Consciousness and Compatibilism: A Romantic Ratification

The Biological Computer

The brain, as the neurological station for physical processes, can be likened to computer hardware running the software of the mind, which can be subdivided by the standard of self-awareness towards the processes of the brain; the conscious and subconscious mind. Though the laws of physics and nature need not be suspended to imagine a consciousness independent of the physical brain – an exciting thought, indeed – it can be inferred that the software of consciousness does not exist outside of the hardware of the brain, perhaps best animated in the activity of dying. This model of consciousness is further strengthened in the instance of observing the effect brain damage has on ones mental faculties.

While consciousness might not manifest in a material sense, it is reasonable to conclude that the metaphysical mind is at best contingent upon – at least preceded by – a physically sound and healthy brain.


Which Came First: the Action or the Thought?

There was a neurological study on the processes of choice where the brains of the human subject’s were scanned in real time as they were given the instruction of pressing a button, selecting either their left or right hand to perform the action. Neuroscientists, from behind the monitors, were able to accurately predict which hand would be chosen with significant accuracy several moments before the subjects arm actually extended. In other words, the brain had already “made up it’s mind” before the human subjects were consciously aware and acting on the decision.

The brain is constructed in such a way that it has objective, reactionary impulses that the conscious mind is not, indeed can not, be aware of until the action has, or is, in the process of happening and the brain can be physically and chemically manipulated to manufacture will of action.


Free Will and Choice

The compatibilist dichotomy of determinism and the role of choice in a determinist universe can be illustrated as similar to reading a book; the reader is simultaneously processing the previous chapter, analyzing the current chapter, and making predictions on future chapters. The real-time process of choice being analyzed in the conscious mind has no effect on the physical processes of which it is a product of. As Sam Harris puts it, “the illusion of free will is itself an illusion.”

The illusion is that we are the audience looking out to the world from behind the grand cinematic movie-screen of our eyes, as this immaterial free-agent that precedes the physical body, authoring our books, our lives and experiences, in real-time. The compatibilist perspective is we aren’t so much the authors, but the readers of our own autobiographies, written on the pages of the material processes of the brain filtered through the aperture of consciousness of which our experiences are housed and always happening.


Ratifying the Ends

The book must and does end in the same way, always and for every person. The fear of death, finishing the final chapter, can be ratified by realizing that what preceded your existence is synonymous with what will ultimately succeed it; you might be sentimental in finishing your favorite book – but only because you have had the experience, the opportunity, of reading it. The human expression of consciousness is precious and unique, transcending any sort of explanation – none of us existed for the infinity before us, and will not exist for the infinity after.

For the nano-moment we are here, as an imperfect member of an even more imperfect primate species, we are paradoxically both the illusory authors and audience of the ongoing “wow!” that is the experience of consciousness. The study that permits the understanding of our role in – to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan – the cosmic drama of the universe is perhaps the most noble and meaningful and beautiful pursuit we can hope to pursue.


“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically-rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.” –Neil deGrasse Tyson

Atheism, Antitheism and the Case Against Christianity

The atheist position is, historically and by definition, the rejection of the theist proposition – perhaps it’d be more appropriate to adopt the title of apantheist or adeist – but the modern iteration of atheism can be described as the withheld belief towards the supernatural, whether paranormal or divine in nature, on the lack of extraordinary evidence required for such extraordinary claims.

My attitude towards religion might be more accurately described as antitheist; as Christopher Hitchens wrote, “I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”

Where an atheist might say, “I find the thought of God to be comforting and wish I could believe, if only my cognitive faculties could be suspended”, an antitheist would make the case that it is quite good there is no reason whatsoever to accept the truth claims of the religious, as this would mean there is an unalterable, unchallengeable, divine dictator that is all places at all times, never leaving you a moment of privacy, who is the judge, jury, and executioner able to convict you of thought crime, as illustrated in the 10th of the Abrahamic commandments – mentioning women in the same category of property as cattle, further illustrative of the fact that man wasn’t created in God’s image, but many God’s were created in the uneducated, barbaric, patriarchal image of early man. You need not steal or vandalize your neighbors property, if you so much as think of aspiring to the material wealth of your peers, you are already guilty.

