I worked with AI back in the '80s, and back then several start-ups were peddling "Inference engines" for $500 or so a copy -- software that you could feed "rules" and it would give you answers.  They didn't really work -- demonstrations looked great so long as the domain was very limited and artificial -- and they soon disappeared.

We still have materialist-type neurologists insisting computers are capable of great feats of logic, and that is true, and they are wonderful for mass data storage and sorting and fact calculation and modeling, but they don't "experience" the world the way they do and everything is of a reflexive nature, without real sentience.  The problem is we just don't know how the human brain (and many animal brains) produces sentience, and until we do we will not be able to do it in machines.

Of course the efforts should still be carried out.  Maybe they will succeed and thereby we will better understand our brains, but I'm not optimistic and think most of it is hype to get funding or tenure.

I like the idea of "scripture" -- writings we can depend on to give us hope and counsel and so on, but the Old Testament just doesn't qualify.  (A couple of books in it, like Ecclesiastes, might).  Most of the OT is just the writings of nationalistic Jews trying to set themselves above the rest of mankind.  All cultures like to try to do this some way.

What we need is some sort of world council to set a better canon -- one less narrow and with better moral standards.

Sigh.  Of course this will only lead to ten times as much assistance to the Peshmerga forces, and to all their other enemies, if not a public outcry for direct British involvement.  How stupid they are.

Phycalist materialism

I think the widely imagined scientific materialism is not so.  Most scientists avoid the issues involved, and are rather unsettled about it.  Materialism of course (there is nothing but matter and the void) went out the window at the beginning of the twentieth century when physics taught us that matter is nothing but a kind of compressed energy.  It tended then to be replaced by "physicalism," but that is much harder to define -- there is nothing but energy and the void just doesn't make it, since we also now know that there is no void, at least in our cosmos.

We use to have a sense of what "matter" is.  This has been destroyed and there is no good way to define "energy."  It has properties and can usually be measured, but it can also be "potential."  It is more a case of balancing the books than have a real "thing."

A problem for the physicalist is what to do about consciousness and sentience and all that.  Of course it is brain activity, and brains are physical, but that is about all we can say, and we suspect there are things going on in our heads of which the neurologist will never know.  Things we feel and experience seem inescapably outside science.

Still, that is not a license to go off into the wilderness believing that we have mental feeds from our toaster.  All we have the right to say without evidence is that we don't know.

Vietnam now, it seems, is officially a market economy with socialist orientation.

I wonder what "socialist orient market economy" means.

I suspect it means the party plans to privatize a lot more businesses, but out of respect for the past, it will still use the word "socialist" somewhere -- just oriented, you understand, in a market economy.  For those not attuned to these subtleties, "market" means "capitalist," but that word is rarely used in polite Vietnamese society.

Bombing Japan

The Japanese bombings are difficult to be rational about, or even to think about.  I know my parents and grand parents told me that at the time they were delighted, considering the difficulties and hardships brought about by the war, but they later had misgivings and ended up thinking some other way to end the war would have been better and that probably Japan would have surrendered anyway once Russia entered the war, but we will never know.

Morality instinct

I think evolution provided us with instincts to stick with the ideas and behaviors we are taught as children (in some cases the childhood indoctrination), so that when we go against them we feel bad things (guilt, fear) and when we follow them we feel much better, relaxed and even full of joy.  The evolutionary benefit of this should be easy to figure out.

Our "conscience" is one of those things we are taught -- the mores and rules of our culture.  Hence people can end up doing perfectly awful things but feel nothing if they were not taught against it in childhood.  For the most part, however, because of a sort of natural selection among cultures, what the culture teaches is fairly moral and usually a reasonably good guide.

Our beliefs are another thing -- which can have the serious downside that we believe things stubbornly rather than changing them into opinions subject to critical scrutiny.  These beliefs can be compared to furniture we sit on without noticing they are there -- we don't see them as subject to question and can react emotionally when others do, sometimes in some cultures with deadly effect.  I have found meditation about such things useful.

Whether or not "good" and "evil" exist as objective realities in themselves is a philosophical question.  I feel that we should analyze our beliefs about good behavior rationally, rather than the emotions our instinct produces, but this is hard -- not just to recognize the effect the instinct is having on us (such as creating harmful revulsions) but also to force ourselves to avoid intuitive judgments.  Various philosophical schools have tried to reduce the rational process down to deduction from fundamental principles, with a good deal of success, although in some cases with difficulties in highly artificial theoretical scenarios.  Study of this ethical history is a good idea if one wants to discern what is really good and bad rather than what our culture and instincts tell us.

We know that some people seem to be born without the instincts described above, and feel no emotions when they do wrong -- the tendency is seen to run in families (hence is genetic) and is usually called sociopathy.  I think this phenomenon serves to provide extremely strong evidence of the correctness of my opinion as described above.

Morality without religion

I think religion makes people more inclined to follow the precepts of that religion's teaching.  Whether this is more moral or not depends on the details of that teaching.  A religion can bring about, instead, extremely immoral behavior.

The person without religion has to make up their own minds and assume personal responsibility for what they do.

Here is a view of the founders of the US -- I think maybe more objective than what one usually gets.  Every country seems to want to deify its founders.  The American Founding Fathers were, except for Franklin, white male aristocratic wealthy landowners (Franklin was probably America's first millionaire and was a self-made entrepreneur).  They were fairly spread over the political spectrum, from the extreme right (Hamilton) to the center right (Washington and Adams) to the extreme left (Paine and, slightly less extreme, Jefferson).  The actual constitution was written mainly by folk in Washington's camp, the Bill of Rights by folk in Jefferson's (Jefferson opposed the original Constitution).

They were of course all well educated gentlemen, with but a couple of exceptions not Christian but Deists, although except for Adams they didn't ever express much antipathy to Christianity in public.

Many of them owned slaves and to my knowledge only Adams ever expressed any dislike of this -- being from Massachusetts that would not be surprising.  Jefferson appears we now know from DNA evidence to have been a hypocrite on that subject, having had a slave woman for his mistress (this was about then but he adamantly denied it), and not freeing any of them until his death (such manumissions for slaves close to the master were common).

The political system they created was in my opinion not very good, and has not been among the reasons the US has been so successful.  Presidential systems are inherently subject to gridlock -- something that at one point led to the Civil War and which has always, except in a few periods of one-party rule (reconstruction), hindered American political action.  After the Founders passed, very few men of distinction made it up, and then by accident -- Lincoln, TR Roosevelt -- because the political election system and general franchise fosters non-intellectual and emotional and -- well politicians rather than statesmen.

Reincarnation (rebirth)

I have had experiences that I could interpret as traces of a past life, but if one lives in a culture where it is taken for granted -- much as many Americans take Heaven for granted -- such experiences cannot be trusted entirely, but are nevertheless suggestive.  I think people around the world have such things happen to them but unless their expectations are clued, they dismiss them.

The claims just can't be tested scientifically any way I can think of.  Therefore a rational person has to withhold belief, and leave it as an opinion that it seems likely, and no more.

I will say though that a universe where sentience is like electric charge or energy -- preserved but constantly changing -- the idea sure makes sense.  It is way too easy, though, to go overboard here -- this is speculation since no one knows what sentience might be or where it might came from (although actually much the same can be said of electric charge or of energy).

One must be compassionate and not judge, but one also must not be naive and unwise in thinking everyone out there is good.  Most often the good ones are on the side of right and the evil ones on the side of wrong, and an objective observer has little trouble telling them apart.

More belief mockery

Believers should not get away with putting their beliefs or their faith outside the limits of rational attack by arguing that each person has freedom to believe what they want (or with any other tactic, for that matter).  They don't want to question their beliefs and don't want any one else to bring up things that are uncomfortable to them and raise doubts.  Attacking such beliefs on rational grounds is not a personal insult unless one uses invective.

Faith is one of those things.  The meme called "Christianity" has this teaching -- that God gives you faith.  It is really clever.  If you don't believe, then God has overlooked you, so you believe and attribute it to God while in reality it is a cop-out for believing what you have been indoctrinated with and want to believe.

