I got a letter from my health insurer in the States telling me they noticed (it probably popped up in a computer scan) that I hadn't had a stool blood test in a good long time (I have had negative colonoscopies so I personally don't see the point). As I understand the research these tests cause more trouble from false positives and regularly miss many problems anyway and so in sum are of little value and a lot of hassle for the patient (although of course not nearly as much hassle as a colonoscopy).
So I ask myself what is going on. Rarely will this particular insurance company pay for a test unless there is a clear standard calling for it, and then they only do the very minimum found in the standard. In short, I am skeptical here, and the answer is pretty easy to infer -- they don't want to do colonoscopies and negative results on these stool exams gives them a legal excuse for not doing the more rigorous and much more accurate real exam in case a cancer and ensuing lawsuit takes place.
Health services in the States are so outrageously expensive that no sane person goes without insurance. Still, it practically guarantees that I have no right to use my own judgement about treatment -- that the underwriters or claims managers can decide to refuse treatment if it is not in the "standard," even if the doctor and everyone else thinks otherwise, and they have a strong vested interested to behave in this way even if the patient is going to die as a result.
I guess it's a balancing act since there no doubt are many who would milk the insurance company dry -- both patients and doctors -- if they don't behave this way. Still, I don't like it one bit and think both the high cost of health care in the States and this quandary are both brought about by the very institution of insurance. People don't shop so insurance companies have to, and laws get passed by the doctors restricting their ability to do so, and legislators agree for obvious public interest reasons, so there is little if any competition holding down costs. The system is a huge monopoly, aided and abetted -- or maybe "amplified" is a better word -- by the malpractice legal system.
In Vietnam if some treatment goes wrong, you are not going to be able to sue your doctor, even if he makes some egregious mistake (there are criminal consequences though that has a considerable influence). Further, while you can buy insurance, the cost of health care is so reasonable that you don't, but this does lead to your shopping around a bit and asking certain questions an American doctor never hears. It's a "pay cash in advance" system, which also neatly deals with the bad debt problem so many hospitals in the States seem to have.
That would not work in the States because the charges are so high it would create serious social equity and moral questions. In a society where the bureaucrats keep tabs on medical (and pretty much all other costs) and where there is effective competition anyway, you end up with better care at less cost and to my mind a grossly superior system. (I leave out describing the details of the system, except to say it seems rationally designed rather than to have grown up mainly in the interests of the doctors and hospitals and now the insurers).
The problem one might think the Vietnamese have is what about the truly indigent. Are they just to die? Well, it doesn't seem to happen when costs are in bounds. Charitable impulses from family and neighbors and religious groups and organized charities can far better manage the issue. You may have a huge ward for your bed and things may not be as pretty and hospital-looking, but the care is what matters, not the esthetics.
The Buddhist maxim about dealing with the world is to be "wise" compassionate. In other words, don't be naive, even though one is non-judgmental and forgiving and always as helpful as possible. Such wisdom in my mind includes looking at systems to see where the incentives are. Most people manage to rationalize their behavior to meet what is best for them, and this creates a fairly good system in Vietnam and one that is not so good in the States.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Friday, August 1, 2014
Why I'm a poor Buddhist
There is a sense in which we can say we are all Buddhists, as they say, we have "Buddha nature," if we want what is right and true, except maybe sociopaths. Many who even do what we see as evil are motivated by their Buddha nature, deluded though it may be.
When Gautama sat under his Bodhi tree and persisted in meditation until he hit upon it (became Enlightened), what came of it is what is called the Four Noble Truths, which, to summarize crudely, consists of the assertions that to live is to suffer, the cause of this suffering are our desires, especially our grasping desire to continue living, that this causes the cycle of rebirths (reincarnations as it is miscalled in the West) and so we continue to be born again and again in life after life of suffering, and the solution is to break the desire to live and hence avoid rebirth.
I must interject that this is by no means a summary of Buddhist teaching, as there is much more to it.
Up to the point where the teaching gets into being reborn, most people readily accept the idea that we suffer because we have desires. After all, we either get what we want, in which case we have to hold onto it, and that is not possible, and sooner or later we will suffer loss, or we don't get what we want, in which case we suffer frustration. I have to say this insight is profound and important and useful, but also is common sense and hardly unique to Buddhist thinking in history.
Does that mean that by accepting it and acting accordingly (watching our desires that they don't get control over us) that we are Enlightened. It would not seem so since at the time the Buddha became enlightened all sorts of miraculous things happened, including a visit by Brahma himself.
This is often the case with myths -- things are out of proportion. The story of how the teaching came into the world, with the meditation and miracles and so on, is out of proportion to what it is.
Still, the insight is helpful and important. We suffer because we want things and have other desires. We of course want sex and food and so on, and we also want to be admired by others, to be loved, to be successful and have a lot of face, to have comforts and luxuries, to be secure and safe and healthy, to have friends and family and a place in the world, to be entertained and able to learn new and interesting things, and so on.
The thing is the pursuit of these things sometimes leads to trouble or our doing things that are wrong, and often leads to frustration, since we obviously cannot have everything, and of course sometimes we necessarily must as a result experience grief and other times experience pain.
However, and here is where I think maybe I make a poor Buddhist. There is the other side of all this -- that we also experience satisfactions and pleasures and even from time to time are able to help someone else and inevitably experience the gratification of that, even if that was not our intent.
So while the truth of the Bodhi Hill insight is useful and undeniable, there is a further truth that it is not the entire story. When we experience frustration, we have to remind ourselves we probably are over-reaching: when we experience true pain we remind ourselves to do something medical about it and if that is not possible then it is not possible. When we die, well, then we die, and I don't see the point of making this fact the basis of an entire life philosophy. To be sure death plays a role in how we approach things, but while we are alive it is less important than that we are alive.
