Belief vs. Opinion

The English language is ambiguous on any difference between "belief," and "opinion."  The former is often taken as just "strong opinion." 

I would argue that in reality there is a psychological difference.  Beliefs are obtained mainly from indoctrination, opinions from investigation and education.  Beliefs tend to be defended "no matter what," opinions are alterable, with difficulty but without emotional trauma.  There are meditative techniques that can inculcate a belief, none that merely make opinions (which is a reason meditation under the wrong or a misguided teacher can be dangerous).  Mostly, our beliefs derive from what we were taught as children before we had mature skeptical minds.  That is why most Egyptians are Muslims, most Italians Catholic, most Cambodians Buddhist.

It behooves a person who would truly know themselves and truly understand things to root out beliefs, study them objectively, and either keep them as opinions or reject them.

Obstructionist Republicans

It does seem to look as though the Republicans are going to go obstructionist, keeping the country from being governed except by executive decree and causing the count of judges in the Supreme Court to steadily drop, and maybe the whole Federal Judiciary.  The only thing they seem to have on their minds is investigative power.

I would hope more adult minds would prevail, as this is a recipe for steadily losing more and more of the American public until all they have left are the racists.  (Look at how California went after the Republicans behaved similarly there a decade ago -- and what is now happening in Colorado).

There is a problem with saying things like, "There is no evidence of God," or, "There is no evidence of an afterlife," or even, "There is no evidence of things like ghosts or angels or whatever someone is claiming they have experienced or thought up or imagined." It is not true; there is evidence.

Vietnam is somewhat ghost-ridden, and the people are afraid of them: now I am in Cambodia and I hear nothing about them and when I ask, I get a smile and a comment I must be Vietnamese.  (Vietnamese rebirth theory says how successful you are at getting reborn tend to be associated with your karma level and therefore evil people become ghosts and are to be feared; the Cambodians I guess are less judgmental and think everyone is reborn within hours of death and therefore ghosts don't exist -- much).

Now all this is evidence.  It is not proof, but it is evidence.  Were I to take surveys about rebirth, almost everyone has a notion of what their past life was like, and many have rather clear memories or experiences of deja vu that they attribute to past lives.  In the West you also get a lot of this sort of testimony, even though, the religious expectations being different, one would not expect it.
I think the problem is the milk is sour -- in fact putrid -- because of religion.  Dogmatism ("My notions are right and yours are evil") has turned anyone with a skeptical or even curious mind off -- and no scientist would risk his career studying such things.  All you get are professional scam artists milking the ideas for money and professional debunkers pointing out the tricks of the scam artists (and it ain't hard to do).

Nor is it necessary to be a hard rock-ribbed "materialist" to disbelieve, or at least strongly doubt, that there is any reality behind all this.  I have I think developed a two-tiered personal level of belief -- a highly agnostic one teetering on disbelief when it comes to what I will defend publicly and a series of what I guess is more likely the reality but for which it is impossible to gather reliable evidence, the milk being so sour.

Nor, of course, is the ultimate retreat of the agnostic ("I don't think it's possible to know") an honest position -- it is a cop out -- we should at least make speculation and then test the speculation and I wish the environment were such that this were possible.  Maybe in a few hundred years, when the dogmatic religions have disappeared (not that is optimistic -- it may be that dogmatists will always be with us) it will be possible to explore these subjects more objectively.  Could  I only live so long.

Trump and internet message boards

I think I see why rational discussion has largely disappeared from the internet discussion boards.  The irrational, unthinking Trump types have taken over and the rational participants see there is no reasoning with them, so they give up, having better things to do.

The fact that you drive rational voices away doesn't mean you have persuaded them.  Indeed, quite the opposite.

Over the last century or so America has become a country where people can age in relative financial safety, can go to college regardless of finances if they have the brains, are not subject to military draft, where blacks and whites can intermarry and live in the same neighborhoods and blacks actually have some chance at economic success, where gays can actually marry each other, and where the economy is supported in large part by a significant although not overwhelming flow of immigrants.  Even porn, so long as it is kept from children, is generally legal.

Sounds to me like a country actually beginning to fulfill its original promises.