I've seen the testimonials of people who have "come back" and their testimony of the joy and relief they felt.  Breaking with indoctrination is hard -- one feels guilt and fear -- and giving in and going back to the indoctrination gives you relief from that plus a good dose of serotonin to boot.  Thus most of those who have been indoctrinated into rigid beliefs in childhood either stubbornly stick with them in spite of reason, or they become hostile (sometimes extremely so) to those who "did that to me" and hate their prior religion.  Neither is healthy.  Rational skepticism in the absence of "belief" or faith -- with just reasoned opinions -- is the best.

Belief mockery

That others mock us doesn't mean we need to mock them, and, in fact, we are better off if we don't -- both from a karmic viewpoint and from how the world sees us.  (Karmic viewpoint = how our behavior affects or changes us.)

Mockery, though, is much in the eye of the beholder.  Usually the one handing it out doesn't see it as such, and is insensitive -- or the opposite may be the case and the person who thinks they are being mocked is too eager to assume it.

Criticism is not mockery.  Nor is humor.  Not even both of them together is mockery.  I would make my feeble effort to define mockery as requiring a malicious element in it.

Some rules of English grammar that should be dropped.

1.  Eliminate the insistence on "complete sentences."  Sometimes sentence fragments are just fine and in fact effective.

2.  Stop fussing about correct use of pronoun case.  "Me want a cookie!"  is wonderful.  Of course in that case humor is intended, but a sentence like, "She gave pencils to Mary and I" has the benefit of avoiding the alliteration and is not usually misunderstood, sounds natural, and even if it is a case of being "over-correct," so what.

3.  In that vein, the language should eliminate "whom" except as object of a preposition (where "who" still is distractive).

4.  Ban "shall" from legal documents.

5.  In fact, only allow "shall" in the polite request, "shall we" to keep the distinction between it and the question "will we?"

6.  Stop being so fussy about agreement between subject and verb.  All kinds of subtleties would become possible if the rules weren't so rigid.

7.  Change the punctuation rules at the end of the sentence to be logical by stopping the insistence that closing quotes must be outside the end-of-sentence mark.

8.  Drop the fussing about comma splice and other uses of the comma and make its use optional depending on need for clarity and style.

9.  Agree that a period is optional after common abbreviations such as "Mr".

10. Don't worry about dangling participles.  So what if someone can read it in a ludicrous way -- they won't, and if they do that's their problem (or maybe gain in pleasure). 

11. Allow use of a period rather than a question mark except for sentences intended to be questions but are not grammatical questions.  "Are you happy."  "You are happy?"  Rhetorical questions should also not need a question mark.  (Basically that would mean the question mark would indicate up-tone).

I would lie to someone who demands information I don't want to give and to which they have no right.  Refusing to answer is not a good solution, as then they assume the worst.

Pearly gates

I would much prefer there were pearly gates awaiting me than either rebirth (which I think likely but does not preserve me, only my "life spirit," whatever that might be) or extinction (a distinct possibility).

However I am too proud to let what my intellect tells me be overcome by what I would like.

When there is no note and no sign (depressive behavior is not really a sign -- unless they talk about killing themselves or the hopelessness of life) then one wonders and hopes the police do their job.

I wish the world were wealthy enough that everyone could talk to a mental health specialist at least once a month.  Absent that maybe they should put anti-depressives in the drinking water (of course that is absurd, but I do know people who are not depressive but still take anti-depressives and they are happier).

There are two things I would say to a suicides survivors:  First, do not judge.  They were depressed, and that is a disease condition -- one should not judge them any more than one would judge someone who dies of some other deadly disease.  Second, do not feel guilty -- even if the suicide note blames you.  Again, it is the disease talking.  Sometimes we think, "If only I had done such and so."  No -- we are not supermen and cannot read minds.




Well, at least that is what I've learned from my counselors (fortunately I have insurance that covers that stuff).

If there is a "God" who has a physical form, they you should get rid of the capital "G."

Pills for sleep, constipation

I'm a believer in not suffering if there is a pill available to fix the problem, but I learned the hard way that this approach should be avoided when it comes to sleep and to constipation.

Abuse takes many forms, and sometimes parents abuse their children and don't know it.  Ignoring the child when it wants attention, or insulting it by telling it it is bad or stupid or some such thing, or teasing the child and embarrassing it in front of others, or relentless tickling or roughhousing when the child gives "enough" signals, or, of course, punishments that involve denial of food and such.  We can even abuse a child by failing to hug it or tell it you love it and will care for it.

That abused children often (more often than we care to admit) do the same to their children is an ongoing disaster.

Insomnia

There are all sorts of books peddling all sorts of nostrums for insomnia, some of value others questionable.

The best sleep advice is to go to bed and get up at the same time every day, weekends and holidays included, have a dark and quiet and cool place to sleep, don't have a TV or reading lamp in the bedroom, and if you don't get to sleep just tell yourself you are getting rest anyway and that helps and stop worrying.

Nice clean sheets, a comfy quilt, a mattress you are comfortable on, and lots of pillows to wedge here and there (different sizes and shapes and fluffiness) too, but take care you don't end up just rearranging the blankets and sheets and pillows all night.

Finally, find out what foods and drinks contain stimulants and avoid them, and try some warm soup.  Avoid pills and alcohol -- they seem to help but are traitors.  (There are exceptions to this but it is a good general rule).

I understand that one should have a ritual before going to bed -- especially taking a warm shower or bath -- and avoid TV and computer and bright lights and even reading (although personally sometimes certain books put me to sleep).  Sleep also goes better if the room is either pitch black or you wear eye shades; they take getting use to but I carry them with me all the time in case I want to take a nap somewhere.




If you have any sort of chronic pain or cough, get up and deal with it if you can.  That can be a real bitch when you are awake and there are no distractions.

Everyone is much nearer death than they imagine.

Evidence of God

I would like to respond to the argument that atheists would not accept any evidence that God exists short of personal revelation.


It is not correct.  There is evidence I would accept, such as an asterism in the form of the Tetragrammaton.  I would probably accept the clear occurrence of a miracle done under controlled conditions, but religionists have an excuse for why this doesn't work similar to the one psychics use -- it goes away when you control the conditions.

Or, perhaps, the Bible were really the spiritual book people say it is, and the history of religions were not so bloody and hypocritical, or if religion really did have an uplifting effect on its adherents.  This would not be as persuasive as an asterism, but it would be good evidence.

If you want to claim something so important and so extraordinary as God, you have to realize with intellectually mature adults the default is going to be skepticism.

I should stipulate -- theistic religions.

I must say, also, that personal revelation is probably the last thing I would accept.  I don't have so much ego as to think such a thing would be real instead of my own mind.

Science is not just experiments: it is also observation and thought.  Astronomers, for example, rely on mathematics and thought experiments and coming up with scenarios to explain observations (one cannot experiment on black holes, but one can study them).  Ideally one's scenario should go further than just explain observations but also predict things that observers can then go look for.

Daydreaming

I day-dream for at least a half hour every morning after I wake up but before I get up.  It is very pleasurable, and there is to my mind nothing wrong with pleasure taken in moderation.

Of course after I am up the world comes at me in force and mind wandering like that is subject to so many interruptions it becomes impossible.

People sometimes kill themselves.

Others are judgmental about it.  Some say if they want to do it they should go ahead and do it and get out of everyone's hair with their self-pity.  Others say it's a sin against God.  Even others say it's caused by demon possession.  Finally, and this is probably most common, there are those who say the suicide had to be insane to do such a thing.

There are many reasons people do this, and a lot depends on the culture.  The Roman aristocrat who fell on his sword rather than be executed in one of the brutal ways Romans tended to execute people was doing the honorable thing.  Many societies see some suicides as honorable.

Most of us can imagine a scenario where we would kill ourselves -- incurable disease combined with unremitting nausea would do it to me (pain I can handle better).  Probably also a disease that promised in the future to render me helpless and a burden.  We all die someday and some things are worse than death.

However, suicides today most often are associated with the set of diseases put together as "depression."  Those who have never experienced it have to remember that this is not "being sad."  It is another thing entirely.  It is a cloud of blackness that pushes you down and doesn't let you think at all clearly but only makes the world hopeless with no escape.

One thing to remember is that depression is not insanity in the usual sense.  It is a mental illness, but not one that involves irrationality (I sometimes think it is a case of being too rational).

