Heuristic Spectacles

Homeopathic Overdose - 10:23 Campaign - Ottawa 2011

2011-02-07T13:40:00.000+09:00

MPs exposed to Expelled: the corporate worldview in mockumentary form.

2008-06-20T23:01:00.002+09:00

On Wednesday June 11, MPs and the press in Ottawa were invited to the Chateau Laurier for a prescreening of Expelled starring Ben Stein. The prescreening was hosted by Canadian Walt Ruloff, self-made multimillionaire, financier and executive producer of the film. Thankfully, there were only 22 people in attendance and none were either press or MPs as far as I could tell. The audience was mostly made up of conservative party staffers, interns, and civil servants who were sympathetic to the film’s agenda. It also contained one conspicuous skeptic who was interested not only in the film but the motivations behind it.
If you have read this far, you have shown sufficient interest in this movie that I must insist that you visit Expelled Exposed, if you haven’t already. In this article I am going to avoid doing traditional critique or a break down of the movie claim by claim because there are already a sufficient number of resources at Expelled Exposed that do that exhaustively.
What I want to address more is the motivation behind the film. The film is often dismissed as propaganda piece pushing the intelligent design agenda of the Fundamentalist Christian Right aka the Religious Right. But there is something wrong with this pigeon holing. Ben Stein is not a fundamental Christian, he is a Jewish economist and former Nixon stooge, who attained some celebrity as a game show host and for a minor supporting part in a movie during those periods of time when his politics were unpopular in Washington. And Walt Ruloff is a bit of a nut but more about business than Christianity. There is some motivation for this attack on science beyond the superficial religious one. And at the screening it became obvious that the motivations for this film are more about economic ideology then religious ideology, politics than spirituality.
This film masquerades as anti-Darwin when it is really anti-science and anti-reality. Intelligent Design supporters and detractors alike have berate this film for championing intelligent design without actually telling the audience what it is and there is a reason for this. It is that intelligent design is just the vehicle of the true purpose of the film which is to undermine the authority of science. The film wants to cast scientists as denying the facts, and only projecting their version of reality. It seeks to politicize scientific fact by painting all scientists as having a unified agenda and make science dismissible as mere opinion or worldview. In the wake of this movie across the United States there are bills afoot in various States to make the admonishment of students unfounded beliefs in the science classroom a crime. In addition, educational administrators would also be prohibited from disciplining teachers who teach personal opinion as fact in the science classroom.
Why this assault on science, why now? Because unbounded economists like Stein and big business men like Ruloff dislike the direction scientific evidence ergo the facts are pointing these days. During the film Stein tips his hand by describing the Nazi’s systematic mass murder of the disabled as Malthusian referring to Thomas Malthus with the same distain he shows for Darwin. Thomas Malthus was a economist who linked poverty, famine and war to over-population and scarcity of resources. He speculated that overpopulation would one day occur on a global scale resulting in cataclysmic collapse. This view is largely dismissed by modern economists like Stein who see the successful exponential growth of the twentieth century as empirical evidence that Malthus was wrong.
Enter the inconvenient truths of climate change and peak oil (the rapid and uncontrollable increase of oil prices as oil extraction and refinement rates reach their physical limit while demand continues to increase.) The idea of a limited and perishable global environment directly challenges the unbounded economic growth to which Stein and Ruloff hold fealty.
Since the material world is no longer big enough to hold their worldview they appeal to the supernatural. All their talk about the divine providence of man is to justify their philosophy of consumption and growth without restraint. And Expelled is the wedge of their strategy to discredit the growing body of scientific evidence that says otherwise.
At the end of the screening Ruloff, believing himself to be in front of a friendly audience, said that the cause of social and economic degradation of civilization were the myths of global warming and Darwinism. He also cited an alleged incident in Texas where a scientist gave a lecture for the eradication of 90% of the world’s population by ebola, as proof that academia was out to reduce the global population by any means necessary.
As many Christians see humanity’s divine appointment to be stewards of the Earth, not pillagers, defenders of science should not be the only ones offended by Ruloff’s anti-environmentalism. It is often claimed that religion has highjacked the political Right in the United States. Expelled is demonstrable proof that the politics of unrestrained capitalism on the Right are equally capable of highjacking religion.

Fitna

2008-03-30T22:35:00.002+09:00

It is shocking to have someone lay it out all pink and naked like this.

My Beautiful Riho

2007-08-29T10:06:00.000+09:00

I love my new MacBook Pro unlike a PC it can actually do incredible things right out of the box, like make video slideshows like this one I made for my wife.

Just a Meme

2007-06-29T08:34:00.000+09:00

It is ironic that in this day and age people assert both that the world is 6000 years old and that they have not evolved from monkeys, since the assertion of the first proposition is strong evidence against the second.

BBC takes on Scientology

2007-05-25T14:19:00.001+09:00

A BBC program set out to do a documentary on Scientology but ends up exposing the tactics the Church of Scientology uses to silence its critics.

Another video by XenuTV demonstrating the churches reaction to critics.

For no particular reason... Stephen Jay Gould

2007-05-18T08:57:00.000+09:00

If you follow the title link it will take you to a biography of Stephen Jay Gould. For those of you who don't know he was one of the most popular science writers of the past few decades. Unfortunately he died of cancer some years ago. While a lucid writer Gould was not a very talented speaker. The problem was his nimble mind would jump from point of interest to point of interest at a rate that would leave most confused and bewildered. In is his writing he was more methodical and conscientious of the reader. Stephen Jay Gould was firm in his resolve that religion and science were compatible, that they covered different spheres of knowing that didn't conflict. Personally I think it was because he was a sensitive soul who wanted to delight and share his personal exploration of the universe without being sucked into numbing debate with short-sighted religious dogmatists. On the biography link there is an audio interview where the interviewer tries to corner Gould into professing his religious beliefs. He squirms and tries to get back to his area of intellectual comfort.
I just thought this picture was really cool. Dennett and Gould!