Indeed, you are born guilty and into sin, filthy and sick, and commanded to be well by a God you are required, commanded, to both love and fear; quite a repulsive idea, compulsory love. And how best to absolve humanity of the failings of it’s distant ancestors, thinks God, than to materialize and conduct a human sacrifice – not to the Chinese, who already have a written history – in an illiterate part of the Middle East. Vicarious redemption, as the theme of repulsive ideas repeats itself, is quite an immoral proposition itself – I can offer to pay your debts, I may even offer to serve your prison sentence, but I could never take away your responsibility. Christianity is a religion of human sacrifice; namely one specific human sacrifice that occurred over 2000 years ago. This is the central doctrine of the Christian faith; it cannot be believed by a thinking person. To wish it true is to wish to be a serf and a plaything of the celestial fascist that is the character of the biblical God; I cannot bring myself to even wish it true.

At the root, I am not a Christian because I do not acknowledge a human sacrifice as absolution of my personal responsibility and refuse to dehumanize myself by submitting as property of a divine creator. There is no convincing evidence whatsoever to believe in the truth claims Christianity – and a good thing at that.

Thank you God for making me an atheist!

Through a Lens of Modernity: Agnosticism and the God Hypothesis

Christopher Hitchens once said of Thomas Huxley, “On some days I’m a great admirer of Thomas Huxley, who had the great debate with Bishop Wilberforce in Oxford at the Natural History Museum about Darwinism in the mid-nineteenth century, who was known as Darwin’s bulldog – we would now say Darwin’s pitbull – and who completely trounced the good bishop. But, I can’t thank him for inventing the term ‘agnostic.‘”

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

  • Observe some aspect of the universe.
  • Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
  • Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
  • Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
  • Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.


The Scientific Theory

It’s important to recognize the order of steps, notably that observation precedes hypothesis. The usual criticisms of religious faith often include the words “unfalsifiable premise”. Indeed, the beauty of the scientific method is one might reject the given researcher and his work and can redo the experiment to determine whether the results are falsifiable, a compulsory aspect of a theory. This is the revisionist process of peer-review that is required of any scientific theory.

A common criticism of the scientific method is it’s inability to “prove” a theory, as presidential candidate Ron Paul put it, “[Evolution] is just a theory and I don’t accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that I know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.” This is to completely misunderstand the scientific method and the definition of a scientific theory – while we might not expect those with real promise to acquire the highest position of office to understand the mathematics and science behind a theory, we should be alarmed at an intentional ignorance to the evidence on basis on religious faith – which is to adopt the hypothesis of a God, in Dr. Pauls case the holy trinity of the Bible, and then comb through the observation for evidence supporting the premise.


Agnosticism and the Scientific Method

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of supernatural claims are unknown or unknowable. This is again to misapply the scientific method, validating the intellectual laziness of never having to properly examine the evidence. If I were to tell you that I had a winning lottery ticket in my desk drawer, you would, I imagine, first ask why I hadn’t cashed out and then demand I provide the evidence. I respond that the ticket materializes only after death and with it can be bought eternal paradise and that everybody has their own winning ticket – but you must have faith or upon death suffer eternal torture, adding that the divine ticket also has compulsory moral requirements.

Would you be agnostic to the Godly ticket? Or would you dismiss my claims at the lack of falsifiable evidence?

I go on to tell a non-specific story of a woman in Ohio who opened her desk drawer and found a vague imprint of a lottery ticket lightly burned into the wood, a divine revelation verifying the existence of the Godly ticket indeed!

Would this impress you?

As should be obvious, this winning ticket scenario is not dissimilar to the religious hypothesis. The burned wood scenario is a textbook example of the failings of the innumerable stories of someone finding the face of Jesus on a piece of toast or a cross on the mold under their bathroom sink – which is to establish a premise and attach evidence afterward; ridiculously weak evidence at that. This quickly becomes a serious issue for society when people can use the same bad-science to justify wicked actions by the standard of moral modernity. The issue here must be on bad-science, bad-philosophy and on the taboo in society to criticize the specific persuasion of bad-science that is religion.


The Role of Modernity

Agnosticism is guilty of the same suspension of scientific method in questions to do with the supernatural – a petty attempt at avoiding religious offense coupled with intellectual laziness. In revisiting the Godly ticket, short of the extraordinary evidence required for such an extraordinary claim it should be the default to disbelieve until – or if ever – there is sufficient evidence to reevaluate such claims. Just as there is no reason to believe in divine lottery tickets short of fantastic evidence, there is no reason to believe that one of our books was written by the creator of the universe.