When Gautama sat under his Bodhi tree and persisted in meditation until he hit upon it (became Enlightened), what came of it is what is called the Four Noble Truths, which, to summarize crudely, consists of the assertions that to live is to suffer, the cause of this suffering are our desires, especially our grasping desire to continue living, that this causes the cycle of rebirths (reincarnations as it is miscalled in the West) and so we continue to be born again and again in life after life of suffering, and the solution is to break the desire to live and hence avoid rebirth.
I must interject that this is by no means a summary of Buddhist teaching, as there is much more to it.
Up to the point where the teaching gets into being reborn, most people readily accept the idea that we suffer because we have desires. After all, we either get what we want, in which case we have to hold onto it, and that is not possible, and sooner or later we will suffer loss, or we don't get what we want, in which case we suffer frustration. I have to say this insight is profound and important and useful, but also is common sense and hardly unique to Buddhist thinking in history.
Does that mean that by accepting it and acting accordingly (watching our desires that they don't get control over us) that we are Enlightened. It would not seem so since at the time the Buddha became enlightened all sorts of miraculous things happened, including a visit by Brahma himself.
This is often the case with myths -- things are out of proportion. The story of how the teaching came into the world, with the meditation and miracles and so on, is out of proportion to what it is.
Still, the insight is helpful and important. We suffer because we want things and have other desires. We of course want sex and food and so on, and we also want to be admired by others, to be loved, to be successful and have a lot of face, to have comforts and luxuries, to be secure and safe and healthy, to have friends and family and a place in the world, to be entertained and able to learn new and interesting things, and so on.
The thing is the pursuit of these things sometimes leads to trouble or our doing things that are wrong, and often leads to frustration, since we obviously cannot have everything, and of course sometimes we necessarily must as a result experience grief and other times experience pain.
However, and here is where I think maybe I make a poor Buddhist. There is the other side of all this -- that we also experience satisfactions and pleasures and even from time to time are able to help someone else and inevitably experience the gratification of that, even if that was not our intent.
So while the truth of the Bodhi Hill insight is useful and undeniable, there is a further truth that it is not the entire story. When we experience frustration, we have to remind ourselves we probably are over-reaching: when we experience true pain we remind ourselves to do something medical about it and if that is not possible then it is not possible. When we die, well, then we die, and I don't see the point of making this fact the basis of an entire life philosophy. To be sure death plays a role in how we approach things, but while we are alive it is less important than that we are alive.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
First Cause thinking as a lack of imagination
I doubt anyone would argue with the idea that the fact we can't imagine how something could be true doesn't make it false. I can't imagine how the resurrection of Jesus could be true, but lots of people apparently can, so I would not use that argument. So also when I was three I couldn't imagine that people could live on the other side of the world (the "antipode"). Now that I live there I still sometimes think about falling off.
There are at least two reasons why something we can't imagine how it could be true, could, in spite of our notions, still be true anyway. These are lack of imagination and ignorance, usually together.
Thus, "I can't imagine how a monkey could become a man." Well, of course monkeys can't become men (nor can song-and-dance Orangs), but we know what is meant by the expression. People who say that almost always have a religious motive, not a rational motive, but ignoring that, the problem is ignorance of biology (huge ignorance) and lack of imagination, in this example almost certainly forced, willful, failure to use imagination.
My favorite is that the universe could not have caused itself therefore God must have caused it. Besides the obvious response that if everything must have a cause, then what caused God -- readily enough answered by asserting that God is the one thing that does not need a cause. Well, then, why not the universe not needing a cause either?
The real problem is inability to see that causation is an illusion brought on by the statistical fact that the random events, the things that happen without a cause, happen at the quantum level and smaller, and by the time it reaches us the law of large numbers makes the odds against something happening "uncaused" so small as to be out of the question.
Think about our saying one thing "caused" another. Event A happens and then event B happens. Is there a real connection between them or is it just in our heads? We all know that often we misidentify "causes" and that it is some third thing causing A and B, or maybe it is just a statistical fluke. Still, there is a reality that some things do seem to cause others, although if we study them closely we find we can break down each event into sub-causes and sub-sub-causes, smaller and smaller, so at root it is statistical -- just that the odds are so small that we will never see an exception.
If there were true causation, then there would be magic. What would be the connection between two causally linked events other than magic. As it is we can apply physics or some other science to break down the causations or we can study many occurrences to come to a statistical confirmation, but we don't really think one object reaches out with invisible hands in some way to make another happen, do we?
That is not to say that it could not be God active at the quantum level deciding each event rather than randomness, but then all God would be is a random number generator. This is the problem with Aquinas and all those who so readily and eagerly follow him. Even though he broke the idea down into unnecessary pieces, I guess to make the argument seem stronger, all it is is a statement that God had to be the first cause or the first mover or whatever because I lack the knowledge and imagination necessary to see otherwise.
There are at least two reasons why something we can't imagine how it could be true, could, in spite of our notions, still be true anyway. These are lack of imagination and ignorance, usually together.
Thus, "I can't imagine how a monkey could become a man." Well, of course monkeys can't become men (nor can song-and-dance Orangs), but we know what is meant by the expression. People who say that almost always have a religious motive, not a rational motive, but ignoring that, the problem is ignorance of biology (huge ignorance) and lack of imagination, in this example almost certainly forced, willful, failure to use imagination.
My favorite is that the universe could not have caused itself therefore God must have caused it. Besides the obvious response that if everything must have a cause, then what caused God -- readily enough answered by asserting that God is the one thing that does not need a cause. Well, then, why not the universe not needing a cause either?