Hitchens on Rose

2007-05-17T14:01:00.000+09:00

Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose? Sweetness. I have been wondering what Mr. Hitchens has been up to. I noticed his contributions and articles had become rather spares over the last six months or so. Looks like he has jumped on the wagon with Dennett, Harris and Dawkins in writing a religion bashing book. Atheism, skepticism and science are coming out of the closet. Some people argue it is a backlash of 9/11 and "the war on terror." But I think it has more to do with
the free exchange of information provided by Internet innovations like, blogs, podcasts and social networking sites. As there is more free exchange of information bunk superstition and dogma is exposed for what it is.

A Bunch of Monkeys

2007-05-16T09:09:00.000+09:00

This Speaks for itself.

The Selfish Green

2007-04-12T07:22:00.000+09:00

Recently most of the things I have posted have had a satirical or negative spin. I wanted to post something positive for a change. This talk, the Selfish Green, is very thoughtful and uplifting. It is simply worlds away from anything I've seen on American TV where all they seem to do is yell at each other about whether climate change is really happening or not.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Kissing Hank's Ass

2007-04-05T13:37:00.000+09:00

A little friendly satire of door to door missionaries. For the more literally minded of you out there all you need to remember to get the joke is: Hank = Jesus, The List = The Bible and Hot Dogs on buns = missionary position sex between married individuals. Now enjoy!

Immigration: The Human Cost an ONN Special Report

2007-04-04T08:48:00.000+09:00

Immigration: The Human Cost

Spreading the Love

2007-03-22T07:07:00.000+09:00

Let it not be said that I am heartless. Let it be said that I too have been moved to express my feelings through a good viral ecard.

Doing A Little Good

2007-03-08T09:09:00.000+09:00

My friend Darren is among those who have always impressed me with their concern for people from other countries in horrid situations. Personally, I have always been more moved by the lesser ignorance and suffering of those around me than the great ignorance and suffering felt by those that are an abstraction to me. My concern for my friends like Darren has always been that organizations and people driven by selfishness or ideology could take advantage of my friends' better natures. Information is what keeps people honest. Data illuminates problems and exposes frauds. For years organizations like the UN have been tabulating data and now GAPMINDER is finding ways to make that information available in a presentation form people can understand. My hope is that this will increase the effectivness of the good intentions and efforts of my friends.

Debating Islam vs Christianity

2007-03-08T08:35:00.000+09:00

This needs no introduction.

Mr. Deity

2007-02-26T11:40:00.000+09:00

I found a link to these videos on the Richard Dawkins website. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

More misconceptions of Free Will

2007-02-06T23:04:00.000+09:00

I was catching up on old episodes of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe on my flight back home from TAM 5 and listening to the Tom W. Clark interview in episode #20 raised my philosophical ire.

I hate it when naturalists so whole heartedly and easily abandon free will to the spiritualists and the dualists. It doubled my frustration when he so often cited Dennett. Dennett whose whole project in his two major works on the subject of free will (Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves) is reclaiming free will for naturalists and proving that a deterministic universe far from being in conflict with free will it is a necessary condition for its existence.

Apparently Mr. Clark (apologies Dr., if he is a PhD) has read Dennett but didn't get it. I am not going into the intricacies of Dennett's arguments (I highly recommend you buy his books if you are interested in the issue) but I am going to try and set the record straight using my own much simpler and clumsier arguments.

Yes, as far as we know the universe is determined and we as things contained in that universe must also be determined so free will as defined as the ability to act outside of the causal chain of events cannot exist.

But this is a not the really the kind of free will we want. This Bronze Age, metaphysical free will is both myopic and absurd. It also has about the same explanative and functional power as unicorns and fairies.

Think about it. Do we have the free will to act outside of all external causes? If we could chose to ignore the force of gravity or to not die from starvation when denied access to food then we would have this sort of free will.

But this sort of free will would also free you from internal causality as well which is a completely inconsistent notion. What could it possible mean to choose independent of your thoughts, emotions and desires? Is this something we would want or need? "I felt x, thought x, wanted x but I chose y! I wonder why I did that? Not that there is a why, a why is a cause after all, and I have metaphysical free will!" Does this sort of choice resemble the kind you have in your internal life?

So far I seem to be shooting myself in the foot. I have been bad mouthing free will when I set out to defend it and that's because I want to emphasize the distinction that Dennett makes. Really when philosophers have talked about free will through the ages they have muddled two distinct ideas together. There is the nonsensical free will that determinism negates (which is okay because no one really wants that anyway) and there is free will worth having (which Dennett sets out to prove we have and explain how it evolved).

The free will we want is the could-have-done-differently free will and we have that. We get this ability by the virtue of the fact that we are limited agents, working with a limited understanding of the causes around us.

We are designed by our genes to seek some outcomes and avoid others but our genes can't know exactly the situations we will find ourselves in. Our environment is too complex for our genes to perfectly predict the future and script out every motion we are to make through out our lives. If they could do this they would simply make us like clockwork automatons. Our genes cope with the complexity of the world by building flexibility into us: limited senses and limited speculative power so we have limited ability to determine how to reach goals we are designed to reach.

Ironically, our limited ability is the key to free will. If our genes could have designed us as super agents capable of perceiving and processing all causes then we would be no better off than the clockwork automatons, we would simply always take the optimal route (determined essentially by the interest of our genes) and our consciousness would be redundant.