Psychiatry has tried all sorts of ideas on how to deal with this, and often can have a temporary effect, at least until the depression passes, but then they lose the patient next time around as the disease figures out the psychiatrists tricks (not unlike the cancer evolving resistance to the treatment).

It is true that how we look at the world is a great part of the problem -- the old "glass half empty or half full" sort of thing, but knowing this does a depressed person little good.  Truth is, one can always think up the negative side of things, as the world is not all that good to people and most young people have their ambitions squashed fairly fast anyway.

It is purposeless to try to find a purpose in life.  The vast majority of us have only one purpose in our existence -- to give life and happiness to our children.  This is something of an evolutionary trick, since usually the children don't turn out as expected and sometimes turn on us, and we have to adapt.

In the end the only real treatment for depression is going to be medical, not psychiatric (psychiatry is seen as a branch of medicine, but its methods and training are different).  The widespread bias against dealing with emotional problems with pills needs to be overcome -- diseases are best treated with pills, although in some cases other forms of intervention can work.

There is no guilt associated with being depressed -- the tendency runs in families and is just part of the baggage we are born with.  It is useless (and in my opinion evil) to tell the depressed to get over it and stop being so self-involved.

Finally, there is no guilt associated with someone who has actually committed suicide.  They should be treated as anyone else who has died of a chronic disease.  The death should be reported as such (not covered over -- society needs to know the reality) but without blame or shame or as a scandal.

Causality as karma

I don't think it's necessary to use the possibility that the universe was once a singularity to say the universe breaks "its own rules."  The rule is that of causality, and we know this rule is constantly broken, that causality may be something of an illusion based on probability and the statistical "law of large numbers" rather than something inherent to existence.

It reminds me a little of the Buddhist and Hindu idea of karma -- what you do has consequences.  We know those consequences are not preordained but just made more likely when you behave certain ways.

Everyone is much nearer death than they imagine.

The life we find on the earth occupies but a vanishingly thin layer near its surface, even when you count deep rock microbes.  It has no effect at all on what goes on through the main mass of the planet.

Distinguish between life (complex molecules with that mechanically reproduce themselves using material from the immediate environment) and sentience (the experience of life and sensory input and emotions and thoughts).  The biosphere is not sentient and is composed mainly of things not sentient.  Anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it.

Russia is getting scary

I did a survey of several Russian newspapers available in English on the internet.  They all take the same line. 

The difference between this and Western reporting, where newspapers are all over the place -- although in the Ukrainian case both leftwing and rightwing papers are similar and the exact opposite of what Russian readers are getting -- is striking.

It is discouraging too.  There is plainly no freedom to publish against the government in Russia -- something that can only be said to be fascist.  That is a strong word and a few have taken me to task for using it to describe Putin, but I think the evidence is strong. 

There is the resurgent militarism and military boasting, the use of nationalism for political purposes, the clamping down on the press and other forms of expression, the use of hoodlums and criminals as enforcers, the close ties with cartels and industrial lords, and of course the anti-gay campaign (pick a disliked minority and persecute them).  It is all too familiar.

Russians in Ukraine

I must say I have a real problem with Russia thinking it has the right to meddle in other countries to "protect" the rights of Russian nationals there.

That was the excuse Hitler used to seize Czechoslovakia, and it was no more valid then than now.  A nation should act as much as possible to protect overseas citizens and nationals, but not nationals of another country, no matter what the cultural links.  The only exception is when human rights are involved, and then it should be without regard to the ethnicity or culture of those being persecuted.

Actually this is nationalism, and the citizens and nationals of any country owe their allegiance to the nation they are part of, not any other country, and so the rebels in Ukraine should be seen as really simply traitors putting ethnicity ahead of nation.  When ethnic groups fail to realize this they bring discrimination and persecution down on their heads, and should not be given foreign assistance.

Eating blood -- if one eats meat, why not?  As a westerner I have a cultural problem and can't bring myself to do anything but carefully pick out the bits of blood in my noodles or whatever and set them aside, although of course I say nothing.

One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).

However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals.  The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.

Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat.  I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.

I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.

So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.

Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics.  When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.  

Eating meat

Something I've wanted to post about for awhile is the need for mankind to get off meat, or at least drastically reduce what we eat.

Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.

But there are three other reasons.  There is the environment, our health, and cost.  The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent.  Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering.  Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.

I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable.  The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.

If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware.  The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.

Putin says he could take Kiev in two weeks.  Probably true but arrogant and, of course, taking it would be only the beginning.  The Ukrainians will not just fold with the fall of a city.

We seem to have a fascist on our hands.  The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention.  After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined.  I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.

Wolves at the door

Democracies (countries run by popularly elected politicians) tend to not pay much attention to wolves until they are at the door.  There is instead a constant cry that the democracy causes the presence of wolves and that military spending in particular is (always, no matter how small) excessive.

The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election.  The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.

I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi.  It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded.  (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).

As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful.  People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families.  Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance.  It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.

I don't think it works at all in today's world.  What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf.  The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.

Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs.  (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)

Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available.  In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.

The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works.  That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away.  At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop.  A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.

Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door.  If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing.  As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.

In other words, terrorism today is stupid.  It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.

 

Russian feet in the door

I appreciate the email last night the explained how Russia had promised to honor Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons.

It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it.  They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse.  (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).

Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics.  It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine.  They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia.  These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.

There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia).  Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence.  One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest.  A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed.  (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).

When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country.  That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations).  People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.

Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.

Nationalism is exceeded only by ideology and religion in irrational perversity and the people it can kill and the lives it can ruin, and only by a little bit.  Partisanship is only a tad behind.

East Ukraine

I begin to think Russia will first set up an East Ukraine rather than emulating Hitler and using nationalism to occupy the whole country.  That is good, but of course it means a hostile Ukraine (much more hostile now) will remain on its western border, so we will see.

Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.

That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote.  There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.

It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing.  It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.

Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.

Wizards and witches sometimes don't know they are magical beings, but the Ministry of Magic does, and watches.

Atheism

There are several kinds of definition of what an atheist is, used by different groups to give them a debating advantage.

Probably the worst is that atheism is a religion of no God.  That is as far as I can tell absurd.  Religion, except for a couple of them originating in India, is all about gods, and these two (that I know of that don't have gods or at least don't assert them) are religions on their own -- not a "religion" of atheism.

No.  Atheism is not even a belief to most people, but just an opinion, albeit usually a strongly held opinion.  The way I would put it is that I am as sure that there is no God as I can be sure of anything, the world being such that one is never absolutely sure about anything.

Of course those who are truly on the fence, who doubt there is a God but have strong doubts about that doubt, who are usually called agnostics.  There is an important distinction here.  The agnostic is on the fence; the atheist may admit a remote possibility but is pretty damn sure.  The atheist only sees the fence but is nowhere near it.

There is a sense in which agnostics could be classed as a type of atheist, if one defines atheism as "no God" since the usual off-the-cuff definition is one who does not believe in God, and the agnostic does not believe -- he or she is just more unsure than the more typical atheist.

Back to the really bad definition of atheism as a religion.  The reason religionists like that definition is then they can say it is just a belief, like other beliefs, and one is not more valid than another -- we just choose.  The thing is these people believe because they want to believe, and maybe even cannot imagine not believing, generally because they were taught to believe in childhood and hence are fully indoctrinated (religions like to get the children before the children are mature enough to think for themselves and with full rationality).

The atheist on the other hand takes the view that although one cannot prove a negative, if one wants to assert something important one must have proof, or at least lots and lots of evidence.  It then becomes a matter of looking at the evidence present that God exists and coming to the conclusion that it is all wishful thinking and doesn't hold any water at all and that there is really no persuasive or even slightly convincing evidence.  The heavens do not declare the glory of God, nor does nature.  There are no asterisms spelling out the Tetragrammaton.

Absence of evidence in favor of an important assertion logically requires a negative conclusion.  An honest person does not accept things because one likes them or because one wants to or because one wants to go to Heaven or because one's parents and culture believes it.  The only honest way to think something is true is because one is persuaded by an honest investigation of the arguments (not just reading theist stuff).