Clearly, though, from what I read above, there are a lot of people who don't like it -- who want to keep control in the hands of white males where police have arbitrary authority and women stay in the kitchen to make babies -- and, of course, where foreigners -- those slant-eyed odd skinned types with strange religions and primitive notions -- are kept out.  What is more, they appear more and more willing to resort to violence to get their way.

The excuse is used of economic competition, but the evidence is now clear that those who support these nativist, bigoted notions are not doing so badly economically.  I will admit such people are found everywhere, and everywhere they are bigoted against whatever they are not.  My experience with Americans had always been with educated ("liberal") types, and I must admit my admiration for America was based on something of an illusion.  This political season has been a disappointment.

hearing voices

A little skepticism about things one hears and sees is in order (it is not necessary to believe it).  I hear my name pronounced loudly and clearly behind my ear a few times a year, and sometimes something else.  It always makes me jump, and of course there is no one around.

We need to remember that the qualia of sound and color and so on are produced by the brain, not by the external world.  The external world is usually the stimulus that leads the brain to this, but not always.  "Sounds" and so on do not exist outside our brains -- they are just vibrations of air.  It is the brain that makes it into "sound" and other qualia, and sometimes the brain makes mistakes.

It does not mean one is insane, although it can lead there if one takes it too seriously.

Likelihood of God

I've met a few "psychics" who seemed to know thing they shouldn't have been able to know, and I've also been conned a few times out of money by tricks.  These things happen.  The magician knows the trick, you don't, and assuming reality when it is just a trick is a good way to get horns waggled.

Much the same applies to the mysteries of the universe.  Assuming magic or supernaturalism for things we don't understand (and can't even see a way to possibly understand it) is know as "the god of the gaps" and is not just unscientific but plain outright foolish.  Worse, it is hubris personified, as we don't have to have an answer for everything and in fact are stupid if we think we do.

That doesn't prove there is no God, but it does make it less likely.  The fact that the only gods our culture has were derived from ancient superstitious times makes it even more unlikely.  There is no good reason today to think a god exists, and a lot of philosophical (suffering) and historical (history's horrors) and biological (the undirected nature of the fossil history) and cosmological (the absence of any divine signals) reason to think he does not.

Division by zero

If we agree that zero is a number, then there is no rational reason you can't divide by it.  The result you get is not infinity.  The axiom is that any arithmetic operation performed on a number always yields another number, and infinity is not a number, so infinity can't be the "answer."

The situation is a gaping fault in the structure of number theory and arithmetic that is quietly ignored by most.

I would suggest you wait until you are fully tenured before you submit papers where you divide by zero, and be sure to point out that you are aware of it.

Soul and spirit

Here is my guess as to what our spirit or soul might be.

With introspection we can realize that our mind is not a thing but a process -- constantly going from place to place, bringing up memories, responding or at least noting sensory stimuli, and sometimes experiencing thoughts (both welcome and unwelcome) arising from what we commonly call our sub-conscious mind.

When we die or suffer serious brain injury, the surface evidence leads one to conclude the spirit dies too.

However, the "deep questions" of neurology and psychology, what is sentience and what is consciousness, seem immaterial (obviously influenced heavily by brain, but still doing things of an immaterial, "spiritual" sort.

A wave of light is also a process, and can be compared to our mind.  It propagates itself in vacuum without any aether to propagate in (technically, it is an electrical wave generating a magnetic wave generating an electrical wave, and so on as it moves along).

So it is not necessary to conclude mind needs brain any more than light needs a medium.  However, there does not seem to be any credible evidence, so I guess it is better to just speculate and avoid the trap of belief.

While voter fraud does occur, it is not done by individual voters (or at any rate when they do the effect is minuscule).  The real frauds occur while the ballots are being counted.

That being the case, one has to wonder at the motivations of people who want to impose rules keeping the poor and similar people from being able to vote.  Remember voting is a fundamental right, and cannot (or at least should not) ever be taken away.  The motives, however, are fairly obvious -- to give the racist, xenophobic political party an advantage.  Such things are undemocratic and those who push for them are hypocrites.