It is in the middle ground of imperfect agency where free will emerges. We are complex multi-state avoiding and seeking machines with a high degree of flexibility. And thus we have the could-have-done-differently free will. Determinism states that everything has one ultimate outcome but within that deterministic universe we have build in flexibility so if it were possible to rewind the deterministic universal tape and whisper a piece of advice into ear of one of us imperfect agents the whole tape from that point on would change. If we could have known better (or just differently) we could have done differently. And in that is the free will we have and desire.

So in the only rational sense of the word we have free will. There are objections I can anticipate to my explanation but this is a forum so I will wait to others raise them to respond to them.

But there is another thing that Tom Clark said that I thought was horrendous. He claimed that (since there was no free will) we can't hold criminals truly responsible for their actions! I know he couched it with provisions that did not follow from his argument to make it more palatable, like we still need a criminal justice system, but seriously this is a complete non sequitur.

First, I resent the intellectual elitism that is implicit in this kind of thinking: we educated, liberal-minded sorts are capable of understanding the big picture but we need to make allowances for those lesser unfortunates without the advantages and abilities we have.

Second, if criminals cannot be held responsible for their actions because they lack free will, how can we (also lacking free will) be held responsible for the way we treat them? Morality goes right out the window.

Third, I think Tom Clark is quick to embrace this faulty reasoning because he is blinded here by his agenda of taking retribution out of the criminal justice system. I sympathize with his cause but there are much better arguments for it, there are studies he could cite for example that I'm sure have been done. Cherry-picking bronze age metaphysical arguments that erode our agency to make your moral point is just as bad as cherry-picking bronze age myths from the bible to make your moral point.

Yes we did go to the Fucking Moon!

2007-02-06T09:17:00.000+09:00

Here are the two major videos supporting the Apollo conspiracy theories.

And here are some of the best sites debunking them.
Clavius
Bad Astronomy
Wikipedia Hoax Accusations
Wikipedia Moon Landing

Uri Gellar Exposed

2007-02-06T08:17:00.000+09:00

Uri Geller has been caught cheating watch him place a magnet on his thumb before moving the compass. On his reality TV show where he is looking for an heir.

Watch the key point of the segment here.

In case you are wondering who Uri Geller is...

Legacy of the Claw

2007-02-06T07:02:00.000+09:00

Here is a video rundown exposing Sylvia Brown and introducing James Randi and Robert Lancaster two of the people deadicated to stopping this monster.

Over five years ago on Larry King Live, Sylvia Brown accepted the JREF challenge which offers one million dollars to anyone who can prove they have paranormal abilities.

Since then Sylvia Brown has evade Randi and the challenge. But in the meantime she has been a regular guest on the Montel Williams show making numerous predictions.

Now Shawn Hornbeck, a boy Sylvia Browne told the desparate parents was dead on the Montel Williams show has been found alive. Hopefully Sylvia's days of swindling naive and desparate people are numbered.

Anderson Cooper's coverage:

Randi's Trumphant Return to Larry King Live:

I originally found the Larry King links, on RichardDawkins.net. Please check it out.

Athiest Hip Hop? Say What?

2007-02-06T06:52:00.000+09:00

Extian (The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III)

I found this on Pharyngula. Good beats and insightful. Ain't it great?

Aliens Make Contact

2007-01-31T14:00:00.000+09:00

Earth Contacted By Extraterrestrial Nerds

More classic satirical insight from the Onion.

Charlie Rose Science Special on the The Human Brain

2007-01-09T20:24:00.000+09:00


"An hour-long exploration of the human brain from psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud to the cutting edge of brain research."

It's not just the right wing nutters.

2007-01-09T07:41:00.000+09:00

Here are some articles relating to PETA and Martina Navratilova, a self described lesbian tennis player, being coaxed by the media into protesting some valid research into the genetic and hormonal causes of sheep sexuality.
Science told: hands off gay sheep
PETA crosses the line
A wolf in gay sheep's clothing: Corruption at the London Times

Some of their better irrational arguments include that sheep have a right to be gay and that this will lead to parents being able to determine the sexuality of their children. Now, to shoot these fish in a barrel: First, sheep do not deserve or desire rights relating to their sexual orientation. Second, this is light years away from any sort of human testing or human application. It may not even be related to humans but proving scientifically that sexual orientation is biologically determined will actually strengthen the cause of gay right activists who already champion that claim all the time. If we are worried about the ethical ramification of parents being able to choose the sexuality of their children we can choose not to cross that bridge when we come to it. In the mean time can we turn down the stupidity and hysteria a bit.

Solving Global Warming

2007-01-05T13:27:00.000+09:00

Here is an opener to a thread I started on the JREF forums. Please comment here or there on my mad capped scheme to save the world:
Okay, here is a solution to global warming I dreamed up when I was a grade school student. It is a very rough idea but I think there might be something to it and I am surprised I have never heard anything like it in the media. I am hoping to toss it out to those many a wiser than me in the JREF forums and see how it could be polished or shot down completely.

I am going to start with the preconceptions that lead to the idea.
1. The efforts of billions of years of photosynthetic life forms are responsible for the oxygen rich atmosphere we enjoy today and almost all of the carbon fixed in petrochemicals.
2. We are rapidly undoing the hard work of the photosynthesizer by releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere.
3. Most of the carbon fixing currently being done on Earth is not done in the Rain Forests but actually in the shallow parts of the Ocean and Seas by photosynthetic algae and aquatic plants.
4. Most of the Earth's surface is deep Ocean where no appreciable photosynthesis occurs.
5. Photosynthesis does not occur in the deep ocean because the surface is in constant motion and the heat and light of the sun is lost to the depths.

So here is my idea: We terraform Earth much in the way that has been proposed to terraform planets like Mars and Venus. We set up large rubber booms like the ones used contain oil spills in the deep ocean. At an optimal depth we place a rubber bottom in the area contained by booms. Think of a rubber dingy the size of a football field filled with sea water and you get the idea of what I am talking about. Now inside these ocean fields we have created we cultivate massive blooms of algae, of varieties selected for their ability to grow quickly and photosynthesize, fixing carbon from the atmosphere. This is done on an epic scale.

Afterwards we can sink the algae blooms to the bottom of the ocean to have nature once again change it into oil. Nations and companies who undertake this venture can receive carbon credits which are now a commodity thanks to the Kyoto Protocol. Or potentially, we could turn the algae to oil ourselves using a thermal depolymerisation process and use the algae as an energy source. I know this would be a huge engineering feat but certainly much less so than the solution entertained on the Skeptic's guide to the Universe to build a massive sun shield for the Earth in space. If we think algae is the key to changing the atmosphere on Mars or Venus why don't we consider it as a method of fix our atmosphere problems here on Earth?

Dawkins and Reminck on Charlie Rose

2006-12-30T10:45:00.000+09:00

Charlie Rose is an American public TV interview show that is now availible on Google Video. You can go to the website www.charlierose.com . This episode from over a year ago that has an interview with Richard Dawkins. Mr. Rose asked Dawkins some interesting questions I have never heard posed to him before, like what scientific question would he most like to see answered. Dawkins' answer, an explanation of subjective consciousness.

Scientology and the Clearwater Police

2006-12-23T00:36:00.000+09:00


Scientology snuck into Clearwater, Florida in 1978 under the assumed name of United Churches. Since then they have come to dominate the small town.

Now stop that... that's Evil.

2006-12-14T09:55:00.000+09:00

There is more unethical marketing tactics being used in the the entertainment intdustry and surprise Sony is behind it. From DVD region coding, to the HMV anti-piracy malware that is now being used to cloak viruses, to flooding the market with substandard products, whenever I hear about bad behavior in the electronics industry Sony seems to be behind it. And they wonder why their market share continues to decline. I take some solice in the fact that consumers, particularly electronics consumers are smarter than they believe. I for one now have a negative response to the Sony brand and will go out of my way not to buy Sony products. Hopefully, people at Sony will eventually learn that dispite what they might have been taught in business and marketing classes, in practice evil is not usually a profitable venture.

A fiefdom within Canada

2006-12-14T09:29:00.000+09:00

Here is a response I wrote to my father when we were having a discussion via email about Haper's motion to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada. My father had claimed it was a wise move because it caused chaos in the Liberal party during their leadership campaign and scored the Conservatives political points in Quebec. He also said that no one could argue that the Quebecois who were conquered on the Plains of Abraham were not a separate nation culturally.

I think that I can argue that the decedents of members of a nation
that was defeated almost 250 years ago do not in themselves constitute
a nation. It may have offered short term political gains but it was an
obviously divisive move with serious potential long term consequences.

Seemingly benign symbolic gestures can have unpredictable results for
symbols are potent things in politics. It was only 50 years ago that
America put "In God We Trust" on their currency and in the pledge of
allegiance. It was billed as a symbolic gesture to help keep communism
from taking hold in America. Over the past 50 years the religious
literalists in America have used that symbolism as leverage to erode
the separation of Church and State to the point where religiosity is
the single most important factor in determining a political
candidate's electability or I might add a persons eligibility to sit
on the Supreme Court.

I am currently studying the history of the Japanese language. And it
is interesting to note that Japanese Shogun promoted the linguistic
and cultural isolation of their fiefdoms to maintain their power much
in the same way the political elite in Quebec promotes linguistic and
cultural isolation. I guess Quebec is a fiefdom within Canada didn't
quite have the political appeal they were looking for though.

My father and I don't disagree often but it is fun when we do.

From this week's Savage Love

2006-12-14T09:21:00.000+09:00

Dan Savage belted off a very funny rant in his weekly advice column Savage Love. I felt the need to share:

Speaking of messy homos, it feels strange to rush to the defense of Mary Cheney, the useless dyke daughter of our malevolent vice president. But I knew I had to speak up after Janice Crouse of Concerned Women For America called Cheney's pregnancy "unconscionable." A few thoughts for you, Janice:

First, because Christianists like you can't come out and say they oppose Cheney's pregnancy because it says right there in Leviticus that Mary Cheney should be put to death (along with all adulterers, rebellious slaves, and lobstermen), they're condemning Cheney for creating a "fatherless" child, a child that will have no masculine role models. Have you gotten a good look at Heather Poe, Mary Cheney's partner of 15 years? My son has two fathers, but Heather Poe's left labial lip is butcher than both of us put together. Even if Mary and Heather planned on raising their child on a deserted island somewhere, their kid wouldn't want for masculine role models. And if things get too girly at Mary and Heather's place, Grandpa Dick can always take the kid hunting.

Second, fathers are great—my son couldn't agree more, Janice. And guess what? A lesbian couple can't have a child without one. For all we know, Mary and Heather, like so many other lesbian couples, used a known gay male sperm donor—Ken Mehlman? Mark Foley? Ted Haggard?—and this kid is going to have a father in his life.