The real problem is inability to see that causation is an illusion brought on by the statistical fact that the random events, the things that happen without a cause, happen at the quantum level and smaller, and by the time it reaches us the law of large numbers makes the odds against something happening "uncaused" so small as to be out of the question.
Think about our saying one thing "caused" another. Event A happens and then event B happens. Is there a real connection between them or is it just in our heads? We all know that often we misidentify "causes" and that it is some third thing causing A and B, or maybe it is just a statistical fluke. Still, there is a reality that some things do seem to cause others, although if we study them closely we find we can break down each event into sub-causes and sub-sub-causes, smaller and smaller, so at root it is statistical -- just that the odds are so small that we will never see an exception.
If there were true causation, then there would be magic. What would be the connection between two causally linked events other than magic. As it is we can apply physics or some other science to break down the causations or we can study many occurrences to come to a statistical confirmation, but we don't really think one object reaches out with invisible hands in some way to make another happen, do we?
That is not to say that it could not be God active at the quantum level deciding each event rather than randomness, but then all God would be is a random number generator. This is the problem with Aquinas and all those who so readily and eagerly follow him. Even though he broke the idea down into unnecessary pieces, I guess to make the argument seem stronger, all it is is a statement that God had to be the first cause or the first mover or whatever because I lack the knowledge and imagination necessary to see otherwise.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
China, Vietnam, and some Islands
You asked for my views of the
Vietnam-China argument over some islands in the S. China Sea (usually
referred to as the "East Sea" here in Vietnam).
The Chinese position is of course arbitrary, illegal (at least contrary to International conventions) and outrageous. I think so far it has also been unbelievably stupid.
The Chinese stupidity comes from alienating a friendly state overwhelmingly likely to align itself with China in almost any conceivable world event, and one with practically the same form of government and economy. The Chinese seem to have an attitude that goes beyond arrogance in just assuming the Vietnamese in the end will Kowtow.
The thing is the Vietnamese authorities would I think almost certainly stand down if China pushes hard. China is far more powerful and the Vietnamese government is not so stupid to risk everything over some islands and whatever economic benefit they might bring. Instead I would expect them to negotiate and try to get a piece of the action.
The Vietnamese have no real hope in such a situation of American assistance, at least while someone like Obama is President (consider his behavior elsewhere) and I think the odds are very great that American help in a clash with China would be of little use and for ideological reasons would probably be declined anyway.
The thing is much of the population does not see things that way, and nationalistic feelings in Vietnam have been strengthened by China's high-handedness. This could be destabilizing in Vietnam if the government is seen as too much controlled from Beijing. The Parties in both countries have to realize this.
Vietnam is a successful, prosperous, popular one-party state, perhaps the only example of such except for China itself. It just doesn't make sense to me that China would imperil this.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Thailand's rice
I read a good piece today on the web site "Diplomat" about Thailand's mess with rice and the mountain of it they obtained by trying to help the poor, which it seems in Thailand mainly means rice growers. At least they are most of the voters.
This seems to be the problem with populist politicians in elective multi-party democracies. Such people carry out irresponsible policies in order to gain electoral support, figuring I guess they or a later government will deal with the consequences, or (probably more likely), in their ideological framework that tends to blind them to reality, letting their hopes for doing good distort their thinking.
It's hard from my distance to tell if the Thaksins' were corrupt and profiting from all this, as is alleged, or just politicians buying votes, or truly wanting, out of what one must say seems to be unbelievable economic stupidity, to help poor farmers.
It would appear, at a minimum, that they were fast bankrupting the country, and, true to Thai tradition, the military intervened, overthrowing a duly elected government, at least by U.S. standards, ignoring what I see as vote buying and a corrupt electorate who must know such schemes are not sustainable but vote for them anyway out of self interest. It's to my mind hard to defend the claim such a corrupt electorate is entitled to democracy.
That is of course one of the problems with multi-party democracies -- people don't vote for the best but for either their prejudices or their selfish interest, and, of course, people are good at convincing themselves that what is in their interest is in the interest of the country.
This seems to be the problem with populist politicians in elective multi-party democracies. Such people carry out irresponsible policies in order to gain electoral support, figuring I guess they or a later government will deal with the consequences, or (probably more likely), in their ideological framework that tends to blind them to reality, letting their hopes for doing good distort their thinking.
It's hard from my distance to tell if the Thaksins' were corrupt and profiting from all this, as is alleged, or just politicians buying votes, or truly wanting, out of what one must say seems to be unbelievable economic stupidity, to help poor farmers.
It would appear, at a minimum, that they were fast bankrupting the country, and, true to Thai tradition, the military intervened, overthrowing a duly elected government, at least by U.S. standards, ignoring what I see as vote buying and a corrupt electorate who must know such schemes are not sustainable but vote for them anyway out of self interest. It's to my mind hard to defend the claim such a corrupt electorate is entitled to democracy.
That is of course one of the problems with multi-party democracies -- people don't vote for the best but for either their prejudices or their selfish interest, and, of course, people are good at convincing themselves that what is in their interest is in the interest of the country.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
An American in Vietnam
It's been almost fifteen years now since I first visited Vietnam, then for just a month, but since I've been stretching out the visits and now I spend most of my time here; to the extent that if my partner would hear of it I would love to sell our property in the States and only go there for visits. He is probably right though that we are better off keeping the American link.
I have many times tried to figure out what it was about Vietnam and I guess still is that attracted me. Part of it is of course I see the States as decaying, but that can be attributed to my own decay and probably the US has a good deal of steam left. Still the infrastructure and culture and especially the politics of the States seem be be getting more and more "dysfunctional" (I put the word in ticks because I realize what a cliche the word has become).