Putin and Trump

Putin is working for himself.

I must say, though, that Trump seems so friendly about him and that all the "leaks" against Clinton seem to be cherry picked to make her look bad (although I notice, in spite of all the noise, nothing significant seems to have been emailed).

That Putin wants Trump to win and that Trump is favorable to Putin are both obvious enough, and should give any patriotic American serious reason to stop and think hard.

Still, I don't know that they are in collusion, and doubt it.  More likely they are just kindred spirits -- autocratic egoists.

Vote fraud

The amount of vote rigging and other frauds connected with elections in the US is not all that bad.  Over the years, I have noticed that when there is a really close vote, and recalls are done, that the party that controls the election bureaucracy almost always wins.

It is hard to be too upset about this, although it is plainly wrong.  The thing is both parties do it and it only happens in tight races where a coin flip would work as well as all the recounts and so on (there is an inevitable built-in error).

One thing I find disgusting is the Republican tendency to always try to make it difficult for the poor and minorities to vote, using the lie of vote fraud as their excuse.  To be sure a few people who aren't qualified probably get through, but this is far less a harm to society than denying valid voters their right.  Elections are the American way of cleaning house, and it is far better to give people this outlet than to force them to resort to violence.

Reforming Americas undemocratic elections

A simple primary where all the qualified candidates from both parties are listed on a single ballot, each voter having one vote, and, if no one gets a majority, then a series of runoffs, dropping those who get less than certain (increasing) percentages of the votes until someone emerges with a majority.

It might be that voters also be allowed to cast a negative vote once they have cast an affirmative vote, so that seriously unpopular candidates, even if they have strong followings, would tend to not do well.

The gerrymandering and other devices incumbents use to create safe seats for themselves is, of course, morally bankrupt and contrary to the democracy these same politicians say the support so much.  Having independent institutions to draw the lines rather than the politicians themselves would be an improvement, but it would still be subject to politics.  Even having judges do it would have similar problems.  I think the best that could be done would be a set of rules saying that districts must have at least one point in them from which it is possible to draw a straight line to every other point in the district without crossing the territory of another district.

California, and, I think, Washington, now have primary votes for state officials, state legislature and Congressional seats much like what I described in my first paragraph.  It seems to be working to push politics to the center and thereby decrease the influence of demagogues and ideologues and other extremists.  It looks that California is getting much better governance, as a consequence, although time will tell.

Term limits are problematic, since "institutional memory" is valuable.  Still, the incumbent has such huge advantages (the ability to use the office to do favors, name recognition, prestige, corn, the ability to apply pressure to get donations to campaigns) that measures ought to be taken to balance the scales.  Term limits would be one of these, although not too short.  Limits on the time and nature of campaigns and the amounts of money that can be spent would also help, although there are serious free speech issues here.

Witch doctoring

I am put in mind of a lecture I heard while in college from a prominent anthropologist.  His formula for being a successful witch doctor:

1.  Prescribe ointments and medicines, including those effective in Western medicine if you can.

2.  Prescribe detailed rituals and prayers and so on (sleep orientation, abstinence from sex, avoiding certain foods -- that sort of thing.

3.  Generally the patient will get better, probably because they would have anyway, maybe because of placebo effects (there is significant documentation that this effect is quite real.

4.  If the patient dies anyway, blame the patient for not doing things correctly or for not believing strongly enough.

Runaway greenhouses and doomsday

It is scary, and plainly scientific views must be listened to by politicians and measures taken.  This is not (hopefully), the end of humanity.  Conceivably a run-away greenhouse could develop, dooming us, but the best opinion says this is unlikely (no excuse though for ignoring the potential).

Absent some runaway situation we can imagine but don't expect, the harm is going to be expensive but controllable.  Relocation will cause political and economic disruption.  Crops will have problems.  Some cities may have to be abandoned.

We do need, though, to take political action to accelerate as much as practicably feasible, the transition of the world from dependence on green house gas emitting technologies to more sustainable, non-polluting technologies.  First, the oil and coal and similar industries need to be aggressively prevented from getting in the way.  The same applies to electric utilities and their handling of people who go solar and so on.  Existing subsidies for oil companies and so on need to be scrutinized for their effect on these things.