Would you believe it, so far I have not tried to define "God," usually the first question in this sort of discussion.  There is God and there are gods.  To me the former has to be, to be God, omni- various things, such as omnipotent and omniscient.  Omnipresent or omnibenificient would count but aren't necessary.  Even a transcendent, spiritual being would be something like an angel or superman, not God.

This leads to the self-referential contradictions we have known about since the Middle Ages, having to do with whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't move it or whether or not we can really have free will, and not just an illusion, if God knows all the future (these are two different issues and theists have differing approaches, but I want to keep this fairly simple).

The way the theist tends to deal with this sort of thing is simply by saying that God can do anything except something impossible for God to do.  Think about that for a minute.  That has got to be one of the great cop-outs of all time.  Besides, I can do anything except something impossible for me to do, so am I God?  No.

What the theists do to get around their logical contradictions is to make God into a god.  Zeus can do a lot of things too, but not those things he can't do.

Why I don't like the legal profession

Lawyers are neither more nor less likeable, I suppose on average, than anyone else.  This is not personal.

When I was in high school, being outspoken, loquacious, and opinionated, I was many times told I should be a lawyer or even that I might make a good lawyer.  At the time I would shudder and stay silent -- I had already formed my opinion of the profession.

If someone is smart and goes to college, one is presented with a number of possible career choices.  One can become a teacher if one is idealistic and likes children and is not too much worried about making a lot of money.  Or one can become a doctor if, again, one is idealistic and perhaps fascinated by blood and gore, but at the same time wants to be affluent.  Or one can become an architect or artist or musician if one is into beauty and would like to be well off but is more interested in appreciation and even fame.  Of course if one is nerdy or likes mathematics, one can go into computers or engineering or science.

There are, then, many choices.  The ones who go into law are a little different.  They too are smart, but not idealistic and very much interested in money.  The other group who also fit this are of course those who go into business schools.

The similarities between the two groups are considerable.  The thing I want to bring out though is they both have a certain tendency to rationalize unethical behavior, so long as there is a good chance they will get away with it.  Of course I am sure there are exceptions to this, but the exceptions are not typical.

People self-select and lawyers are people with this personality trait.  Their training makes it even worse.  Under the rationalization that even the worst criminal is entitled to good legal representation at trial, they confuse juries and distort evidence and in the end the most competent of them help celebrities get away with murder.

So also, and even worse, is the tort bar, where the lawyer creates and seeks out litigation, slowing the economy and increasing costs for everyone not winning the tort lottery.  The rationalization is fair compensation to those injured, but that lawyers and litigation can be done without is demonstrated by worker's compensation systems and other similar experiments -- but the lawyers in the legislature prevent such arrangements from being put into place for most litigation.

The end result, especially in the United States, is a country bursting at the seams with lawyers making comfortable and in some cases outrageous amounts of money off litigation and the threat of litigation, generating in my view a general decline of the country (it would be more noticeable except lawyers elsewhere do similar things) and a lower standard of living for the population, and, in many cases, especially medical care, a level of expense that makes not having insurance an insane proposition, as insurance premiums go higher and higher.
  

Trying to fix representative democracy

Yesterday, in the context of how copyright laws have come to be so absurd and hurt the public and defeat the reason they exist, I made a strong attack on the distortions money and press access have on the legislative procedure, to the effect that I have abandoned hope in democracy.

This is largely true, except as Churchill once noted, it is hard to come up with a viable alternative that doesn't risk dictatorship (not that democracies don't generally evolved into dictatorships too, or at least societies where people have little freedom).

Several things.  First, the legal profession has to be prevented from controlling things.  Lawyers are generally disliked everywhere for good reason, although there are good lawyers, there are an awful lot who do much more harm than good, but that is for another blog.

The issue here is that they tend to, as a profession, dominate legislative processes, and their solution to everything is to complicate the law.  Society ends up with more and more regulation and regulators and bureaucrats and litigation and in the end vast amounts of corruption needed to function at all.

They also of course routinely act in their personal interest, so we have laws about things like "practicing law without a license" and an utter inability of legislatures to get litigation under any reasonable control.

So the first thing I think needs doing is to ban any member of the legal profession from politics, or anyone who has been in the past.

Another thing is pork.  One approach might be to let the executive make the budget and the legislature either approve or disapprove, up or down, with no amendments.  A lot of pork can be dealt with by having at-large representation in the legislature, with staggered terms.

That still doesn't eliminate it as the executive will have to make compromises in order to get the budget passed, and the executive itself will probably have its own bits of corruption.  (Yes pork is corruption -- we need to recognize it for what it is.)  This also seems putting a lot of power in the executive's hands, so institutional checks here need to be thought up.

Of course largely the root of the problem is the voter.  They vote for all sorts of silly reasons, although more often in their selfish interest or based on the position of the candidate on a limited range of issues.  So candidates lie or take bad positions just to get elected.  Or, even worse, ideologues get elected, and some really stupid people who don't understand the real world and function from within an ideology or even a religion.

The thing is the voter has little choice.  He or she only can assess the candidate by the campaign and what and how they say things, and this is so easily manipulated.  Negative campaign adds, for example, have been shown to be effective over and over, when in fact it should drive voters into the camp of the person being attacked.

A much more limited voter roll seems needed -- one where stability and education and reasonableness and so on are considered when one applies for the franchise.  Of course such things inevitably get used to keep groups, such as racial minorities, from having a say, so it would have to be much more complicated than just a board reviewing applications and more automated.

Then the voters are a small number who can get to know the candidate personally and who know what is going on.

I suspect my views are just too radical for most people, and smack of Platonic ideas and of course of Leninism, although there are differences.  One thing is I would have the whole thing non-partisan and eliminate political parties (which have the effect of turning elections into sporting events).

Of course no system is perfect, and all can be criticized, but it seems to me we are so badly governed nowadays in most countries that something pretty radical needs to be done.





 

Assessing scientific studies

How does one deal with a "scientific study" that contradicts what you know or that seems improbable or that supports ideas that are usually rejected as pseudo-science?

The fact is a lot of "studies" aren't really and are either outright lies or contrived to "prove" what people want to prove.  The ordinary person is not really able to assess such things, since even "peer reviewed" is more and more becoming meaningless (except for of course certain publications, but getting them and reading the original article is not terribly useful for all the jargon).

Generally even these reputable studies get misused and misinterpreted by both marketers and the press.

So what to do?  I don't really know, except be aware and as informed as possible and generally follow what the scientific consensus seems to be.

Copyright laws

An example of how special interests dominate political bodies to get what it wants are the insane copyright laws all over the place.

The idea of copyright of course is to reward those who write or produce things people want, so the laws should be designed to optimize that, not optimize income to the ultimate owners of copyright.  It is well known that things are written and produced even if copying is rampant, but still fairness says the authors and so on should get some money from copies for awhile.

One of the bad things that happens is that copyright owners are allowed to absolutely prevent the use of their characters and ideas in other places -- something just begging for litigation -- but, that aside, it has the perverse effect of denying the public things that would otherwise be produced -- thereby defeating its own purposes.  An example are wonderful books where the rights are inherited by a strange relative of the author who subsequently locks it up.

Instead, the rule should be simple -- you can't use copyright to deny others the right to use your ideas, nor to keep your own product off the market for whatever reason -- you are entitled to reasonable royalties when this happens, for a few years (not the fifty plus we see nowadays) and that is it.

One must distinguish copyright infringement from plagiarism.  The author of something is entitled to mention whenever the work is used, forever, and must be given credit.  Using someone else's work as your own is dishonest and corrupt.  This however is a moral rather than a legal issue -- the state needs, or at least should need, since the US Constitution is obsolete in its provisions here, compelling reason to restrict press and speech freedom.  But only for a reasonable time should one have to pay for it, and then only a reasonable amount (legislatures need to provide details).

Another thing -- I find it astonishing that pornography is subject to copyright.  I suppose the problem is defining it, but I would say the finding that the work is prurient only and of no other value should be a sufficient defense with copyright infringement.  This stuff will appear regardless and does not need legal protection. 

Of course no doubt this would mean you would have Mickey Mouse in all sorts of things the Disney Company doesn't like (actually it happens anyway and the character is not all that valuable outside his native habitat).  So what?  The public loses and only Disney Company gains with the present restrictions.

