Absurdity

I have officially become frustrated enough to make a new post. Technically this belongs in my conversation with Tao over at the Atlantean Conspiracy, but in the event that this rant would even be read, it would be sure to be interpreted as rude (to be fair, it is rude) and surely wouldn't be welcome in that forum. Therefore I shall use the power of the Internet to rant on my own forum, in which I define what is welcome.

"Tao" over there, who appears to be a regular commentor (although I am not, I have read a decent number of old posts, and his name appears as often as any other), has finally expressed an opinion which I cannot call anything less than insanity. He has postulated that the universe is inherently unknowable, and to use rationality is "irrational." In the interests of being fully accurate, I have quoted his statements below:

"feeling over rationality: I'd rather be feel happy than be right, and as no one can know only guess then it is a good place to sit."

"In a universe that ultimately no one can ever know, then to use rationality is entirely irrational."

To start with, the universe is knowable. To deny this fact is nothing short of insanity. It is impossible to function at all without accepting this. There is no point in eating if you don't know whether it will satiate your hunger; there is no point in drinking if you don't know whether it will slake your thirst; there is no point in Mr. Tao pressing the "post" button if he doesn't know whether it will put his post up or not. When I push my foot against the ground, I know that I will move forward; otherwise, I would never walk anywhere. If Mr. Tao truly believes the universe is irrational, then he might as well wave his arms as his feet in order to cover distances, he may as well press "delete" as "post." The fact that he does things with clear intent, as he must in order to survive, indicates that whatever he may say, he knows that the universe is rational and follows rational laws. It is impossible to live without this. The rationality of the universe is apparent not only in the sciences, but in every minute of every day, when events proceed in a predictable manner.

Now, I know there are mysteries. We don't know why gravity exists. We don't know what the smallest particle is. We don't know if matter is particles or waves, or both. So what? It doesn't matter how or why it happens; it just matters that it happens rationally. If I hold a ball 5 feet off the ground and then drop it, it will fall. I don't have the slightest clue why it will fall; but I know, with absolute certainty, that it will. And so does Mr. Tao. A denial of this is indicative of what I can't describe as anything but an underlying insanity - a denial of what you know to be true.

On to the second thing that irks me: "I'd rather be feel happy than be right." This...saddens me, actually, more than it irks me. Man is reason. Reason is that quality which distinguishes man from beast. Without reason, therefore, man is not man, he is beast. To deny our reason is to deny the gift we have received (from God or evolution, I don't care what you believe) and relegate ourselves among the animals. A lion might as well shed his teeth and claws and live with his prey. I cannot comprehend why anyone would willingly do this to themselves. Why don't we all just get doctors to induce artificial comas and set up intravenous dopamine drips? You'd be feeling real good for the rest of your life - setting aside for the moment the little problem that the universe is unknowable and therefore, so is your brain, and therefore, dopamine is as likely to stimulate agony as pleasure.

It's completely absurd. Sorry for the rant.

Memes.

A while ago I was challenged by a certain amateur philosopher to respond to one of these "meme" things - a challenge which I have, thus far, failed to undertake. This changes tonight.

Three out of the four options, while intriguing, didn't interest me enough to make a post about. Sorry bro. The one I'd like to respond to is the following one:

2) You are a selfish, bad person. Odd, I know. We don't think of ourselves this way, but can you honestly tell me one good thing you have ever done? Something which was good in and of its self but didn't do ANYTHING for you personally? Not even make you feel good? This one gives me the heebie jeebies.

What I find interesting about this is that this is the exact conclusion I came to about human behavior a couple years ago. I think, actually, that I did a post about this once; the idea that seemingly altruistic behavior is not actually altruistic, but in fact a selfish act designed to either make you feel good or prevent you from feeling bad. I believe the discussion on that post turned to the topic of the martyr, and how in order to be a martyr, you must either be religious or confused.

It seems to me, from looking at all of these ideas, that the only way to be absolutely certain that you are a selfless person is to become a martyr, while not believing in a life after death. People who believe in a life after death can't be certain they're good people because that act could simply have been selfishly intended to get them into Heaven. Only by actually becoming a martyr and giving up your life can you be absolutely certain that the act wasn't intended to get a good feeling or to avoid guilt.

Of course, the trouble with this is, up until the very point where you die, you can't be certain that you're good, and after that point, well...it doesn't really matter anymore, because you're dead, and there is no afterlife. I suppose there might be an infinitesimal instant between before death and after death, when you'd know you were a truly selfless person, but...man, that sucks.

To take this further, people who die for a cause aren't really selfless, because they are simply dying for something that they know they want even more than life itself. It's still something they care about, and something they want, so they are achieving their own goal in death. So really, the only way to know that you are truly selfless is to die for a cause that you know you hate.