To an extent, subsidies and special rules should be considered to accelerate technological advances and their application.   The paranoia about nuclear energy should be re-examined, especially with the standards of modern as opposed to old plants.

We could also, as individuals, inform ourselves and change our lives, such as by reducing meat consumption, energy-proofing our homes, recycling, and so on.

Human Life Expectancy

Every species seems to have a certain "maximum" lifetime range.  This is the life expectancy of animals in optimal circumstances, such as the top of the hill predator or an animal (like the elephant) that is mostly invulnerable as adults or an animal kept as a pet or in a good zoo.

Most animals have a "typical" life expectancy much shorter than that, among adults, and this is a function of predation pressure.

Now enter natural selection, whose goal is not so much to preserve the animal (although this is usually the story) as it is to optimize the genes that get passed on down the generations.  When there is heavy predation, there is no point in having genes that enhance life beyond.  Further, when there is heavy predation, natural selection has a small interest in clearing the decks for the next generation.

Compared to other mammals of our size range, human beings live far longer than most.  This seems to have been steadily getting longer through prehistory and even a little through history.  As predation and disease and accidents continue to take lives early, while the maximum life span is getting longer, further natural lengthening would require even less early death.  (There is also a "grandmother theory" that is seen by many as helping explain the longer maximum lifespans in human beings).

All this indicates that there is an inherited genetic component in aging rates and maximum life spans.  Probably a number of genes involved, but, regardless, over time we should be able to identify those genes and do something about them.

I've heard about my quick post that said that it is judgmental to think someone is judgmental.  Ah -- this is a self-referential maxim on the general maxim to not be judgmental, and self-referential pronouncements often lead to trouble.

Obviously we must make judgments, about everything, as we as we skip through life, picking safe stones to step on and keeping out of the cold water.  We think, oh that stone looks slippery and that one is not stable, and so on.

This illustrates the difference between judging and being judgmental.  I judge the stones, but not on a moral basis, but just on how well they suit the purpose.

Seeking revenge, striving to enhance personal honor, hating, having a grudge, are all extreme manifestations of being judgmental.  It involves assigning value judgments ("good" and "bad") to behavior and people and things (of course we know things cannot be good or bad, so when we do this we are personifying them unrealistically).

Christians have the Biblical command to not be judgmental, that judgment belongs to God.  This would imply that such views of someone (that they are lazy, or dishonest, or whatever) should not be held and that doing so is something of a sin.  The reason given though is not very good.  Because God is the final judge doesn't mean we shouldn't make our personal decisions about people.

No I don't think there is much evil about being judgmental.  What is wrong with it is that it is unhealthy.  It makes us unhappy and disappointed and so on.  It has little effect on the person we are judging.

Retirement purpose in Battambang

I might comment a little about my life here, what I want, and what is probable.  I long ago (when I think I realized all my education and certificates and so on was pretty much just to make money, and that while money is helpful, one needs more, and I look back on it as pretty much a wasted life.  None of what I did has lasted -- even the company I worked for has disappeared.

That is the problem with trying to find purpose and so on in one's life -- nothing lasts, all is change, but it takes a lifetime to realize this.  

So now I want peace -- at least an absence of major stress.  Of course events conspire to deny this, but I do have (and have always had) hermit-ish qualities.  I do like staying home, listening to music, reading books, watching a few films, and of course the social discussions with others on the internet and what my blog generates.  My education did provide me with understandings of history, philosophy, mathematics, and science that enable me to appreciate these things, although I long ago realized I had nothing original to contribute.

We have made a difference in the lives of the people here, and they seem to appreciate it, at least as indicated by their behavior.  Several children are in school who otherwise wouldn't be, needed medicine can be bought that otherwise wouldn't, the diets are better, and we provide a security blanket.  Of course I don't talk about these things much with them, as I do not want to patronize.  The same things happened with our families in Vietnam, although there we had a learning curve to go through and in the end the political system messed it all up.

I am, of course, a beneficiary here, too, as I get food and laundry and housekeeping and so on largely done for me, although to be sure there are lots of things one can only do for oneself..