The thing is in a politically elected body, the commercial press, and movies studios in particular, tend to get what they want.  Not only do they have plenty of money to spend in various ways to influence legislators, but they can also defeat even an incumbent in the ways they report about them, and so on.  It always amazed me how two such politically different institutions, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal seem to have the same editorial views on this one.

My conclusion, and this is just one reason, is that elective democracy just doesn't work as the propaganda would have us think.   Such bodies are corrupt in all sorts of subtle ways without taking bribes.

Where is Mozart?

One of the problems I perceive with traditional Buddhist (and Hindu) rebirth (mislabeled "reincarnation") teaching is where is Mozart?  He should have been reborn several times now.

The thing is his voice is unique.  From earliest age his compositions are recognizable as his.  This is true of many composers and artists and writers, but Mozart makes the best example.

So why haven't there been several Mozart's in history?  Is all of that lost in the rebirth process -- if so what is the point? 

All sorts of rationalizations are possible, of course, but wouldn't it be nice if there were at least one clear example of the rebirth of an identifiable talent? 

Eternal life

I read an item in one of the scientific web sites to the effect living forever is impossible.  The basis was a survey of the age of death of the very oldest, and while lifetimes have been getting longer, this maximum age has not.  Therefore no matter how good medical care and so on get, there is a maximum age.

While I agree living forever is impossible, this evidence draws the wrong conclusion.  We age for some unknown complex of reasons, but each species seems to have a different and evolving maximum age, and there is no reason for that not to apply to us.  There are biological reasons we age and die, and each species reflects these in accordance to its lifestyle and the normal age of death from disease or predation.  That humans overcome these would remove the biological reason for aging and dying, and we would expect maximum lifetimes to slowly increase -- but on evolutionary terms this would require thousands or millions of years, not the short time of the observations.

The important thing here is that the fact that maximum age varies from species to species tells us it is not inherent but evolved, and that therefore there ought to be ways to interfere with it.  

The reason living forever is impossible is simple -- one may never die but at the same time one has never reached infinite age.  One may be a million or billion or gazillion years old, but never infinite.

One day the earth will become uninhabitable, a little later the solar system.  Humans will of course know it is coming and we presume will have the ability to go elsewhere.  Even orbiting a red dwarf, long-lived as they are, would someday have to come to an end.

There is reason to think, though, that space-time has unlimited low-entropy energy available -- this is after all how our present universe got its energy.  Just separate the positive and the negative keeping the total at zero.  So humanity could go on.

Back to nearer to us in time, what might a society where there is no aging and presumably very few if any deaths (technology would also steadily improve safety) be like?  One can imagine frightening scenarios -- say a Stalin was in power and would live on and on -- and other messes, but one can also imagine things being pretty nice.  Remove death and you also remove a lot of human angst.

Don't worry about overpopulation.  That particular worry is trivial.  If it came to it children would stop happening, but I think more likely humanity would expand.  It's a big universe.

What is philosophy for?

As a look at my blogs shows, I'm interested in amateurish philosophizing.  The pros seem to mostly do nothing but talk about what philosophers in the canon said or didn't say, so I call what I do amateurish.  I actually think about real answers.

(I do however recommend knowing at least what a few important philosophers had to say -- keeps one from re-inventing the wheel).

By the way, I do wonder how some people, like Nietzsche or Marx or Hegel or Sartre or Ayn Rand, got into the canon.  Their ideas don't hold water, and all philosophers seem to do nowadays, is refute them.  They were maybe just good, albeit arrogant, writers, and of course Marx and Hegel are significant politically, but not as far as I can see as philosophers.

But one doesn't do things like philosophy just to be right, since these are questions one never can be sure of.  No the fact is I do it because it's fun.  Thinking about it though, maybe one way into the cannon is to be sure one is right -- it's like a religion then and one gets disciples whom others have to set straight.  Those less arrogant don't make it.

No, what philosophy is really for, is happiness.  It provides ways to see the world in less gloomy ways -- except of course if you enjoy being gloomy, since it provides that too.  One can learn to accept or maybe not care about or maybe see and avoid the two-by-fours life sometimes hits you on the head with.

Ethics is an example, and maybe the first branch of real philosophy (rather than religion or philosophy that became science).  We all want to do what is right (I would hope), and doing what is right is satisfying and provides even joy.  But that assumes we know what is right, which in turn implies there is such a thing.

Analogy to aesthetics is hard to avoid, so let us analogize.  We all want what is beautiful but we don't really know how to say what is beautiful or whether or not beauty really exists -- except in the head -- we know it exists in our heads.  Beautiful things give us joy (do they ever) but we don't know why or what it is.  All we can say for sure is that beauty changes from person to person as well as over time and from culture to culture.

Does right and wrong behave similarly?  If we say it does then the whole exercise of doing what is right becomes a farce.  Right and wrong behavior affect others and affect the world -- we can be destructive or constructive.  Now making beauty is the right thing to do, no doubt, but appreciating it is personal.  Doing right is not.  What we do and don't do have consequences far beyond what we like and don't like.

It might be that what is beautiful is not so variable as I think but exists in an absolute way, inferred from fundamental principles, but I doubt that very much.  On the other hand I am forced to think that is the case with good and evil.  What is evil, at least, can be reasoned out from principles, such as more sophisticated versions of the Golden Rule (the actual rule as we have it is easy to criticize, but the criticisms can be handled with rephrasing).  Kant I think did a decent job of that.

The point is that the views of people (derived from their culture and personality), even majorities and universals, about ethics, are historical and personality accidents, to be disregarded (maybe evidence as to what is bad but not as proof).  That is why the common test of an ethical rule, namely to think of a scenario where the rule when applied to the scenario has results we think violate our conscience, is not a valid test.

So when I do ethics I do philosophy in trying to deduce right and wrong using what I suppose is another branch of philosophy, logic and reasoning.  In the end I do this in order to be happy and to have fun working it out.  Kinda funny if you have that sort of sense of humor.  It's not as funny though as trying to work out the nature of existence or whether non-existence could exist, or how we might know or not know something.

Hamas lobbing its missiles

Maybe somebody will tell me why on earth Hamas persists in lobbing missiles into Israel when they achieve nothing except occasionally kill a toddler.  Israel will never stop what it's doing, and the rest of the world will not apply enough pressure to Israel to stop, so long as this is going on.  Hamas should know by now it achieves nothing, so why not try a different tactic?

As things are, Israel knows and gets daily proof, that if they let up they are to be destroyed.  So Hamas has condemned and continues to condemn Gaza and maybe all the Palestinians to miserable hovel lives of poverty and deprivation and danger.  Is this what they want?  Sheesh!  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

Putting my nose even deeper in the abortion issue

The west is I think burdened by the idea of sin -- that any deviation from what is right is equally wrong with every other deviation.  That this is nonsense is even revealed by the penances handed out by priests at confession -- minor sins require minor penances.

As I posted earlier, is an abortion wrong?  I don't think so, but the issue comes up of late term abortions.  By then, by traditional Buddhist thinking, the fetus is inhabited by a human spirit, but it is still pretty plain that the fetus is not sentient, at least to any important extent.  That spirit will just have to deal with it and find another host.

So there is still no rational way to say it is wrong.  I would say, however, that these abortions, being more dangerous to the mother, are to be avoided if possible by doing the procedure earlier in the term.  Also legal regulation for medical standards would I think be more in order. 

Because something is not immoral doesn't mean the state may not have an interest in regulating it.  The two are different questions entirely and should not be conflated.

Vietnam driving

Most people in Vietnam get around on motorbikes or motorcycles and similar things.  Foreigners are well advised to stick to taxis, and at the airport go with the authorities there who will put you into a cab rather than taking a freelancer.  Elsewhere, call the cab, don't hail it.

If one is traveling by road between cities, a car or van is recommended.  The dangers of going by motorbike are obvious enough.  Vietnamese roads are not up to U.S. standards, as one would expect, and seem to be continually under construction and in many places are jammed with trucks (the economy is growing much faster than the road system).  One also has to keep a close watch for insane bus drivers.