I think I'd rather accept the possibility that I'm selfish...hopefully that in and of itself isn't selfish...shit!

On Inquiries.

I have a bad habit of talking to people about philosophical issues. Strictly speaking, it's not the talking that's the problem; it's how worked up I get over the question. I tend, especially after a round or six of Beirut, to get extremely excited about whatever deep question might be brought up. I have gotten into lengthy discussions on several occasions, which invariably last several hours and involve me speaking loudly and at great length, explaining to some poor, unsuspecting soul why their beliefs are wrong.

Now I, of course, think that I am perfectly in the right to pursue these discussions. I find it infinitely fascinating to discover truth by means of conversation and reason. I don't think I'm hypocritical about it - I think, actually, that I have modified my own ideas with every discussion, occasionally in a fairly important way. For instance, this weekend saw a discussion in which I came to the conclusion that the universe will have an end, while trying to discuss the beginning of the universe with someone else. I find it somewhat ironic that at the end of this discussion in which I probably spoke 75% of the time, my worldview was probably the one, out of 5 in the room, that was most modified. In any case, that is not the point...

I find it very interesting - and occasionally frustrating - how uninterested people are in ascertaining truth in this fashion. After my presentation of a logical argument, the rebuttal, more often than not, consists either of an emotional appeal or a simple "no, I don't think you're right." It is strange to me that anyone could be content to continue believing in a worldview that the light of reason very handily defeats, even when this is shown to them. If someone were to come up with a reason why my own worldview is incorrect, I think I would want to know... how could I be content believing something that wasn't true? The rejection of reason especially shocks me in today's world, when people often pride themselves on having a "scientific" worldview, and not blindly believing in false deities or what have you. These are discussions that I have with university students, who one would think would have some interest in the pursuit of knowledge, who have not the slightest interest in discovering some of the most fundamental truths of reality. Often, they get offended if you even attempt to discuss such things with them, as if it's a personal insult to suggest that they might be wrong.

Is it not the most important quality of the scientific method that theories must be able to withstand a barrage of tests under all possible conditions? In an age of science, I would expect this kind of attitude to extend to the more fundamental searches for truth, as well.

Insurmountable Obstacles

It seems Israel is going to proceed with a plan to secure its border by building a fence along its 150-mile border with Egypt. There has also been talk of fencing the US border with Mexico, although I didn't follow the news closely enough to know whether that went forward or not. Apparently, fences are becoming a common method of securing borders.

I'm a little worried that this is the best idea we can come up with. I don't know about you, but I've been jumping fences since I was a kid. It's really not all that difficult. Unless they're worried about terrorist midgets, this doesn't strike me as a particularly effective measure.

You know, over in China, they made a fence too, only that one is 4,000 miles long, 25 feet high, and 20 feet of solid rock thick. This was a couple thousand years ago. Now that wall could keep people out. Build that along the border with Mexico, and then we'll talk, but I really don't think we should protect against terrorists the same way we protect our houses from being T.P.'d.

Extrapolation.

A little while ago, I was involved in a discussion on abortion which had five people up until 4 in the morning. I don't intend to start the discussion over again here, but I do want to talk briefly about something someone said during the conversation that has bothered me ever since: the classic "no uterus, no opinion" appeal.

Now I understand that this is a powerful debating tool, used to argue that the opinions of about half your detractors don't even matter, but as a logical argument, I find it quite frightening. What this statement essentially means is that if something doesn't affect you directly, you can't have an opinion on it. I don't think this needs a whole lot of examination to show that it's a frightening concept, but let's take a quick look at what results from this standpoint...

Probably the most poignantly, I, as a man, can no longer have an opinion on things like rape. As a white man, I can't have an opinion on things like racial discrimination. As a member of the middle class, I can't have an opinion on things like welfare. If you accept "no uterus, no opinion," then logically, you should accept all of this, too, correct?

I think that in itself is enough to debunk the whole idea, since I do have opinions on all those things that don't affect me directly, and I'm sure 95% of white, middle class men do too. I find it interesting that I would never be yelled at for stepping out and saying something like rape, racism, or poverty is wrong, but if I were to put my opinion (which really isn't very hard-core anyway) on abortion out there, it can be discredited because I am a man.

Also, not to overreact, but I do think that this idea, if it were to be accepted by a logical populace, would inevitably lead to the downfall of civilization. Society is based on things like compassion and sympathy, and cannot function without them. The Social Contract is all very well, but I don't think that it alone could support a civilization without being augmented by compassion. Compassion and sympathy mean caring about things which don't affect you. We cannot have a culture in which people don't care about such things, and even if we could, I don't think I'd want to live there.

I guess in a way it's fortunate that the populace isn't particularly logical, then, so everyone won't reach that conclusion...of course, if everyone was logical, then the issue probably would never be raised...