Should there be a sect of Godly ticket extremists – as a point of contrast, a prospect as ridiculous as the modern iteration of religious extremism to us non-believers – who are so perfect in their faith that they would move to deny homosexuals the right to marry because the ticket forbids it or are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a group of ticket-infidels because the ticket hates the disbeliever – then it does become an issue that requires both the mockery and militant resistance by a free secular people. Hold and practice any belief you like; but keep it out of the political sphere and do not dare move to impose your beliefs on anyone else.

Sahar Gul, Symbol Of Heroism and Struggle of Afghan Women

Sahar Gul, an Afghan teen, was imprisoned and tortured by her husband of a compulsory marriage, who blamed the 13-year old for her inability to become immediately pregnant, an accused failed obligation of womanhood.

“They told me to go to the basement because there were some guests coming to the house. When I went there they came in and tied my hands and feet and pulled me upwards from above. They brought very little food for me.”

“While going to the bathroom they used to beat me a lot. I was crying all this time. When they put electric shocks on my feet, I felt like I was going to die at that moment. I screamed and that’s how our neighbors realized there was something happening. For one day and night I was unconscious, feeling dead.”

This past weekend Sahar watched her torturer, a man she is still married to, and his 3 conspirators receive 10-year sentences from a Kabul judge of the kangaroo courts that are the residual Taliban puppet-strings for strict Islamic law. Her husband, upon conviction, has fled to avoid arrest.

“Ten years is not enough. They should have been given 50 years.”

“They should be punished in the prison. They hurt my eyes and pulled out my nail and hair, and the same should be done to them. whatever they did to me, the same should be done to them,” she said.

Sahar, from a safe-house for abused women and very aware of the possible consequences of sharing her story, bravely adds.

“I think the punishment given by the court to these people worries me. The government is trying its best to find [my husband]. If tomorrow he finds me, it’s possible he could kill me.”

“I want to go abroad. If I sit here, they will find me. I want to go to school and study, to become a doctor or a prosecutor, so I can give punishment by myself to these sort of people. “

During the talks of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan it is crucial to not forget what society was like for the strong young women in Talibanized Afghanistan; a society where rape was not a crime, but a punishment for immodesty under the Islamic theocratic standard. We must not forget the true heroine’s of the world – the Sahar Gul’s, the Bibi Aisha’s, and the Mumtaz’s who courageous share their story of standing up to the foulness of theocratic bullying of the most disgusting and hateful kind – before leaving Afghanistan back in hands of international thugs and terrorists who, when in power, banned women from the classroom, workplace, and required a male escort and full-body sack to even appear in public.

In these stories of imprisonments and poisoned water at schools, the message of the Taliban to the Afghan people is clear, “Look, the Americans don’t support this war and already have plans to withdraw. We’ll be here forever.” We must reevaluate our obligation to aid the Afghan people in their struggle against jihadism and Talibanization - the enemy is clear, as are their horrific intentions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/world/asia/afghan-girl-mistreatment/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

"In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe. We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time."
—

Lawrence Krauss

“A Universe From Nothing”, AAI 2009

Utilitarianism and the Dynamics of Human Nature

Dashery asked,

How do you feel about Utilitarianism as an ethical system? Do you feel that it is a good foundation or do you feel that it cannot keep up with changes in society and what is defined as “good.”For that matter any other criticisms you may have of it. If you’re not familiar with utilitarianism, a good crash course would be the partially examined life, episode 9 (Tumblr won’t let me send links via questions…). If you’re indifferent, that’s cool, too! Been enjoying your blog!


Utilitarianism and Morality

The basal rule of utilitarianism is the exercise of intuitive moral thinking – the self-evident, instinctual difference between murdering an innocent man and killing in self-defense – as an ethical system of establishing “greatest possible pleasure”. You mentioned the usual objection that, “it cannot keep up with changes in society and what is defined as ‘good’”, which is a valid objection and can be approached from the perspective of morality and utility.

Utilitarianism is inconsistent with the dynamic objective morality of the sort that I would argue for, which is an objective means of measuring morality by the well-being of sentient creatures. It’s a safe judgment to make that a universe tuned for the absolute suffering of all creatures is objectively worse than a universe tuned for the prosperity of all creatures. However, the utilitarian model of morality – measuring the validity of an action by it’s moral outcome – can only be valid through the perspective of minimizing suffering and maximizing prosperity, which deals with productivity, creativity and the fulfillment of the human instincts, rather than in terms of happiness or pleasure, which is subjective to the stimulation of senses and can be chemically manufactured. The utilitarian could argue that it’s moral to induce a chemical coma that permanently puts the brain in a state of euphoria.