Going by sleeper-bus if one is going a good distance is an experience only for the young (I'm 71 and manage to survive, but I think maybe I'm a little different and I have help).  Bring blinders and either earplugs or a way to block the noise with earphones.  Be prepared to take off your shoes and to relieve your bladder alongside the road.  A couple small pillows will also help.  Be sure you are on an "express."

I mentioned insane bus drivers.  Once on a two lane mountain pass alongside the ocean (a several hundred meter drop to the beach) I am passed to my left by a truck and to my right by a honking bus (on the shoulder).  Well a car comes around the curve so the truck has to get over and the shoulder ends so the bus has to get over, and I'm stuck between them.  Somehow it happened but I sat there for awhile putting my thoughts together.

Judgmentalism strikes twice -- obeisity and grammar

Well I'm working on disagreements -- some pretty strong -- with two of my positions -- that we don't really control our weight no matter how much will power we have and that English grammar rules should for the most part be gotten away with.

Interesting but what I see in both cases is a symptom of the same disease -- judgmentalism, and in both cases doing harm.

I remember my mom when I was a kid after some relatives had left, remarking about one of them who was fat -- she said, "She tells me she has a hormone problem, but I don't believe it -- she just eats too much and is lazy."

That's judgmentalism and bigotry -- you look at someone, they are fat, ergo they stuff themselves all the time and are lazy.  Clearly overweight people are discriminated against in society in many ways, and it is just as bad as discriminating against someone because they are short or very tall.  Besides what they eat and whether or not they are lazy may be marginally relevant to what they are as a person, but probably not.

The other problem is the condemning people do of others who don't speak English according to the rule book.  The purpose of a language is communication.  Therefore if you successfully communicate with a minimum of effort from the reader or hearer, you are fine, and it is only when you are not understood or are ambiguous and could be misunderstood is it that you have made a mistake.

Rules are not even needed to avoid ambiguity.  Then you don't use rules to correct it but attack the ambiguity directly.

There are however two other reasons to know and follow the rules.  First is that often they are esthetically more pleasing to the reader.  It is much more pleasant to read well constructed paragraphs filled with complete sentences and well punctuated than it is to read other stuff.

The other thing is, right or not, there are those who will make prejudicial judgments about your writing or maybe dismiss or not pay attention to what you say because of the grammatical distraction.

This last is for our own behavior.  We need to train ourselves to not get upset or anything when others make "mistakes."  One may recall that revulsion is the second cause of our personal unhappiness, and this is a revulsion.

Judgmentalism is negativity.  When we think bad of someone we harm ourselves by having ugly thoughts.

How do we know if something is right or wrong?

Yesterday the post about abortion pointed out that there is nothing immoral about a pregnant woman getting an abortion.  How can we know?  How do we know if anything is right or wrong?

The usual ways, such as how we feel about it, or what we've been taught by our religion, or what is legal, or what our conscience says, or what is traditional, while they all usually get it right and should therefore be thought about, in the end just do not work.  I don't know that it's necessary for me to go into all that -- they just don't work.  We need to have a rational basis for saying something is wrong, immoral.

Of course anything that happens has both right and wrong about it.  A volcano killing people is wrong, a volcano letting off pressure and fertilizing the soil and building land is doing right.  A lion killing its prey brutally and causing it a suffering, fearful death is doing wrong, a lion culling the herd and keeping it from ruining the environment and so on is doing right.

We don't make moral judgments in such situations because we argue doing good or causing suffering are not at issue -- volcanoes and lions cannot make right and wrong assessments and hence are not held to account.

Actually the same applies to people.  We may think we make our own decisions, but this is rarely really the case.  Most people act automatically according to instincts and personality and other factors and never really make a moral decision, although they could and in many cases where the decision is truly difficult they are forced to.

Therefore we can judge what others do no more than we can judge a volcano or a lion.  We don't know that they have actually made a conscious decision to be immoral, and if we think about it we know that is unlikely (although of course definitely possible).  We don't know the whole story and therefore cannot judge.

But we can judge ourselves.

Most of the time, presented with a moral question (a real one, not a hypothetical), we can see pluses and minus and have to decide whether the good outweighs the bad.  It turns out that some things are more wrong than others, even though both are wrong.  It depends on the suffering and harm we cause.  Lying to the Gestapo strikes me as harming the Gestapo, but almost certainly by making their job more difficult, and so is the thing to do, and rationally in that case telling the truth is morally wrong.

Of course this is a simple, if not simplistic, theory of ethics, but it has something to say for it that the traditional ethics don't have -- it is rational.  Do the good aspects outweigh the bad?  Most of the hypothetical situations people use to object to this depend on our gut feeling or one of the traditional tests to raise questions.  I think that is the wrong way to proceed.  That we don't like an outcome is not a rational basis for a decision.

There are however a couple of serious problems with it.  The first is the ability we have to fool ourselves and rationalize the goods as exceeding the harms when in fact this is not so.  The other is how do we know we have all the facts when in fact we know we surely don't?  Ain't easy, but if one is serious about being an ethical person the effort must be made and a decision must be reached.

Sticking my nose in the abortion debate

My "official" view use to be that abortions are morally wrong but not a serious enough "sin" to cause one much harm (karmically speaking if one thinks that way) except late term, and that the practical problems trying to make them illegal, along with the worse harms this can cause, is enough to say that the government should not involve itself.  For the most part government should not involve itself in personal moral decisions absent damn good reason to do so and then only if making the act illegal doesn't itself cause harm.  Abortion fails on both points.

I have changed my mind.  I no longer think an abortion immoral.  There is no logical basis for such a conclusion that bears scrutiny.  To be sure sentient beings must be accorded all possible compassion, but that does not go so far as to say one should never eat meat, and, besides, a fetus is barely if at all sentient.  A human being does not become sentient for quite a while even after birth.

Of course this opens one up to the question of whether infanticide should be legal, and for the most part, with a few exceptions, the answer has to be no, for the legal issue of defining murder, not for moral reasons.

Pregnant women who, for whatever reason, do not want the child are under no moral obligation, in my view, to carry it, and should not be told otherwise.  Part of the psychological harm done to girls who do have abortions are people's judgmentalism, which is misplaced and harmful.

In fact, I think girls having abortions, if they are to receive counseling, should not be to try to change their minds.  Such things should be illegal and open the person doing them to tort liability.  Instead, any counseling should be to the effect that it is not immoral, along with perhaps some training in contraception techniques.

Mistakes in my grammar

I was reading the comments on a web story and in one the person posting the post used the word "ain't."  The next post criticized that -- to the effect of learn good English.

Now we all know that "ain't" is tabu to some, although those who make a deal of it are only showing their own ignorance, as the word has excellent credentials in the language for several hundred years.

Still, nowadays it is usually used only for humor or for special attention, no doubt as a result of the complaints of blue-noses.

I make a lot of "mistakes" in my own posts, and usually they are on purpose.  "I is happy with that" says things that "I am happy with that" can't, depending on context.  However, it is probably best most of the time to stick with convention -- there are judgmental people out there who just do not understand because of their eagerness to condemn.  It irritates me that this is necessary because some people have such tight asses.

I think of such errors as the equivalent of musical discords.  They hit the ear as wrong, but sometimes wrong is good.

Still, some errors, while they should be ignored when others make them, should be watched for in one's own writing.  Pronoun disagreement is trivial, but using "it's" for "its" or "effect" for "affect" and other often-confused spellings is that sort of error.

One final thing -- one of the beauties of English and other agglutinative languages (English is not really "agglutinative," but it does have some of the characteristics -- the ability to build words with prefixes and suffixes) is that this means we can coin words even when alternative words are already in the dictionary, and when the dictionary lacks the word wanted, we especially should do so.  Packaging a lot of meaning into a single word is sometimes much, much better than some dependent clause or whatever.

Causes of unhappiness

It is widely thought that a core Buddhist insight is that our desires cause our unhappiness.  This is because nothing is permanent, so we are either frustrated by our inability to satisfy our desires or, if they are satisfied, by our inability to keep them satisfied.

Desires, or "clinging," is actually one one of three things Buddhism defines as causing unhappiness.  The other two are revulsion and delusion.  A revulsion is a negative desire -- something we want to avoid, like a stinky outdoor toilet or a bee sting or growing old and seeing death ahead.  Yea, they do cause unhappiness.