One thing for sure: living in the states is a hassle. Living overseas doesn't really help much as I still have to fill out US tax forms and maintain credit cards and US bank accounts and a drivers' license and insurance of all sorts and on and on, but I do escape most of it as my partner handles things more and more and Vietnam is a cash society, so the only real hassles are getting money here, getting steadily easier, and keeping a valid visa (a real pain in the neck).
I think, contrary to all American opinion, that Vietnam is a much freer country than the States. All the rules in the States one has to observe, all no doubt enacted for good reasons but that persist because of vested interests, such as those about schools and about pharmaceuticals and about employing people and about simple things like who can give you a haircut and a shave -- yea -- I'm able to afford a barber's shave here -- are just either not here or not enforced (not being a lawyer I'm not quite sure).
Of course the country isn't "free" in the form that it is a one party state, but having been here and seeing first hand the implications in terms of reasonably effective governance without a self-appointed political class, I begin to see advantages. Voter participation rates in the States tell a tale -- people there don't think the right to vote means anything anyway for a variety of reasons, including corruption, bought elections, and the fact that close elections seem to come out in favor of the party controlling the voting bureaucracy. But that is a subject for another post -- this one is about why I live here.
One thing I noticed right away is the absence of guns and the relative safety in even the biggest cities this and a no-nonsense law enforcement and judicial system seem to provide. Oh there is crime, and there is prostitution, and common sense is called for, but it doesn't thrust itself on you as in other places. There is also poverty; after all Vietnam is a developing country and the culture and structure of poverty in a society take generations to mitigate, but in the time I've been observing the progress, especially in the countryside, has been palpable. The long and short of it is I feel much safer here.
I set out to talk about why I like Vietnam, not politics, so I will get to it. It's mainly the people, but also the land and the cuisine and a whole list of intangibles. It is tropical and I don't like cold. OK that is easy enough, but there are lots of tropical countries. It comes down to the friendliness of the inhabitants. Only Scandinavia and the Netherlands are friendlier, and in many countries I've visited I've experienced serious unpleasantness. I suppose there are those here who don't like foreigners either, as that is part of a "bigot" personality trait that I suppose is present in a minority everywhere, but here I think maybe they tend to just avoid you, end of story.
Vietnam doesn't have the "rules" either like not showing your feet or not looking at someone or not smiling or talking to a stranger or not touching someone you are talking to or not hugging a good friend. There is something of a code for what to wear for business, and one can be pretentious in one's clothes if one likes, but being Western I am forgiven all that and can dress simply the way I like, which means knee-shorts and pull-on and comfortable slip-on shoes.
Did I mention smiling? In Vietnam it is the thing to do. Smiling is not as in some countries seen as a sign of untrustworthiness. It is seen as a sign of friendliness and the Vietnamese are friendly. If I get up on the wrong side of bed, everyone in the household notices and asks if something is wrong, to the point that I cannot indulge myself in being miserable but have to cheer up.
I have many times tried to figure out what it was about Vietnam and I guess still is that attracted me. Part of it is of course I see the States as decaying, but that can be attributed to my own decay and probably the US has a good deal of steam left. Still the infrastructure and culture and especially the politics of the States seem be be getting more and more "dysfunctional" (I put the word in ticks because I realize what a cliche the word has become).
One thing for sure: living in the states is a hassle. Living overseas doesn't really help much as I still have to fill out US tax forms and maintain credit cards and US bank accounts and a drivers' license and insurance of all sorts and on and on, but I do escape most of it as my partner handles things more and more and Vietnam is a cash society, so the only real hassles are getting money here, getting steadily easier, and keeping a valid visa (a real pain in the neck).
I think, contrary to all American opinion, that Vietnam is a much freer country than the States. All the rules in the States one has to observe, all no doubt enacted for good reasons but that persist because of vested interests, such as those about schools and about pharmaceuticals and about employing people and about simple things like who can give you a haircut and a shave -- yea -- I'm able to afford a barber's shave here -- are just either not here or not enforced (not being a lawyer I'm not quite sure).
Of course the country isn't "free" in the form that it is a one party state, but having been here and seeing first hand the implications in terms of reasonably effective governance without a self-appointed political class, I begin to see advantages. Voter participation rates in the States tell a tale -- people there don't think the right to vote means anything anyway for a variety of reasons, including corruption, bought elections, and the fact that close elections seem to come out in favor of the party controlling the voting bureaucracy. But that is a subject for another post -- this one is about why I live here.
One thing I noticed right away is the absence of guns and the relative safety in even the biggest cities this and a no-nonsense law enforcement and judicial system seem to provide. Oh there is crime, and there is prostitution, and common sense is called for, but it doesn't thrust itself on you as in other places. There is also poverty; after all Vietnam is a developing country and the culture and structure of poverty in a society take generations to mitigate, but in the time I've been observing the progress, especially in the countryside, has been palpable. The long and short of it is I feel much safer here.
I set out to talk about why I like Vietnam, not politics, so I will get to it. It's mainly the people, but also the land and the cuisine and a whole list of intangibles. It is tropical and I don't like cold. OK that is easy enough, but there are lots of tropical countries. It comes down to the friendliness of the inhabitants. Only Scandinavia and the Netherlands are friendlier, and in many countries I've visited I've experienced serious unpleasantness. I suppose there are those here who don't like foreigners either, as that is part of a "bigot" personality trait that I suppose is present in a minority everywhere, but here I think maybe they tend to just avoid you, end of story.