Judgmentalism

It is judgmental to think others are being judgmental.

Assessing Trump

That Trump takes racist, sexist, jingoist (hate of foreigners) and so on positions is plain enough.  He says what the racists, sexists, and jingoists want to hear, so his audiences tend to be less educated white folk from rural areas.

However, Trump supporters say he isn't those things.  Personally I don't think Trump has any solidly formed views (he seems to not think very clearly -- "mushy brain syndrome").  He has sexist attitudes, that is plain from his history of demeaning wives and other women, but the rest of him is hypocritical, dishonest manipulation, saying whatever keeps his voters happy, but not necessarily carrying them out.  He will betray a lot of people. 

What makes him dangerous is that he is basically a con artist, narcissist and sociopath (no real conscience).  It is his ego, not his desire to do things for the country, that moves him.

Of course these sorts of things can be said about any politician -- but some are worse than others, and he is just about the worst to have appeared in a very long time.

Population management

I think efforts to control population via law are counterproductive and are surrounded by biological and ethical problems.  The real "secret" to controlling the population is a combination of personal freedom, and woman equality in marriage, and widely available and legal birth control, and low infant death rates.  Any look around the world and where the population is growing rapidly and where it is barely growing, or even shrinking, shows this.

Skepticism and testimony

Skepticism is the wisdom to refrain from belief of odd or unusual or unexpected things until there is good evidence, not just some evidence but enough to overcome reasonable doubt.  Testimony is not valid.  People testify to all sorts of things, and if we believed all of it we would be a mess.

Plank space-time and motion

Some time ago, speculating on what makes motion (changes in distance between objects over time) possible, I realized that if space/time is as continuous, as, say, the mathematicians' number line (where between any two points, no matter how close, there is always an unlimited or infinite number of points between them), then motion would not be possible.

 At some point there has to be a unit of un-divisibility (I wouldn't say "indivisibility"), where space-time is quantized, meaning that there are no "points" between two points that are only separated by this unit -- "travel" between units at this level would be a matter of one unit of time and units of space being movement -- in jumps where there is no jump involved (confusing, I know -- just ceasing to exist in one spot and beginning to exist in another).

It seems likely that this unit would be the Plank space-time.  In true nothingness, where there is no space-time, there would be no motion, no distance, no time (so saying such a thing "exists" is incorrect -- the concept of before and between would be meaningless).  There was no "before" space-time," nothing "outside" space time (even if space-time is finite), and nothingness between the units of space-time.

Experiencing the paranormal

Beliefs depend a lot on how we have been taught to think, and if we grew up in a superstitious environment, we will probably be superstitious.

When things go bump in the night (that is, I hear or see or feel things I can't explain), the first choice is just to say, "I don''t know" rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions.    It is better, even, to conclude hallucination than be so arrogant as to think one's brain always tells the truth.

I know personally that hallucinations can be convincing and scary, as I have had them from time to time throughout my life.  I have come to see them as a quirk that doesn't quite work right in my mind, often internal talking to oneself that gets misidentified as incoming sounds and converted by the brain into the experience (qualia) of hearing voices.

Just remember that it is not necessary to believe everything one hears.

Minimum Wage Laws

I think the minimum wage issue is just politics.  Wages are set by the laws of economics (mainly supply and demand) just as are all other prices, and when you price your product too high people don't buy (they go elsewhere, find substitutes, or do without).

That said, they have on occasion been found useful to deal with situations of exploitation (such as modern manifestations of slavery -- where the law doesn't have to prove abuses when all it has to do is enforce a minimum wage.  This, however, is a rare application and there are always other ways to handle it.

The idea of enforcing a "living wage" by this means is likely to be self-defeating, unless the minimum is set lower than what would have been payed anyway, as jobs are lost, automation is encouraged, businesses move elsewhere or lose out to competition not subject to the law, and the community as a whole becomes a little less economically sound.  The problem is, this sort of thing, as with rent control, usually takes years to do its damage  Frankly, I think most politicians understand all this, but they are politicians and tend to be more interested in votes than reality.