The Utility of Utilitarianism

While the basal rule of utilitarianism is true by definition – choices must be measured by their effective outcome – it isn’t very useful in developing a moral system, as it doesn’t deal with human nature. Marx wrote, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, on this, “to know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature.” A more useful and implementable approach to human ethics would study the dynamics of human nature; the utilitarianism approach lacks the “utility” to develop a relevant moral system.

Marx discusses values and morality as products of society, contingent upon historical and cultural conditions. This creates dynamics in human nature as well as dynamics in objective morality. This can be illustrated in the institution of religion. In the article “What Use Is Religion?” from Free Inquiry Magazine, Richard Dawkins write’s;

Darwinian selection sets up childhood brains with a tendency to believe their elders. It sets up brains with a tendency to imitate, hence indirectly to spread rumors, spread urban legends, and believe religions. But given that genetic selection has set up brains of this kind, they then provide the equivalent of a new kind of nongenetic heredity, which might form the basis for a new kind of epidemiology, and perhaps even a new kind of nongenetic Darwinian selection. I believe that religion is one of a group of phenomena explained by this kind of nongenetic epidemiology, with the possible admixture of nongenetic Darwinian selection!


Then Whence Cometh Evil?

Religion was not only mans first attempt at philosophy, literature, and medicine – but also mans first attempt at morality. The pre-germ theory reaction to disease was exorcism and human and animal sacrifice – surely this did not maximize well-being; but was it immoral? It might be argued that it was of relevant moral validity given the parameters of human knowledge and understanding of well-being, which is to enter briefly into ethical absurdism. While filtered through the lens of modernity, it is quite obvious that human sacrifice to appease deities is quite immoral and frankly useless, however, ancient man cannot be held to this standard. As mans scientific understanding of sentience, the dynamic of empathy towards suffering and prosperity, evolved and refined, so did his morality.

As Charles Darwin in Origin Of Species puts it, we bear the “lowly stamp of our origin”; meaning, we have not evolved out of the, filtered through the lens of modernity, immoral behavior patterns that once were valid and of use to our survival. The dynamic breath of morality is an evolutionary product of mans social behaviors.


What Can Be Concluded

The one-dimensional scope of utilitarianism lacks the utility to bend with the dynamics of evolution and is therefore not useful as an ethical system; moreover, utilitarianism can be easily used to justify callousness and hedonistic attitudes towards mankind as it deals with the chemical process of pleasure rather than the fulfillment of human instincts.

Solidarity With Hamza Kashgari

Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Saudi poet and former columnist for the Saudi Arabian daily al-Bilad, faces trial and a possible death sentence for sending out tweets on Muhammad’s birthday.

King of Saudi Arabi, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, ordered Kashgari’s arrest “for crossing red lines and denigrating religious beliefs in God and His Prophet.” In response to pressure, Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia on the night of February 9th for political asylum in New Zealand but was deported back after being detained by the Malaysian government in a connecting flight.

What could Kashgari have said to warrant such thorough international response?

On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

Kashgari described his intentions in terms of human rights, “I view my actions as part of a process toward freedom. I was demanding my right to practice the most basic human rights — freedom of expression and thought — so nothing was done in vain. I believe I’m just a scapegoat for a larger conflict. There are a lot of people like me in Saudi Arabia who are fighting for their rights.”

Kashgari also described the status of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia by stating that Saudi women “won’t go to hell ‘because it’s impossible to go there twice.’”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-kings-hypocrisy/2012/02/13/gIQA71wxBR_story.html

The usual effect these giant magical hands have on women - regardless of species.

The usual effect these giant magical hands have on women - regardless of species.

Talking Marxism: John Steinbeck and the Marxist Perspective

On yesterdays post, Talking Marxism: Socialism and Socialized Medicine, my long-time comrade, Dashery, commented a John Steinbeck quote,

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

The beautiful thing about the Marxist perspective is it’s unique hopefulness; the Marxist phrasing of this quote would begin, “Socialism hasn’t yet taken root in America…”

The question becomes, “what is required of the American man to become rooted in socialism?”; not dissimilar to the question, “what is required of man to reach complete humanity?”

Misanthropy, cynicism, is the easiest thing in the world – look anywhere in the world and there is tragedy to be witnessed – a hopeful and peaceful, yet strident, perspective is the true revolutionary perspective; looking into injustice and being affected deeply. I’m interested in the soldier who is equally loving and hopeful as cold-blooded and fueled by hatred of a brutal enemy, which is the exploitative and the theocratic fascist. Moreover, I’m interested in discovery of transformation of principle to deed. As Ernesto Guevara wrote in the letter Man and Socialism in Cuba, addressed to Carlos Quijano, editor of Uruguayan radical magazine Marcha,

“Let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.”

Our spiritual growth is slow and arrhythmic, but inevitable and true; as is beginning the transformation from principle to deed. These beginnings will not be easy; they shall be extremely difficult.

Talking Marxism: Socialism and Socialized Medicine

What is Historical Materialism?

In Marxist theory of Historical Materialism there are 6 successive stages of human society, of which the material inheritance from generations coupled with basic progression of the human condition (advances in sciences and medicine, technology, morality, etc.) are the main variables of change.

These stages are:

  1. Prehistoric Society

  2. Agricultural & Slave Society

  3. Feudalism

  4. Capitalism

  5. Socialism

  6. Communism

The application and transitional contingencies of capitalist mode of production and socialist mode of production was the subject most explored and expounded upon by Marx. The three-volume Das Kapital, first published in 1867, was the most critical and in-depth analysis of capitalism as political economic law and many successive unpublished manuscripts, including Grundrisse, explored these concepts further.

What is Socialism?

The 5th stage of society, Socialism, is the transitional economic system in the societal stage between capitalism and communism; characterized by common property and control of the means of production, labor vouchers, and cooperative management of the economy.

Means of production is the technological and economical tools and processes that produce goods; examples include land and factories as well as the tools used. In capitalism, the ruling class, bourgeoisie, own the means of production and export the labor to the working class, proletariat, who work for wages. Wages typically meet the minimum amount of money required to meet living conditions, known as minimum wage or living wage. The ruling class, who control means of production, own the goods produced and make their living off the exploit of labor of the working class, who are compensated not on the amount of quality goods they produce but on the standard of meeting living wage.

Common property is not the abolition of private property but instead deals with putting the means of production in the hands of the workers, eliminating the potential for profit generated off the labor of others. In Socialism, a farmer would own the land he works and the goods he produces as oppose to the capitalist landowner. who hires the farmhand on a wage that is a small percent of the revenue generated from the production. In short, socialism requires a man to make a living on the quality and amount of goods he produces and not of owning the means of production and exporting the labor to the working class. A man who produces excess of goods will trade in this excess for the labor vouchers of equivalent worth – based on utility and necessity of the goods produced – which would function similar to the paper dollar but would be grounded in material goods rather than credit. This on both a communal and national economic scale is called cooperative management.

What is the relationship between Socialized Medicine and Socialism?

Socialized medicine, or universal health-care, is a term used to describe a system for providing medical care by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation. The term was utilized as propaganda bravado by politically conservative opponents of a public health-care option, who, in the context of the Cold War, sought it to imply a connotation of socialism, and by extent communism. Indeed, it seems the connotation has stuck for 7 decades now, and there is no shortage today.

A more appropriate and accurate quote would look more like, “The problem with socialism is that you can’t make money off other people’s labor”.

Socialism is an economic system in which the workers collectively own the tools they require, means of production, to produce. Social programs – public education, health-care, and law-enforcement – exist independently of the reach of socialist economics. Indeed, the word “medicine” in socialized medicine can be replaced with “fire department”, “library”, or “education” and would look very much like what we have installed in our society now – does a socialized public education system or do socialized fire-departments make the U.S. a socialist country? Of course not.

The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” begins with “life” for a reason. Government has the responsibility to it’s people to provide health-care in the same way it has a responsibility to educate, defend against international threat, and provide relief in response to natural disaster; socialist or not. The Cold War McCarthy-ist propagandist term socialized medicine, and it’s newest iteration, “Obamacare”, need to be abandoned in emancipating ourselves from the manufactured link between socialized medicine and the socialist economic system in order to enter a new frame of dialogue on the responsibilities that democratically elected government has to it’s people.

Powered By: Tumblr.
1 of 18