Third, Concerned Women For America doesn't think Mary Cheney should have a baby. Great, fine, whatever. But Mary Cheney's uterus belongs to Mary Cheney, Janice, and she can do whatever the fuck she likes with it. She can have babies with it or keep her car keys in it or fill it up with potting soil and plant tulips in it. It's her fucking uterus, Janice, not yours. And if you keep inserting yourself into it, people are gonna think you're a dyke too, or Heather Poe is going to show up on your doorstep and beat the holy living hell out of you.

Fourth, Concerned Women For America and the Christian Coalition and Mitt Romney and Pat Robertson have all made it clear that they think it's wrong for lesbians to have children. Would someone in the media please ask them the obvious follow-up question: How the fuck do they propose to stop lesbians from having children? Post two members of the National Guard at the entrance to every lesbian vagina in the country? Forced sterilizations at women's music festivals? Mandatory abortions for every lesbian who does manage to get herself pregnant?

Fifth, up in Canada—sane, sane Canada—a bill to reopen, and possibly reverse, the decision to legalize gay marriage failed by a wide margin in Parliament Thursday, December 7.

You see that bit at the end. He is talking about my country. How I wish to go home.

Evolution Banned in Kansas

2006-11-30T08:53:00.000+09:00

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

According to reliable new sources, evolution has been banned in Kansas. It's about time they took the final step.

2006-11-20T08:06:00.000+09:00

Corn Startch and Water

Here is a video that demonstrates some of the cool properties of cornstarch and water when mixed in the right proportions.

2006-11-20T08:00:00.000+09:00

Compressed Air Engine

A compressed air engine is an interesting idea. I would like to know more about it. Certainly I can see the application of using such a device in warhouses but a hybrid compressed air gasoline car that can travel across Australia sounds highly dubious to me.

2006-11-20T07:34:00.000+09:00

Ted Haggard

Here is a clipped of the now infamous Ted Hagger former head of the Evangelical movement who has now been exposed for taking crsytal meth having an homosexual affair with a prostitue.

2006-11-17T10:59:00.000+09:00

Richard Dawkins Q&A Session

This is my first YouTube Blog Entry. Hope it works.

Open Letter to a True Believer

2006-11-17T10:05:00.000+09:00

See, I don't get it. Spending eternity as a Jesus groupie has no appeal to me what so ever. I mean love Jesus and he will bring you up to heaven so you can spend eternity basking in how cool he is. Who does this carpender think he is? According to evangelical Christian cosmology I can choose that or hell. Neither choice is appealing, sort of like an American election. True Believer, if I vote for a third party cadidate say like Buddha or Ralph Nader can I just cease to exist because my vote doesn't count?

It's funny cause it's True.

2006-08-25T12:21:00.000+09:00

Here is some good haha for you.

Personally, I like to think less enlisted soldiers have problems with the idea of gay soldiers than old generals and backward thinking politicians have problems with it. If they openly allowed gay soldiers in the American military it would probably be the biggest non-event the media has paid too much attention to in awhile.

Panoramic Parlement

2006-08-18T06:35:00.000+09:00

My brother has a fun job. Here is a test he did on parlement hill recently.

Israel is Baaaah'ed

2006-08-16T02:09:00.000+09:00

I love playing with ambiguity. If you don't get the title. Think sheep!

Recently, my friend Darren posted yet again in his blog about the conflict in Israel and Lebanon. He titled the post "Some Lebanese civilian casualties constitute war crimes." He links an editorial piece from the Star that is both pompous and fallacious. I hate to use this blanket term, but it is the term that most accurately fits; these Liberal-media types are so slimy. I am not referring to all liberal-minded people in the media there are lots of good ones. I am referring to a certain species of pestiferous writer that seem to only thrive in liberal biased media outlets like the Toronto Star. These types write in vacuous statements with the true meaning hidden in the implications and insinuations of those statements. They do this because if they made these statements directly the absurdity and indefensibility of there remarks would be abundantly clear to everyone. So they prattle off their nod-not wink-wink double speak and quickly back pedal if anyone calls them out on it. I attempt to use ambiguity to say more than one thing at a time. These verminous pontificators use vagueness as a license to say whatever they want.

First the article charges that both Harper’s and Martin’s Middle East policy is designed to appease the Bush administration. The insinuation being that both Harper and Martin are letting US interests dictate Canadian foreign policy and that there is no other reason for supporting Israel, not even a moral one. Second the article goes on to say, “Canadians always understood that the Afghan deployment was not a traditional peacekeeping, but rather a peace-making, mission. What angers them is that it has evolved almost totally into a combat mission.” What is the distinction between a peace-making mission to a nation being brutally repressed and terrorized by militant religious literalists and a combat mission besides the number of syllables one chooses to use? The statement is circular. The implication here is that Canadian soldiers should not see combat.

The inanity continues by claiming that Israel is indiscriminately murdering civilians. Israeli troops wear uniforms. Israeli military fortifications are away from civilian populations. These are practices which make it easier for the enemy to hit you. These are practices that limit civilian casualties. Hezbollah does not identify its troops. Hezbollah, whose combatants are mostly not from the region, is using the Lebanese civilian population as human shields for its fortifications. Hezbollah is targeting the Israeli civilian population despite the fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to distinguish its military and civilian populations. Hezbollah objective is the genocidal destruction of Israel and the Israeli people while Israel’s objective is to survive. Hezbollah believes that Muslim Lebanese civilians whether they want to or not will go to Heaven as martyrs. Hezbollah believes that non-Muslim Lebanese civilians deserve to go to hell. That is the problem.

But the source of the Star editorial will have you believe:

The problem with this ... is that it doesn't correspond with our research on the ground. Hezbollah has placed its troops and matériel near civilians, and sometimes civilians may have died as a result. But Human Rights Watch has investigated the circumstances of roughly half of the civilian deaths caused by Israeli bombing, and time after time it was clear that there was no Hezbollah around.

(This is another sleazebag tactic quote someone saying something stupid so you can’t be blamed for saying it yourself) What kind of percentage is “time after time”? How many incidences is that exactly? You are researching this aren’t you? Hezbollah is hiding in the population and it is

Israel

’s fault that they don’t know where, how convenient.

The article’s source then continues with a textbook straw man argument:

Judging from the comments of its senior military officials, part of the reason is that, having issued evacuation warnings for southern Lebanon, Israel now assumes anyone left in that area is a combatant.

Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what the Israeli military believes, drop a few pamphlets from the sky and the civilian population will disappear like magic. What a brilliant and deep analysis of Israeli military strategy. So after telling Israel what they believe the articles source goes on to prove Israel wrong:

But that is not factually correct: many people have been compelled to stay because they are old, infirm, unable to afford exorbitant taxi fares, or unwilling to risk travel on roads where many civilians have died. Many simply don't want to leave their homes and possessions.

You mean the evacuations warnings don’t make civilian populations completely disappear? Oh my, Yahweh!

This moral equivocation of Israel and Hezbollah, mostly by the liberal-minded, is getting way out of hand. It is perverse. I am reminded of the climatic monologue from Team America: World Police, “Occasionally pussies become so full of shit that they become assholes.” Here are some photos that didn’t make the press releases from various anti-Israel demonstrations the summer in Canada and the United States from Andrew Sullivan's Blog.

It often amazes me how smart people, who have the facts, can so easily lose site of the big picture and start supporting an absolutely crazy position. Here is some great commentary that talks about how Hezbollah is manipulating the media: an easy to read article and some deeper analysis of Reuters photo releases.

The photo fraud link offers several theories over why this is happening. The one I find most plausible is that we have been trained from childhood to always root for the underdog:

In tune with the sort of "bleeding heart" liberal ethics held by most in the journalism trade, Reuters staffers always tend to sympathize with whoever is perceived as the victim or underdog, regardless of their moral history. The struggle then comes down to this: who can lay claim to victims status, and thus get favorable media coverage? According to this theory, Hezbollah managed to gain the upper hand in the victimhood competition by identifying themselves with the Lebanese people. Israel lost the victimhood sweepstakes because Israel is too organized and efficient in its response to Hezbollah rocket attacks, whereas Lebanon was more chaotic and emotional.

In other words, we have bias to seek the victim and champion them in any conflict and occasionally in our search we lose site of the big picture.

Nuclear Power to save us from Global Warming?

2006-07-30T10:40:00.000+09:00

This article from Wired Magazine talks about nuclear power as environmentally friendly power. Often I noticed that in discussions about global warming, nuclear power was left out of the debate by environmentalists. Like used car salesmen trying to make the sale, they have decided which car they are going to promote and nuclear power isn’t it. Nuclear power has a lot of merits and the only reason we are not embracing it is irrational fear. Ultimately, though few want to admit it, it seems like the only viable way to go. But in the mean time, everyone is having so much fun and making so much money bitching about it we will just ignore the obvious for as long as it is lucrative, fucking people.

Have you dressed up Jesus lately?

2006-07-21T16:59:00.000+09:00

If you want to see something truely entertaining click here. This java applet is brought you by Normal Bob Smith. A man whose opinions I don't necessarily agree with but I think most people could benefit from being exposed to. Check out his hate mail section.

Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush

2006-05-24T07:24:00.000+09:00

Thanks to the wonders of the internet net and the wonderous Christopher Hitchens you can read the letter Ahmadinejad, president of Iran wrote to, Bush, president of the United States. It is actually on the Washington Post's webspace so I guess I should give them credit too. You can read Mr. Hitchens analysis of the situation on Slate.

However, I will give Ahmadinejad one thing. I don't expect G.W. Bush to be confident enough in his poll numbers and his sexuality to be giving boys kisses like this one in public.
Why in Iran which is a ridgid theocracy which claims to be democratic and free can the president kiss boys? And then why in America a country that loudly proclaims it self democratic and free (yet is criticized by the world as a ridgid theocracy) is it inconcieveable that the president would ever kiss a boy? Oh wait, now I get it.

The Biology Lesson You Never Had

2006-05-23T14:52:00.000+09:00

The Dover trial is over and done with, yay science! The Dover trial was the trial in which the Dover School Board was sued by parents because the School Board passed a motion to force high school biology teachers to promote intelligent design in their classrooms. In the end science and sanity won the day. But the reality is that most people still don't understand the issues involved and that is how ID and other forms of creationism have been allows to fester and flare up. We need to mop up the pool of human ignorance and the education system isn't doing a good job of it.
One reporter called the proceedings of the trial "the biology lesson you always wished you had." A great part of the prosecution’s case was bringing in a series of experts to educate the judge on evolution. It was the kind of open and direct biology lesson that biology teachers simply aren't allowed to teach in most circles. Luckily this biology lesson is now forever part of public record and you can read the trial transcript on the ACLU of Pennsylvania website.

He cannot stress this enough... and neither can I.

2006-05-22T08:08:00.000+09:00

Phil Plait, Nasa Researcher and author, webmaster of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Webpage wrote this in his section debunking Astrology:

For another, astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces, and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role.

This is exactly what I have been trying to tell you guys. Now consider it. And if you agree with Phil and I then join us in shouting it at the top of our lungs!!

Martial Arts are Bullshit

2006-05-20T07:06:00.000+09:00

It took me a long time to realize this one, including 6 years of karate, 4 years of kendo and 3 years of judo. I kept on trying to understand the spiritual aspects and mysticism of martial arts after asking lots of questions I discovered that there was nothing there to understand. Also most people don't realize that if you do the research most martial arts are less than 100 years old. They are loosely basic on earlier military training techniques but now they are purely driven by the money, the mystique and athletic competition. If you want to do martial arts for fun and exercise that's great! But if you are looking for deeper spiritual understanding(... whatever that is) or the ability to kick ass in a street fight. You are in the wrong place. For deeper spiritual understanding study biology and if you want to kick ass in a street fight buy a taser, some pepper spray or better yet a gun. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Ask a Ninja!

I know you have all been waiting for it.

2006-05-19T21:37:00.000+09:00

Considering I am a foreigner living in Japan you may have notice a distinct lack of Japanese content in my blog. That's because Japan has permeated every aspect of my existence and I have tried to keep my blog as a Japan free mental oasis. But sooner or later I have to post something. So here is a viral video for the dogs out there that are looking for Japanese culture bone.

Get your heads out from under the sand!

2006-05-18T07:09:00.000+09:00

Christopher Hitchens draws our attention to an absolutely disgraceful situation going on Holland in his Slate article, The Caged Virgin. According to the article, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an member of the Dutch parliament and a woman who came to Holland to escape radical Islam. After speaking out for the rights of women and children trapped in oppressive cultural ghettos in free European nations one of her colleagues was ritually murdered in the street; ghettos where women and children are allowed to be brutalized under the guise of multi-culturalism; ghettos where group-rights have trumped the rights of individuals. Now her neighbors have successfully won a law suit to expel her from apartment building because she to may become the target of vengeance assassination. So much for solidarity in the face of evil, all we seem to be able to do in the free liberal world is cower.

The Dangers of McDonald's Hot Coffee

2006-05-17T07:44:00.000+09:00

There is a great analysis of the McDonalds hot coffee verdict here. Haven't browsed the rest of the blog yet but it looks like it might be pretty interesting.

Spore is cool, very cool.

2006-05-16T07:49:00.000+09:00

If you haven't heard any of the hype about Spore yet, you should. I first heard about it on Darren's blog. He had a great video link there. Here is their demonstration from last weeks E3. There is no official release date yet but the rumor mill is saying there are going to try for 4th quarter of this year. I hope it's true but I personally think the project is too ambitious and Will Wright may never have a version of this master piece that he is willing to release.

Update: Robin Williams is a gamer.

Why I am so Bitter

2006-05-10T07:43:00.000+09:00

A Baylor student relates his experience fight back against insitutionalized stupidity in a Introduction to Neuroscience course. This kind of thing reminds me of the kind of backlash I would quickly recieve when I was in the school system and I used sarcasm against the waves of unchallenged ignorance and myths that were forced down my throat. Of course I didn't have any connections in the school system to get me off. My parents wouldn't support me when I got into this sort of trouble; they would simply warn me not to be such a lightening rod and let me confront the system on my own. My experiences were never as vindicating as this Balyor students. The lesson I learned time and again was that the nail that sticks out gets hammered. I'm just lucky that they they don't burn skeptics who question at the stake anymore.

The Amazing Randi

2006-05-09T07:34:00.000+09:00

James Randi runs a foundation that debunks psychics, crop circles and other bullshit. The JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) offers a $1 million dollar prize to anyone who can prove in a double blind test that they have a paranormal ability. He also has a web page newsletter that is updated weekly. It is good stuff you should try reading this weeks letter and any of the archives that catch your eye.

A little Haha for the WoW Crew

2006-05-06T10:14:00.000+09:00

Penny Arcade is doing the art for the new official World of Warcraft Strategy guide. It will be in binder form so it will be easy to for people to update by downloading new pages from the web. Blizzard has some great samples of the comics that will be featured on the dividers on there website here. It's good stuff if you are familiar with the game.

Growing Pains in the Ass

2006-05-05T09:20:00.000+09:00

I first encountered The Way of the Master with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in Sam Harris' website forum. Although, it is asinine you have to admit it is a sleek website. It was created by snowmedia and if I ever have a few million to blow on a website design I will definitely look them up, now that I know how well they can dress up a pig in a tuxedo.
The 'Way of the Master' and its many Hydra-like media forms is all about witnessing. For those of you not down with the lingo witnessing is when a Christian successfully convinces you to accept their beliefs as your own. There whole project is to sell tools to Christians to covert other people to Christianity. A lot of their instructional videos have made it on to the web. Their episode on how to witness to an atheist has become a highly bashed cult classic.
However, I think their episode on Evolution is far more ridiculous and readily exposes them as the frauds they are. And for the truly scary there is their episode on false conversion. This is the exact same line of thinking that has done such wonders in the Middle East as allow Muslims to kill Muslims for not being as Muslim as they are.

End of Faith

2006-05-04T08:09:00.000+09:00

When I picked up this book I couldn't put it down. Few times have a been lucky enough to read a book that I agreed with so completely. If you want a taste of what the book has to offer. I suggest you go to his website and either listen to or watch one of the lectures he has given.

Darren has commented to me that he feels this is a book written by an atheist for atheists. I believe that this book is what the covers says it a critique of faith as the antithesis of reason. I say this because I know the last chapter of the book has upsets a lot of atheists and skeptics. They believe he is trying to advocate a form of new-age Buddhism.

He is doing nothing of the sort. His message is not well presented and gets lost to most in the philosophy and neuroscience jargon he uses. My translation: he is arguing that there is a baby we should be wary of throwing out with the mystical bathwater. A person can learn a lot by testing the limits of their conscious experience through the use of methods like meditation or hallucinogenic drugs. One has to strip the grandiose "I can see through reality", "I have transcended death" type statements that become articles of faith to most practitioners of such things. However, at the core of this bundle of "woo-woo" mumbo jumbo are things worth experiencing. Things that a rational person can use to better understand their subjective conscious experience and find peace and contentment with their limited existence. Stop me if I still sound woo-woo.

Numa Numa, Mayahi!

2006-04-26T07:13:00.000+09:00

This isn't news to most people at this point. But I think that these tribute videoes of the strangely catchy song by the European band O-Zone are worth revisiting.

Gary Brolsma
Mayahi!

Harry Browne quotes

2006-03-14T15:29:00.000+09:00

“Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free."

“The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.”

“I am running for president because it is obvious that no Democrat or Republican is ever going to stop the relentless growth of the federal government. ...only a Libertarian is going to set you free.”

“You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad - in fact, to do anything it wants.”

Harry Browne

I'm a Bright

2006-03-14T15:02:00.000+09:00

The title says it all. Information on what it means to be a bright can be found here. Moreover I am a bright who is completely atheistic. I also believe that religion rather than being a source of moral guidance, corrupts and perverts moral values. If a person's morality is derived from a supernatural source, such as belief in a god or an afterlife, it must necessarily be inferior to morality based on a naturalistic source, such as maximization of happiness or welfare.

Logic Puzzle: Guilty or Innocent

2006-03-14T11:16:00.000+09:00

Knights can only tell the truth and Knaves can only lie.
In a land where there were only Knights and Knaves a golden apple was stolen. A defendant was brought before the magistrate. Even though the magistrate was uncertain whether the defendant was a Knight or a Knave the defendant clearly proved his innocence to the magistrate after only making one statement.
What statement would have worked?
Please post your answers in the comments.

Science Under Attack... Duh

2006-03-14T10:30:00.000+09:00

I read this over on James Randi's Web page. James Randi is a man who has made a career out of debunking mystics, the supernatural and other popular frauds. He is currently very ill and hospitalized so his page has been featuring guest skeptics. One Dr. Phil Phiat recently did a piece on Science Under Attack. The topic isn't news to me but the information about George Deutsch is. George Deutch was the Bush appointed Head of Public Affairs at NASA who was accused of attempting to silence James Hansen on anthropocentric global warming. What I didn't know was:

Deutsch also wanted another NASA scientist to make sure he put the word “theory” on a website everywhere the Big Bang was mentioned. Not because it is, after all, a scientific theory, but because the Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion… It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

And that,

Speaking of intelligent, Deutsch resigned a few days after this news came out, when it came to light that he lied on his resume; he claimed he graduated from college when in fact he dropped out to take the NASA post.

So we have

a 24 year old college dropout, who
has no scientific credentials at all, and
no scientific experience at all, and
no public affairs experience at all

telling NASA scientists what they can and cannot say about their scientific findings.

And you thought Harriet Miers was bad. I would like to believe that this kind of thing only happens in America but I am sure that is naive. Unfortunately, we don't live in a meritocratic world. Positions of power and authority are not distributed by merit but by ass-kissing and adoption of party lines. Burn your degrees people, you don't really need them.

Penn Jillette on radio

2006-03-14T09:57:00.000+09:00

I found that Penn Jillette, is doing a daily radio show! I demand to know why I hadn't been told about this sooner. Unfortunetly, the show seems to only be available live and is broadcast at 4 am my time. I hope I am able to subscribe to a pod cast or something that will tide me over until Bullshit season 4 comes out.

Twisted Ideology

2006-03-14T08:28:00.000+09:00

I found this link on The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan's blog. Andrew Sullivan is certainly not a man I completely see eye to eye with. Particularly, his conviction that religion preserves and perpetuates morality seems to fly in the face of most of his beliefs and what he ends up posting on his blog. But then again who am I to accuse a patriotic gay libertarian Christian conservative of being inconsistent.

This video demonstrates just what we should be fighting against in Palestine, thought out the middle-East and the world. We should not fight a people, nor should we fighting a civilization, we should fight an ideology. An ideology that's premiere doctrine is intolerance and resistance to change. An ideology that forces people to stagnate and live a living-death: the Muslim faith. As long as children are taught that murder-suicide to reach heaven is more important than rights, freedoms and prosperity on Earth there can be no peace, nor should there be.

Outer Postings: Nature of Intelligence

2006-03-09T14:56:00.000+09:00

Recently I have found myself posting on other people's blogs while neglecting my own. I'm going to start posting my more interesting responses here, a long with links to the blogs to which I am responding. It should give you a good idea of what kind of stuff I snoop through. This comment is in response to Darren's book review of The MisMeasure of a Man on Darren's Blog:

You run into many of the same difficulties you have outlined with intelligence when measuring other abstractions of ability like physical strength, endurance or fitness. One can be good at doing curls with one arm and not the other. One could be a statistically note-worthy lifter but a lousy puller.
But many scientists insist any qualitative observation like your 'blankness' can be quantified. And here, I think, is a fallacy of folk psychology nested in our language: We talk about people's strength, intelligence or blankness and it has relevance in our decsion making process so we assume there is some isolatable property to which we must be referring.
Scientists believe there exists 'blankness' therefore it must be quantifiable.
I am not arguing against people having different degrees of blankness in a varied population but I will deny the isolatable existence of blankness. How is this a coherent position?
Intelligence and strength are population and environment dependent. These words have no absolute values to which they are referring. