism, so it must be the responsibility that raises his dogmatic ire. Come to think of it, the reuse of materials seems rather, well, conservative. It should be right up his alley, rather than stuck in his craw (not that I spend much time thinking about other people's craws...).
And another thing, (since I, like Mr. Will, obviously have nothing better to do than complain about nothing) he uses Astaire as the trouser taste exemplar? Now, I truly love Fred's old movies; he was one of the best hoofers in history. However, the fashion sense of the time had him tapping about with his waistband barely south of his nipples. At least it's better than the "buckle the belt beneath the butt" style: a gangsta has to keep one mitt in his pocket to hold up his britches, while the man in the gunny slacks has them both free to throw some jazz hands.
(h/t to James F. Elliott)
Why denim? I mean, in the age of 24/7 worldwide coverage there's no such thing as a slow news day.
In my view, public places have largely become informal settings. T-shirts and denim are comfortable, often inexpensive, and wear well. Young sons almost always want to be just like dad, so dressing alike is a bonding experience for them. And where are all the stores that offer children's sizes exclusively in silk, polyester, and gabardine? I'm sure George and his considerably more well-heeled than the masses friends know.
Worn out t-shirts can be used for cleaning cloths, jeans with holes in the knees can be cut and hemmed for shorts, and old running shoes can be given a second life as casual footwear, before being ground up for that springy padding found beneath modern play structures at the local park or school.
The whole t-shirt, denim, running shoe combination is part and parcel of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra of responsible consumerism. I know George doesn't hate consumerism, so it must be the responsibility that raises his dogmatic ire. Come to think of it, the reuse of materials seems rather, well, conservative. It should be right up his alley, rather than stuck in his craw (not that I spend much time thinking about other people's craws...).
And another thing, (since I, like Mr. Will, obviously have nothing better to do than complain about nothing) he uses Astaire as the trouser taste exemplar? Now, I truly love Fred's old movies; he was one of the best hoofers in history. However, the fashion sense of the time had him tapping about with his waistband barely south of his nipples. At least it's better than the "buckle the belt beneath the butt" style: a gangsta has to keep one mitt in his pocket to hold up his britches, while the man in the gunny slacks has them both free to throw some jazz hands.
(h/t to James F. Elliott)
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Beware the Wiener
Inspired by James F. Elliott's recent post regarding home defense, I'm revealing one of the formerly super secret lines of defense that stand between my family and would-be intruders.
Behold the canine...
...and that's not just any kind of mutt; it's a vicious half-wiener dog.
It may appear docile as it gathers its strength, deep in martial arts meditation in accordance with the ancient Sanskrit scripture of the Sundog sutra, but don't let it's peaceful repose fool you. It's a ticking time bomb of pure puppy power.
The photograph below was taken with a long, telephoto lens, from the safety of an observation bunker at our proving grounds.
If you're looking into these eyes at close range, it's the last thing you'll ever see.
Finally, a rare action shot of the weapon deployed in battle, exhibiting one of its many attack modes. This is what operators in the field refer to as "full flap."
The frames that followed would exceed Blogger's terms of service, and therefore remain classified. Suffice it to say, what came next, gentle readers, was unsuitable for this refined venue.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
No On Prop 8
James F. Elliott has blogged an eloquent exposition on the reasons for voting "no" on California's Proposition 8 (an amendment to the state constitution that would ban - currently legal - gay marriage). My comments below.
I've witnessed a real coming together in my suburban neighborhood these past few weeks. Men who may have not so much as waved to one another in passing, now cross the street to lean on pickup truck tailgates and engage each other in conversation, prompted by the sight of identical signs piercing the soil in their respective front yards.
The brotherly bonding of Bigot Buddies has come to my very own street. A street that only yesterday received its first No On 8 sign, which was pulled back in front of the cars in my neighbor's driveway last evening, where it seemed to cower under the gaze of the many menacing Yes On 8 yard displays that stand proudly, fearlessly in their original positions, day or night.
Beyond clapping a hand over one's mouth, as I do when out jogging or driving to work, does anyone know of an effective treatment for a sudden, severe case of yard sign triggered Tourettes?
I've witnessed a real coming together in my suburban neighborhood these past few weeks. Men who may have not so much as waved to one another in passing, now cross the street to lean on pickup truck tailgates and engage each other in conversation, prompted by the sight of identical signs piercing the soil in their respective front yards.
The brotherly bonding of Bigot Buddies has come to my very own street. A street that only yesterday received its first No On 8 sign, which was pulled back in front of the cars in my neighbor's driveway last evening, where it seemed to cower under the gaze of the many menacing Yes On 8 yard displays that stand proudly, fearlessly in their original positions, day or night.
Beyond clapping a hand over one's mouth, as I do when out jogging or driving to work, does anyone know of an effective treatment for a sudden, severe case of yard sign triggered Tourettes?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Mark Rowlands Hates Humanists
Philosopher Mark Rowlands answers Massimo Pigliucci's rejoinder to three different posts he made regarding the reasons he's not a humanist, here. I posted a response to that latest post, in the comments at Secular Philosohpy (reprinted below).
Hello, Mark. I'm a bit puzzled by some of the logic you're using here.
You seem to be saying that if an organization's manifesto does not include a reference to something you hold valuable, it is safe to assume they are actually against that particular concern? Wouldn't such an assumption be similar to reading the aims and goals of the local astronomers club, and then declaring that, "When push comes to shove, they've all got their eyes on the stars, and so care nothing for the concerns of the very planet they inhabit! Their club charter doesn't mention a thing about saving the whales; they're obviously anti-cetaceanists! And to the extent that astronomers care about anything else, they then are not astronomers, are they?"
That's quite a stretch, I think. It's also incorrect when it comes to humanist concerns. You say humanists care little or nothing for the environment, yet if you look at the Humanist Manifesto III, that's plainly not the case (emphasis mine):
"Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond."
If the astronomers lived in an astrology dominated world, their manifesto would probably be centered around describing what sets them apart from astrologers. Likewise, the Humanist Manifesto III looks to have been written with the main thrust of describing humanist values vis-a-vis a religiously dominated world. You seem to be perceiving stated humanist values as being written vis-a-vis an environmentalist worldview. That's clearly not the case.
Even if most humanists were self-centered proponents of speciesism, one would think they'd still be rational enough to accept a non-humanist's argument that taking action to save the planet, and all other species on and in it, was in the best interests of humanists and, indeed, was the only way to further the goals of humanism itself.
It appears you're making that very argument in your last paragraph. Yet, in your concluding sentences you negate its force. Basically, you're saying that humanists need to realize that it's in their best interests to save the planet, but they won't do it because you've decided that's not what humanism entails. Have I got that right?
You said: "OK, we can bleat on about how much we care about the planet, or other animals, but in general (though not always) these are just crocodile tears."
So, humanists cannot be active environmentalists, and vice versa? Why not? Because you've decided that the humanist movement largely consists of hypocrites, and those that actually do take action for environmental causes don't realize they're behaving in a logically impossible fashion (or, at the very least, that they're no longer "true" humanists - whatever that means)?
Even if you feel that I am completely in error here, is it your intention to rally people to your cause, which I assume is saving the planet and other species, or are you more concerned with everyone signing on to your definition of humanism and admitting that they're just a bunch of loathsome, deluded hypocrites? A similar question would be: Can Christians and non-believers work together on environmental issues, or must the Christians first admit that their religion is nonsense before non-believers will consider them truly and sincerely on-board?
Hello, Mark. I'm a bit puzzled by some of the logic you're using here.
You seem to be saying that if an organization's manifesto does not include a reference to something you hold valuable, it is safe to assume they are actually against that particular concern? Wouldn't such an assumption be similar to reading the aims and goals of the local astronomers club, and then declaring that, "When push comes to shove, they've all got their eyes on the stars, and so care nothing for the concerns of the very planet they inhabit! Their club charter doesn't mention a thing about saving the whales; they're obviously anti-cetaceanists! And to the extent that astronomers care about anything else, they then are not astronomers, are they?"
That's quite a stretch, I think. It's also incorrect when it comes to humanist concerns. You say humanists care little or nothing for the environment, yet if you look at the Humanist Manifesto III, that's plainly not the case (emphasis mine):
"Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond."
If the astronomers lived in an astrology dominated world, their manifesto would probably be centered around describing what sets them apart from astrologers. Likewise, the Humanist Manifesto III looks to have been written with the main thrust of describing humanist values vis-a-vis a religiously dominated world. You seem to be perceiving stated humanist values as being written vis-a-vis an environmentalist worldview. That's clearly not the case.
Even if most humanists were self-centered proponents of speciesism, one would think they'd still be rational enough to accept a non-humanist's argument that taking action to save the planet, and all other species on and in it, was in the best interests of humanists and, indeed, was the only way to further the goals of humanism itself.
It appears you're making that very argument in your last paragraph. Yet, in your concluding sentences you negate its force. Basically, you're saying that humanists need to realize that it's in their best interests to save the planet, but they won't do it because you've decided that's not what humanism entails. Have I got that right?
You said: "OK, we can bleat on about how much we care about the planet, or other animals, but in general (though not always) these are just crocodile tears."
So, humanists cannot be active environmentalists, and vice versa? Why not? Because you've decided that the humanist movement largely consists of hypocrites, and those that actually do take action for environmental causes don't realize they're behaving in a logically impossible fashion (or, at the very least, that they're no longer "true" humanists - whatever that means)?
Even if you feel that I am completely in error here, is it your intention to rally people to your cause, which I assume is saving the planet and other species, or are you more concerned with everyone signing on to your definition of humanism and admitting that they're just a bunch of loathsome, deluded hypocrites? A similar question would be: Can Christians and non-believers work together on environmental issues, or must the Christians first admit that their religion is nonsense before non-believers will consider them truly and sincerely on-board?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