But it's that third one -- delusion -- that is the real hard one to deal with.  It is not something we can deal with meditating or adapting or disengaging.  It comes on us -- a mental illness is mainly it -- being unable to see any hope in the world, being convinced one is possessed by demons, being convinced we are being persecuted, hearing voices that tell us to do horrible things.

Mainly it is the diseases of depression and of schizophrenia.  They put us out of touch with reality and remove our ability to understand this -- that last part is what makes them so intractable.  Nowadays medications that can help (and generally do) are available and people should not discourage them or be afraid of them, as long as professional advice (not just an ordinary doctor, who may be as prejudiced on the subject as many people) is where the drugs come from.

Recognizing the delusion for what it is, is not usually going to happen, but it should be tried and tried again and again.  "This too will pass" applies mainly to depressives who have the condition on an intermittent basis, who have to learn to wait.  Others have it even more difficult and dangerous.

China and Vietnam in context

A large country next to a smaller one cannot help but be patronizing and exercise at least some hegemony.  This is always resented in the smaller country, even when the interference helped the country and was needed and the larger country was the only nation that could do anything.  We see this in the Americas regarding the States, in parts of Europe regarding Germany, and in East Europe regarding Russia.

As with most of SE Asia, there are large numbers of Chinese ethnics in Vietnam, mainly in the cities in enclaves somewhat removed from the rest of the population, such as the Cholon area of HCMC.  They tend to hold onto their South Chinese language and Chinese names more than perhaps they should.  These populations are entrepreneurial and generally successful, and as one might expect this can generate resentment.

While the Vietnamese language seems Sinitic today, scholars tell us that it is not at all related to the Sino-Tibetan family of languages.  Of course nowadays over half the vocabulary is from Chinese borrowings, but borrowing is one thing, it is not descent.  Even the Vietnamese tonal system that causes American learners so much difficulty apparently was borrowed from Chinese in the first millennium and Vietnamese had previously been atonal.

Vietnamese religion is Chinese in many ways, with the major Taoist deities and Confucian notions of the universe widely accepted.  Most important, the Buddhism is Mahayana out of China, not at all like the nearby Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.  Vietnam does have its own local twists on things and several native religious groups.  Of course there is a significant Roman Catholic population in Vietnam, much larger proportionately than in China.

The Communist Parties in Vietnam and China have followed similar paths, both opening to the rest of the world and creating institutions designed to prevent "Cult of Personality" figures and dictatorship by one man.  These include limited terms and mandatory retirements.  They are in this way distinct from the other two remaining Communist states, Cuba and North Korea.

They have also both had considerable success economically, unlike Cuba and North Korea, which remain poor and seem to be getting poorer, although there are signs of light in Cuba nothing much will happen until the Castro's are gone.

One hopeful thing that is happening in China and Vietnam is that they are evolving toward meritocracy, both in who becomes a party member (family still counts but less and less) and who rises in the party.  Both also have their problems with corruption, but not really any more than practically any other country on this planet -- although the Western press tends to give it more attention, for its own reasons.

Still, the Chinese, like all ethnic groups, have their tendency to nationalism and the population has its share of anti-foreign bigots who think only Chinese institutions are valid.  Americans, Russians, Germans, Japanese, and so on, all suffer from bad reps because of similar attitudes found in those countries.  Such nationalism is often used by politicians to gain unfair and irrational advantage.

Right now China has its hands full in the western autonomous regions, where it is obvious they are not welcome, and should look to removing itself from them, but this might be impossible because of this nationalism found in the Chinese party.  As long as China practices trying to rule over other peoples or nations, their claims to any sort of moral standing or legitimacy will remain hanging.  It is seen as nothing more than old-fashioned imperialism.

Expansionist adventurism elsewhere, even for essential materials, is bound to hurt China in the short run, and won't ever help.

Stupid remarks about suicide

I think maybe a certain rather spoiled rotten rock star doesn't understand is that depressed people should not be given sympathy, but should be understood as having a disease that needs treatment.

Yes the world is a rough place, or at least often is, but that is beside the point.  Depression is a fatal disorder of brain chemistry not really well understood, for which some treatments do work.  They need to get them.

About all an ordinary person can do when dealing with a depressed person who may well resist getting treatment because sometimes the disease works that way is physically interfere with suicide attempts, pay attention, and get legal hospitalization if possible if suicide is actually attempted.

I don't think sympathy or lack of sympathy do much either way, although a "get it over with, I'm tired of hearing you" is an immoral and probably criminal thing to say and may well be the thing that pushes  over the edge.

Suicides that are not successful in an attempt are almost always glad they didn't succeed, even though in awhile they may try again.  

Ferguson Police

I lived in Kansas City many years, on the other side of Missouri from St. Louis, and visited St. Louis several times, and was not aware that a good-size town of Ferguson was nearby.  Now I am aware.  It is probably a nice enough place, but I don't think you could get me to go there.  Sad though.

Why does someone decide to become a police officer?  There are no doubt many reasons, but you have to wonder if maybe those who go through the process and apply don't have subtle reasons that have to do with authority and guns and uniforms and power more than serving the community.

Personally I would find the job demeaning and boring most of the time and a drudge.  "A policeman's lot is not a happy one," although that song is about the policeman's sad duty to put an end to the criminal's freedom, that is I am very sure not one of the ordinary cop's concerns.

Some people though want to do it, and again I have to wonder.  Especially why one would want to be a white cop in a largely black town.

Rossini's "William Tell Overture"

Many serious music lovers would probably prefer that Rossini in general and in particular his "William Tell Overture" would just go away.

As programmatic music (music that either kinda tells a story or at least sets a scene -- as this one does separately in each of its four sections), it ain't too bad.  Pleasant, even.

Maybe I like it because we played it in high school, and I remember the fight between the conductor (teacher) and our cornet player (we only had one) about Rossini's volume indications in the last section.  He felt it should be played as his solo, sort-of, very loud.

Maybe, at least in a high school setting, it should be.  Orchestras follow Rossini, even though it is not in the spirit of the Lone Ranger, and try to keep it musical, even though I think secretly we all wish they wouldn't.  Of course they have to keep their dignity.

By the way, in the end the teacher lost that one.  The kid did as told in rehearsal, but in concert he let rip.  She about fell off the podium with her efforts to quiet him down, without effect.

Interestingly, afterward she didn't say a thing.  I don't know what his grade that term was.

More on being fat

I can see how my last post is subject to less-than-favorable interpretation.  I say fat people are lazy.  What an unfortunate way to put it!

The problem is the connotation (or implication or loading) of the word "lazy."  It is a negative judgmental call about someone, and I oppose judging people.

We do, however, have to understand them and not be naive.  What I mean here is that fat people don't like physical exertion.  They just don't like it, and avoid it, even when they are out "exercising."  It and other personality traits having to do with one's relationship to food, lead to obesity, in spite of medical warnings and efforts and strong desires to have a different outcome.

In other ways a "lazy" person is not lazy -- they may be hard workers, great students, accomplished artists, whatever, but they do not like labor and hate breaking a sweat.

It's not their fault -- it is what they are, part of their personality.  Our society is in denial about "nature" in the nature-nurture spectrum -- we want to say we can do things and often we cannot.  We cannot for the most part change what we are, and we need to be wise about that and change what we can but accept and not judge what we cannot.

It's like being gay or straight -- most people are mainly straight with an occasional gay impulse, most gays also have occasional straight impulses -- so the impression can be gotten that what we are can be changed.  One can change one's behavior if one is truly bi-sexual to ignore one side of our sexuality, but if one is not, then one is mainly gay or straight and no amount of cruel therapy is going to alter it.

The fact is most of what we are, we are born destined to be.  Good upbringing and nutrition and so on help a lot, but there are personality types that persist -- on the unhelpful side there are always bigots, criminals, airheads, addictive personalities, judgmental people.  I will someday have to do a blog on the personality attributes that make for criminal behavior and on the consistent failure of well-meaning people to rehabilitate them and how to really do it (clue -- let the criminal get older).

On being fat

You can tell from my picture on this blog that I am obese, the medical word for fat.  I also have the health problems that go with that -- sore feet, periodic sciatica, gallstones, fatty liver, what is now called "pre-diabetes" and of course incipient heart disease.  Sheesh.

Still, I feel healthy and take my pills and the problems come and go, mostly go.

I think maybe I've lost my body weight half a dozen times over the course of my life dieting.  Sometimes "eating sensibly," other times fasting -- whatever.  The weight goes off and comes back on.  I have to imagine that yo-yo is worse than the weight, so now I just try to be happy with myself as I am, although of course one never really is.

I was chubby as a kid and big as a teenager, so I did okay even though I was nerdy and a touch effeminate (a trait I learned to suppress).  I look back and realize that the idea that fat people are lazy is true -- we are born lazy, not fat.  We are efficient in our motions and avoid physical work and athletics.  I always prided myself on working smart, not hard.  Well there are trade-offs and every decade five or ten pounds went on, and it added up (although my weight has been steady since I stopped fighting it fifteen years ago).

That is the thing.  We have free will and when determined we can override our bodies, but our bodies have their tricks.  You can override the body's determination that we will breathe for maybe a few minutes, and then it wins.  The same applies to taking in food to maintain a certain weight, although we don't see it as clearly because it works over a longer period of time and doesn't need to take such drastic measures.

Dieting is artificial famine, but the body doesn't know that, and reacts to the real famine, slowing metabolism and reducing available energy and so on.  When the famine is over it goes back to where it had been as soon as possible and then adds on a little as a safety measure.  We are guaranteed to lose, although I understand a few are able to stay down for long periods.  They are to be admired, but I have my doubts.

We are largely what we are for reasons out of our control, at least long term, and we need to learn to accept what we are as we are, and not judge ourselves (or others, for that matter) about such things.  

I a spiritual person, of sorts

I think maybe I'm kinda spiritual.  I can feel awe at all sorts of things and have learned to meditate into a self-hypnotic state, and really like most religious music and well-written non-dogmatic sermons.  I can also get into various rituals so that they have a limited reality to me.  Finally, for the most part religions don't bother me, although I must admit I like the philosophy and attitudes of Buddhists more than others, and I see no point in worrying about what others believe or don't believe.

Still, I have to say I'm an atheist.  I don't have any God or gods, and think they are human inventions.  The one exception might be the Tao, but that really isn't a god anyway.  I don't deny or reject God or anything of that sort, it is just that from what I know of history and science I see no reason to think He exists.

Where my mysticism or spirituality comes from is inside -- the wonder of "me-ness," that there is a something "there" thinking and experiencing the world, for which I can see no possible physical approach -- no causative mechanism.  In other words, there are aspects of my existence, and I presume everyone else's, that leave me speechless, uncomprehending,  bewildered, awestruck.  The immense if not infinite size of the universe and all those stars out there are nothing in terms of awe inspiration compared to the fact of personal existence and experience.  (I experience the world via qualia -- sensations, emotions, that I know have chemicals bubbling around in my skull associated with them, but how?).

That I don't know doesn't mean I have to invent God to explain it.  That is no explanation, just a cop-out. 

I suspect there are aspects of existence that are beyond us -- totally beyond us -- and the mystery of our mental existence is largely one of these.  Of course how the brain works will, over time, be worked out in detail, but we still won't know how it does what it does, if it is the brain doing it and not just being used.  The only thing I can figure is that there is a self-perpetuating process (chain of thought) that dies and is reborn from moment to moment much as an electromagnetic wave perpetuates in space.  It dies when I am asleep and is reborn when I awaken, and it constantly changes as I learn and have experiences and make decisions.

American - Vietnamese War

I told myself I would avoid the Vietnam (American) War until I had posted 100 blogs.  Now that I have reached that number it is time I forced myself to deal with it.  The subject is of course painful on many levels.

I was a student during most of the war and had a student deferral, so there was never any real risk I might be drafted.  As a result, at the time, I was not personally interested except as a thing that dominated American politics.

I remember at the time thinking the U.S. had to be there because otherwise the Communists would take another country -- domino theory, it was called -- and our freedom and so on was at risk.  I think most Americans had views similar to that.

I didn't realize at the time, although there were plenty of signs of it there, that the regime (I usually avoid that word as it is loaded, but it is appropriate here) in the South, at least at first, was a corrupt autocracy rather determined to suppress Buddhism and other religions in favor of Roman Catholics.  Obviously it would be unpopular and led to the immolations of monks and other protests.

So the U.S. arranged for a military coup and replaced the government.  Although I suppose that was necessary, it made the reality clear to most thinking Vietnamese that this was not really a war for their freedom but something the Americans were doing in their own interest.  Most Vietnamese tended from then on to hand over things to the Americans, and let them pay for it, in both money and lives.  (Not that there weren't exceptions).

As the years passed, though, things in the South improved and more and more the government there became responsive while American military strength slowly won the war.

However, democracies have a serious problem waging war overseas, when the cost in lives and money is high and when it seems to go on and on.  Long-term commitment and determination like that is not possible in a democracy.  Far too many politicians are very willing to use it as a way to office, and the public becomes cold about it and not willing to make sacrifices.  Public support dried up and public opposition grew.

(A comparison with the British experience in the Boer war is useful, which, if pursued could have early on produced a reasonable South African state, but instead produced Apartheid when the British had to give up because of domestic pressure.)

First, the Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese by cutting off funding, then Nixon and Kissinger saw the political reality and cut their losses, in effect surrendering without doing so formally.  This, ironically, when the war was really almost won.

The result was maybe a decade of considerable suffering in Vietnam, especially by those who had bet on the wrong horse, and a decade of hard-line rule until the government in the north evolved into the sensible thing it is now.  Once New Thinking came in, things settled down and now you have a peaceful, united, prosperous country.

Was the benefit of achieving a united Vietnam and the benefits of New Thinking worth it?  It is all ironic and shows how it behooves us to realize both sides were seriously wrong in what they thought they were doing.  Both that and no one can predict the future.

China and Vietnam

I'm reading that Kissinger analyzes Chinese behavior as a part of an overall long-term strategy of asserting and take "territory" and then back off for awhile to let the "enemy" relax and go back to sleep, all the time preparing for the next advance.

I don't think so.  I think the Chinese withdrawal was a case of adults getting their way inside China.  It also won't cause others to go back to sleep.  People have memories, and the betrayal of Chinese behavior will be remembered.

Depression and suicide

There are ways to deal with depression on one's own, but they only work if you are kinda naive about yourself, and eventually will generally stop working.  Work and staying busy, exercise, "getting away" such as taking a trip or vacation, dealing with the immediate causes of the depression, if there are any, meditation, getting counseling, music and art, reading a stomping good novel, pondering the universe -- these and other tricks help a lot.

But the fact is that only some people tend to depression (I think most of the time the tendency is inherited) so most people don't understand it and think it's only normal mood swing.  This absence of understanding and compassion and the "buck it up" disdain one gets don't help.

I have found the only real way to stave off such periods of depression is to stay on medication.  The medical system doesn't like it one bit, for a variety of reasons, so one has to be prepared to fight with insurance companies and have to go out of pocket fairly often.  That doctors often compound the problem with their arrogance about it and their failure to really hear the patient is a cross to bear, but shopping doctors doesn't work, and is less and less possible in the modern bureaucracy.

Of course, this leads to drug use (the wrong drugs -- things that are addictive and illegal, such as heroine and of course alcohol).  About alcohol -- practically guaranteed to cause an early death for the depressive.  Marijuana is better, but of limited value.  Caffeine in the form of a nice cup of espresso or just black coffee or green tea is even better here.

In the end, though anti-depressives need be taken on a lifelong basis in fairly high doses and in several forms (at least both serotonin stimulators and anti-reuptake serotonin inhibitors.  Not being a pharmacist I probably have the terms wrong -- what are needed are drugs that both produce "happiness" hormones and that slow down their removal from the body.

I know from my personal experience, which I suppose is anecdotal, but also from what I can find out talking to others and doing research.  I suspect in some cases even this is not enough, but the difficulties I had and continue to have getting minimal treatment suggests to me that the real problem, and the real cause of the continuing suicides, is that most people just do not get it.  It is so out of the range of their own experience.  That includes the medical profession and the lawmakers.

Of course it is also in the interest of insurers to not "get it".  When the patient kills himself or herself they stop having to pay for treatments.