I Hate Pigeons.

Well, the good news is, I don't need an alarm anymore. These little pricks wake me up at 6:30 every morning with their damnable "coo"-ing.

I tried to find the Invader Zim pigeon chase scene...no luck.

Is it Really that Surprising?

So, every morning at work, my coworker turns on some public radio station or another and listens to a program called "On Point." On this program, they discuss various things which don't really have any pattern at all. A couple days ago they spent an hour talking about bananas. Today, they spent some time talking about the recent investment in U.S. banks by foreign countries.

If you are equipped with two functional ears, you probably know that the U.S. is supposed to be headed for a recession caused by rampant loan defaults. Banks and financial institutions have been hit pretty hard, posting some pretty big losses in recent months. If you happen to pay any attention to financial news, you also know that some of these companies have received very large amounts of cash from places you might not have expected - the Middle East and (although I never saw this news story, they say it's true on public radio) China.

I just find it pretty funny that people are surprised by this. As far as I can see, this is an inevitable result of trends dating back to the end of the Great Depression. I'm no economist, to be sure, but this seems pretty obvious to me. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Since the Depression, the U.S. economy has been fueled by debt. Massive government spending was credited with getting us out of the Depression, both by war spending and (often pointless) civil infrastructure projects. This puts our government deeply in debt, debt from which we have not recovered from, and certainly don't seem close to recovering from. Government spending has continued and even accelerated, miring the government further and further in debt.

The economic theory that we currently use (at least as I was taught in high school - and I see no reason to doubt this as of now) is also based on debt. Low savings and high spending leads to higher GDP. Borrowing is one way of increasing spending; this is why when the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates, it's considered an economic stimulus - when rates are low, people borrow more money, and then they spend more money.

The average American also lives a life of debt. Home loans, credit cards, and student loans are something practically everyone in this country lives with. Our entire society is based upon this culture of debt.

Now I can't argue that this is all bad. Certainly it's done wonders for our economy - we're the largest economy in the world, yet we produce practically nothing. We do nothing for the world besides consume and invest. But all of this, our whole system, our whole way of life, is based on debt. There is nothing substantial to any of it. The fact of it is, if you owe more money than you have, you're essentially living a lie, spending what isn't yours. Most of us are like this: living on borrowed money, spending money we don't really have. Our entire system is based on nothing more substantial than a promise - a promise to pay money which, in all likelihood, doesn't exist, but is backed only by another promise, which is backed by another, and so on.

I admit that this is pretty awesome. We've basically built this whole system on nothing at all, and we're feeding all of our 300 million people by it. But it's pretty obvious that it's a house of cards. It may be the biggest and most powerful house of cards in the world, but it's still fragile.

Places like the Middle East and China, on the other hand, while they aren't as powerful as us, are built not on promises, but on real goods and real profits. Where we spend and consume, they save and produce. Saudi Arabia is rich off of exporting oil; China is rich off of exporting labor. They become wealthy by extracting real money from the fake systems of the U.S. It's genius in a whole other form, really. The ultimate result seems inevitable - eventually, the producers of the world will surpass the consumers. Then, when the consumers begin to falter, as is happening now in the US, the producers can infuse the consumers with a small amount of cash - a small amount which may keep the economy limping along for some time, all the while buying more from the producers, who continue to rake in massive profits. It's quite genius. With minimal investment they maintain a status quo which is making them very rich. Not being an economist, I can't say that this is what will actually happen...but I think it seems likely.

Even without formal economic training, however, I think I can tell that the culture of debt has a timer attached to it. It can't be possible to maintain an economy the size of ours purely on debt for too long. Now would be an appropriate time to champion drilling in ANWR, I think...



Oh, and what's really funny is that people are looking to the Fed to fix things by lowering interest rates. Because the best way to get out of a credit crisis is - you guessed it - borrow more money!

I could be a lot Angrier if I wasn't so Jealous.

It seems another comic lawsuit has been filed. A bunch of Texans have filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for not keeping their Xbox Live servers up during the holiday season. The plaintiffs claim that their "suffering" can only be repaid by a sum of $5 million.

I don't think I need to comment on the ridiculousness of the situation. If I so desired, the writer at Ctrl-Alt-Del pretty much said it exactly as I would. What I really need to say is, why didn't I think of this? I don't own an Xbox, so I couldn't very well sue Microsoft...but I've played MMOs. Servers have gone down while I was playing, and been down when I wanted to play. If someone had told me that this was an example of suffering and I deserved compensation in the millions of dollars, hell, I'd have filed this suit. A couple million for not playing video games for a few weeks sounds great to me. I wonder, maybe I can sue my parents for grounding me....

But we Sacrifice Like Lambs