Vietnam doesn't have the "rules" either like not showing your feet or not looking at someone or not smiling or talking to a stranger or not touching someone you are talking to or not hugging a good friend. There is something of a code for what to wear for business, and one can be pretentious in one's clothes if one likes, but being Western I am forgiven all that and can dress simply the way I like, which means knee-shorts and pull-on and comfortable slip-on shoes.
Did I mention smiling? In Vietnam it is the thing to do. Smiling is not as in some countries seen as a sign of untrustworthiness. It is seen as a sign of friendliness and the Vietnamese are friendly. If I get up on the wrong side of bed, everyone in the household notices and asks if something is wrong, to the point that I cannot indulge myself in being miserable but have to cheer up.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Does ET exist?
ET, standing, of course, for "extraterrestrial advanced technological civilization" from the movie, is all the talk today. I add the words "advanced" and so on to be sure we are talking about something important, not just a few microbes or even bunches of whales cavorting on an ocean planet. Not that these things would not be important, but pale in comparison to a technological society.
Of course I don't suppose whales couldn't evolve technology. That they did not for quite a long time swimming around here on the earth is evidence, and thinking about it makes the difficulties clear enough, but anything is still possible -- well, maybe not.
I am pretty much persuaded, if not convinced, that ET must be excruciatingly rare, if not completely absent, at least from our galaxy and maybe from the entire universe we have direct knowledge of.
That is at best a heterodox opinion, although not an uncommon one among religious types, but among non-religious people like me. The religious types have their unique creation to deal with and it is easier to deny, deny, deny (although to be sure many of them jump through various hoops to get around it).
We now know enough to project that planetary systems, and even solar-system type planetary systems with at least one earth-like planet, are numerous -- by numerous here I mean really mind-graspingly large numbers.
I think, though it's likely that a Jupiter-Saturn sort of pair like the one we have is needed to bring stability to the orbits (early on, it seems they did a dance that kept both of them out of the inner system where in most systems a giant migrates inward and destroys any budding earths).
It also seems that an earth-moon "almost" double planet ("almost" because the center of gravity remains under the surface of the earth) is rare, but needed for the inclination stability over billions of years that would be needed for evolution. Theories as to the origin of the moon have settled on some sort of early collision with another planet sized body, and not just any collision, but one involving relative masses and orbits in a limited and therefore unlikely range.
Then there is the problem of the system, after this violent beginning, being left alone for several billion years for life to evolve. There are any number of things that, while individually unlikely, can serve to sterilize or almost sterilize a planet, and over several billion years each of them should happen several times.
The assumption is often made that given the right conditions the rise of life is almost a certainty, based on the statistical sample of one we have that it happened quickly after the earth settled down. Not so fast. We don't know the likelihood of there being the right conditions for the origin of life. Just the right temperature and mass may well be nowhere near enough.
One would think that with huge oceans in a reducing atmosphere for several million years, with energy sources and no big disasters, molecules that take from the environment to make at least rough copies of themselves would happen, and once started natural selection would step in to make the process better and better until you had living things. But you need several million or so years, a reducing atmosphere, lots and lots of water and of course a variety of other elements. While the presence of some of these may be taken as given, the combination may not. And of course, there is the unresolved problem of protecting these increasingly complex molecules in your soup from all sorts of solar radiation. An example is that the planet would need a strong magnetic field from day one, something that is by no means a given.
Then there are several major events in the evolution of life that may be one-off affairs with almost no chance of happening, including but not limited to the appearance of multi-cellular ("complex") living organisms. That this event seems to have been long delayed tells us either that it is unlikely or that necessary precursors are unlikely. That once it happened, it appears to have happened many times almost at once speaks more to the latter, but it's hard to say, since only one of those many occurrences of the appearance of complex life actually persisted. It may be that it is not so easy to get it right.
Millions of years, then were spent, first with pre-mammalian-reptilian forms, then with reptiles and mammals, and then with just mammals, all evolving around in circles, punctuated by occasional mass extinctions, until the appearance out of the blue of apes and hominids and mankind. Again long delays while nothing really takes place except evolution of new flavors of the same things indicates that the appearance of intelligence is not so automatic nor so predictable.
Nor, if we look at the history of our species, does the appearance of technology seem so predictable. I think slavery and the domestication of animals prevent technology for awhile, and there seems no real reason to rid a society of slaves except accidents of history. That slavery had disappeared in Europe before elsewhere and that Europe is where technology got started tells a tale.
Finally, there is the "where are they" problem, not easily pushed aside. It may be that the technologies self-destruct, or maybe (a more optimistic thought) they find ways to exit physical existence into computers or other dimensions or whatever and find things much better there. Or maybe some equivalent of bird flu eventually appears and spreads so fast and is so deadly that that is that.
There exists another set of issues not often addressed in this topic, the nature of our intelligence and how likely that might be. AI machines have been promised now for quite a while, but haven't appeared. The fact is not just our intelligence, but even our sentience (our experience of existence and of senses and emotions and so on) is not understood. Not only is it not understood, no one has any idea how to approach it. How can we make predictions as to whether it is likely to appear elsewhere when we don't even know what it is?
Of course I don't suppose whales couldn't evolve technology. That they did not for quite a long time swimming around here on the earth is evidence, and thinking about it makes the difficulties clear enough, but anything is still possible -- well, maybe not.
I am pretty much persuaded, if not convinced, that ET must be excruciatingly rare, if not completely absent, at least from our galaxy and maybe from the entire universe we have direct knowledge of.
That is at best a heterodox opinion, although not an uncommon one among religious types, but among non-religious people like me. The religious types have their unique creation to deal with and it is easier to deny, deny, deny (although to be sure many of them jump through various hoops to get around it).
We now know enough to project that planetary systems, and even solar-system type planetary systems with at least one earth-like planet, are numerous -- by numerous here I mean really mind-graspingly large numbers.
I think, though it's likely that a Jupiter-Saturn sort of pair like the one we have is needed to bring stability to the orbits (early on, it seems they did a dance that kept both of them out of the inner system where in most systems a giant migrates inward and destroys any budding earths).
It also seems that an earth-moon "almost" double planet ("almost" because the center of gravity remains under the surface of the earth) is rare, but needed for the inclination stability over billions of years that would be needed for evolution. Theories as to the origin of the moon have settled on some sort of early collision with another planet sized body, and not just any collision, but one involving relative masses and orbits in a limited and therefore unlikely range.
Then there is the problem of the system, after this violent beginning, being left alone for several billion years for life to evolve. There are any number of things that, while individually unlikely, can serve to sterilize or almost sterilize a planet, and over several billion years each of them should happen several times.
The assumption is often made that given the right conditions the rise of life is almost a certainty, based on the statistical sample of one we have that it happened quickly after the earth settled down. Not so fast. We don't know the likelihood of there being the right conditions for the origin of life. Just the right temperature and mass may well be nowhere near enough.
One would think that with huge oceans in a reducing atmosphere for several million years, with energy sources and no big disasters, molecules that take from the environment to make at least rough copies of themselves would happen, and once started natural selection would step in to make the process better and better until you had living things. But you need several million or so years, a reducing atmosphere, lots and lots of water and of course a variety of other elements. While the presence of some of these may be taken as given, the combination may not. And of course, there is the unresolved problem of protecting these increasingly complex molecules in your soup from all sorts of solar radiation. An example is that the planet would need a strong magnetic field from day one, something that is by no means a given.
Then there are several major events in the evolution of life that may be one-off affairs with almost no chance of happening, including but not limited to the appearance of multi-cellular ("complex") living organisms. That this event seems to have been long delayed tells us either that it is unlikely or that necessary precursors are unlikely. That once it happened, it appears to have happened many times almost at once speaks more to the latter, but it's hard to say, since only one of those many occurrences of the appearance of complex life actually persisted. It may be that it is not so easy to get it right.
Millions of years, then were spent, first with pre-mammalian-reptilian forms, then with reptiles and mammals, and then with just mammals, all evolving around in circles, punctuated by occasional mass extinctions, until the appearance out of the blue of apes and hominids and mankind. Again long delays while nothing really takes place except evolution of new flavors of the same things indicates that the appearance of intelligence is not so automatic nor so predictable.
Nor, if we look at the history of our species, does the appearance of technology seem so predictable. I think slavery and the domestication of animals prevent technology for awhile, and there seems no real reason to rid a society of slaves except accidents of history. That slavery had disappeared in Europe before elsewhere and that Europe is where technology got started tells a tale.
Finally, there is the "where are they" problem, not easily pushed aside. It may be that the technologies self-destruct, or maybe (a more optimistic thought) they find ways to exit physical existence into computers or other dimensions or whatever and find things much better there. Or maybe some equivalent of bird flu eventually appears and spreads so fast and is so deadly that that is that.
There exists another set of issues not often addressed in this topic, the nature of our intelligence and how likely that might be. AI machines have been promised now for quite a while, but haven't appeared. The fact is not just our intelligence, but even our sentience (our experience of existence and of senses and emotions and so on) is not understood. Not only is it not understood, no one has any idea how to approach it. How can we make predictions as to whether it is likely to appear elsewhere when we don't even know what it is?
Friday, June 27, 2014
Right and wrong exist independently of human opinion
Any truly eternal ethical laws would be independent of God. What is
right is right and what is wrong is wrong, and this applies to any
divinities as well as to people.
This of course assumes that right and wrong exist as objective, real "things." One is tempted to say they are analogous to ideas of beauty and ugliness, entirely in the eye of the beholder. But beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder (while superficially this is so we have to recognize that beauty does have a deeper quality that outlasts cultures and fashions).
A better analogy might be right and wrong are analogous to truth and falsehood. Even though people have varying ideas of what is true and what is not, we tend in the end to agree that truth and falsehood exist on their own independent of our opinions.
Don't confuse human ideas of right and wrong with real right and wrong. Human ideas change and indeed seem to progress (slavery is not condemned as wrong), but in the end mankind has always known slavery was wrong, and just buried its head. At least those who stopped to think objectively about it reached that conclusion.
This of course assumes that right and wrong exist as objective, real "things." One is tempted to say they are analogous to ideas of beauty and ugliness, entirely in the eye of the beholder. But beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder (while superficially this is so we have to recognize that beauty does have a deeper quality that outlasts cultures and fashions).
A better analogy might be right and wrong are analogous to truth and falsehood. Even though people have varying ideas of what is true and what is not, we tend in the end to agree that truth and falsehood exist on their own independent of our opinions.
Don't confuse human ideas of right and wrong with real right and wrong. Human ideas change and indeed seem to progress (slavery is not condemned as wrong), but in the end mankind has always known slavery was wrong, and just buried its head. At least those who stopped to think objectively about it reached that conclusion.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Persistent religious belief
The number of serious Christians in China is estimated to be between
20 and 90 million. Sorry for the imprecision in the number but that
sort of thing in a country like China is hard to measure. The actual number is probably on the higher side of this range (remember that China is a seriously big country).
These are mostly people in rural areas that have been Christian for generations and their descendants now moving to cities as part of China's overall planned urbanization, where they become more visible. How have they persisted in spite of official condemnation and all sorts of discriminations? The answer is easy: they indoctrinate their children, and no government in the world can defeat that short of breaking up families.
What you were taught as a child by your parents is almost certainly what you will believe, especially if it is done lovingly without brute force and consistently and with the parents setting a non-hypocritical example. Those who do flirt with other belief systems in the vast majority of cases become lost sheep who experience the joy and peace of returning to the flock a decade or so later, all the time they experienced fear and guilt.
Those who don't return to the flock tend to develop hate for whatever they were indoctrinated into, and serious resentment over what was "done to them" as a child and the suffering this put them through until they were finally able to make a clean break.
Thus religions and superstitions persist in spite of modern knowledge and rational thought. It has to do with the way human beings are wired.
These are mostly people in rural areas that have been Christian for generations and their descendants now moving to cities as part of China's overall planned urbanization, where they become more visible. How have they persisted in spite of official condemnation and all sorts of discriminations? The answer is easy: they indoctrinate their children, and no government in the world can defeat that short of breaking up families.
What you were taught as a child by your parents is almost certainly what you will believe, especially if it is done lovingly without brute force and consistently and with the parents setting a non-hypocritical example. Those who do flirt with other belief systems in the vast majority of cases become lost sheep who experience the joy and peace of returning to the flock a decade or so later, all the time they experienced fear and guilt.
Those who don't return to the flock tend to develop hate for whatever they were indoctrinated into, and serious resentment over what was "done to them" as a child and the suffering this put them through until they were finally able to make a clean break.
Thus religions and superstitions persist in spite of modern knowledge and rational thought. It has to do with the way human beings are wired.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Indoctrinated belief vs. learned opinion
I like to make a distinction between "belief" and "opinion." This
kinda reflects ordinary usage but is also a bit technical. One obtains a
belief by being indoctrinated, generally in childhood but for some
people this is possible at any age, while one gets an opinion by
learning about it and becoming persuaded that the evidence is good
enough to say it is probably true.
We aren't really consciously aware of our beliefs; we are about our opinions. That is to say a belief is taken for granted, like the furniture you sit on in the living room, you rarely if ever actually notice its presence. Opinions on the other hand tend to get scrutinized more often. Beliefs are not questions and usually have aspects designed to prevent their being questioned, such as "faith" and guilt for doubting. Most people however don't really need these crutches -- they believe out of habit and instinct, and in fact react with shock and anger when someone doubts or challenges them. This is especially the case when they realize they are not able to defend the belief rationally but must resort to rationalization and logical fallacies and slogans. (Of course the "realization" I mention is not conscious, but is only felt as what is called "cognitive dissonance.")
The ability to "believe" like that seem wired into us, something we evolved as animals, probably as a group coherence mechanism, and that has been supported by the fact that failure to believe has throughout history been a dangerous course.
Beliefs can be good and give us comfort and peace and even joy, but they often are delusions held in place by childhood indoctrination that divide mankind and have created the possibility if not the likelihood of our causing our own extinction. They need to be identified, scrutinized, and then either converted to opinions or expunged. That so few people do this is probably because it is so against the interests of religions and ideologies and governing institutions that it tends to be discouraged and suppressed.
We aren't really consciously aware of our beliefs; we are about our opinions. That is to say a belief is taken for granted, like the furniture you sit on in the living room, you rarely if ever actually notice its presence. Opinions on the other hand tend to get scrutinized more often. Beliefs are not questions and usually have aspects designed to prevent their being questioned, such as "faith" and guilt for doubting. Most people however don't really need these crutches -- they believe out of habit and instinct, and in fact react with shock and anger when someone doubts or challenges them. This is especially the case when they realize they are not able to defend the belief rationally but must resort to rationalization and logical fallacies and slogans. (Of course the "realization" I mention is not conscious, but is only felt as what is called "cognitive dissonance.")
The ability to "believe" like that seem wired into us, something we evolved as animals, probably as a group coherence mechanism, and that has been supported by the fact that failure to believe has throughout history been a dangerous course.
Beliefs can be good and give us comfort and peace and even joy, but they often are delusions held in place by childhood indoctrination that divide mankind and have created the possibility if not the likelihood of our causing our own extinction. They need to be identified, scrutinized, and then either converted to opinions or expunged. That so few people do this is probably because it is so against the interests of religions and ideologies and governing institutions that it tends to be discouraged and suppressed.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Chat anonymity
It's too bad that the internet chat and discussion rooms have to be
anonymous (although I understand the need). So often they cause more
depression because of some of the people on them. Otherwise they would
be ideal for lonely and housebound people.
I know I have to watch myself, so I appreciate the problem, and the standard discipline of throwing people off a board actually in my opinion makes things worse as it is probably the person with the most serious problem who ends up getting tossed overboard. Of course the process is needed to remove spammers and con artists, so I am of split mind and just don't know.
One thing I remind myself: the behavior of a person when they are anonymous tells you more about them than when their personal face is up front.
I know I have to watch myself, so I appreciate the problem, and the standard discipline of throwing people off a board actually in my opinion makes things worse as it is probably the person with the most serious problem who ends up getting tossed overboard. Of course the process is needed to remove spammers and con artists, so I am of split mind and just don't know.
One thing I remind myself: the behavior of a person when they are anonymous tells you more about them than when their personal face is up front.
Skepticism
To take an old joke from Oscar Wilde, skepticism is like society; it is
downplayed by those who aren't for one reason or another, usually an
inability or unwillingness to think honestly.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Oil replacement hype
Here we see a persistent problem not just on the internet but indeed all of the world's press -- how do you know what to believe
and what to disregard. People have many reasons to lie -- hype to
raise money perhaps most common, but wishful thinking and pious fraud
(frauds to "save souls" are seen by many as being acceptable behavior)
ranks right up there.
I don't know about these stories; I tend to take technology at face value but usually it turns out to be hype. This is why the conspiracy theories about evil giant oil companies suppressing new technology are around -- people get the wrong impression from the hype that replacing oil is easy.
I don't know about these stories; I tend to take technology at face value but usually it turns out to be hype. This is why the conspiracy theories about evil giant oil companies suppressing new technology are around -- people get the wrong impression from the hype that replacing oil is easy.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Enlightenment
Musings
About Enlightenment 06/19/05
I think that much that parades itself as "being in touch with oneself," or "being in harmony with the universe," and so on, is air-headed. The concept of enlightenment as the end product of Buddha-hood probably is the same. To have "answers" come to one sitting under the Bod-ha tree, as the myth reports, is not credible to me.
We all have moments of realization – of mental lucidity, and sitting quietly as we mull problems increases the chances we will find answers. However, a conversion on the way to Damascus is to be seriously questioned. We should never fool ourselves into thinking that we, too, do not have the ability to be carried away with ourselves.
Ignorance is one thing. We all are ignorant about most things and unfortunately tend to hide this from ourselves. We are all children trying to figure out the thunder and thinking we know. The desire to know leads to the desire for enlightenment, but one does not achieve enlightenment without removing desire. (I don’t practice Zen. That paradox is enough for me).
I do have faith in reason. “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal.” What is there in reason not to put faith in? Where we get in trouble is not when we are rational, but when we are not. I and almost everyone I know can see the syllogism, and has no difficulty agreeing that the conclusion “follows.” Where does this ability come from?
Oh, sure, the ability does give us a certain advantage over species who cannot reason things out, so if ability to reason is available, we can understand that natural selection would favor individuals who have it. However, that doesn’t explain where it comes from. I figure it comes from our spirit.
Testimonial Evidence is Worthless (almost)
I don't trust my senses, and it follows I don't trust the claims of others
based on what they have seen or heard. Indeed, it is even worse since I
see such claims as hearsay, although politeness generally prevents me
saying as much. Still, I know how people can elaborate.
There is just simply no way around this problem that I can see. The claim, for example, of the presence of witnesses to some outlandish event does not increase credibility but actively reduces it.
Is it possible, then, to say we know something -- anything at all -- since all our knowledge of the outside world comes to us through our senses (highly manipulated and censored, I might add, by our subconscious minds working to keep our conscious minds from having too much to handle).
All I can say is that I don't think there is anything I can say I "know," and I think people who claim otherwise are delusional. All we can say is that we think with varying degrees of certainty, based mainly on how we perceive probabilities, that some things are probably true and others probably not.
The only exception I would make to that is where what we conclude is based on logic rather than on experience, and even then we are dependent on the principles of logic being true. For example, I strongly doubt the existence of the Christian God, based on what my senses tell me about suffering in the world and the behavior of the members of that religion, and am persuaded logically this is the case based on the self-referential contradictions claims about this god lead to.
There is just simply no way around this problem that I can see. The claim, for example, of the presence of witnesses to some outlandish event does not increase credibility but actively reduces it.
Is it possible, then, to say we know something -- anything at all -- since all our knowledge of the outside world comes to us through our senses (highly manipulated and censored, I might add, by our subconscious minds working to keep our conscious minds from having too much to handle).
All I can say is that I don't think there is anything I can say I "know," and I think people who claim otherwise are delusional. All we can say is that we think with varying degrees of certainty, based mainly on how we perceive probabilities, that some things are probably true and others probably not.
The only exception I would make to that is where what we conclude is based on logic rather than on experience, and even then we are dependent on the principles of logic being true. For example, I strongly doubt the existence of the Christian God, based on what my senses tell me about suffering in the world and the behavior of the members of that religion, and am persuaded logically this is the case based on the self-referential contradictions claims about this god lead to.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Karma is not supernatural or mysterious
There is nothing mysterious about karma.
Doing harm to others is like gambling; you may "win" short run, but in the long run you always lose. The world is just simply built that way.
Doing harm to others is like gambling; you may "win" short run, but in the long run you always lose. The world is just simply built that way.
What happened to National Geographic?
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ON TV
A comment about the "reality" show where venomous snakes were shown (more like exploited) being handled by religious believers.
When I was a kid we subscribed to the National Geographic, and I remember learning a lot about geography and more important about the different people around the world. It was presented in a slick first person way that a high schooler could enjoy, and emphasized, at least as far as I could tell, the truth in a non-commercial clearly written way with lots of informative pictures and maps.
I gave up on it in college. Maybe I outgrew it.
Recently (since I don't now live in the states we can get it on satellite), I checked out its TV channel a few times. They have gone cheap and crass aiming for a low-class audience based on people watching, hoping someone will get killed and they can see it. I guess that is what draws the TV audience they want -- idiots that can be easily influenced by advertising.
Sad, such an old institution has gone that way.
A comment about the "reality" show where venomous snakes were shown (more like exploited) being handled by religious believers.
When I was a kid we subscribed to the National Geographic, and I remember learning a lot about geography and more important about the different people around the world. It was presented in a slick first person way that a high schooler could enjoy, and emphasized, at least as far as I could tell, the truth in a non-commercial clearly written way with lots of informative pictures and maps.
I gave up on it in college. Maybe I outgrew it.
Recently (since I don't now live in the states we can get it on satellite), I checked out its TV channel a few times. They have gone cheap and crass aiming for a low-class audience based on people watching, hoping someone will get killed and they can see it. I guess that is what draws the TV audience they want -- idiots that can be easily influenced by advertising.
Sad, such an old institution has gone that way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)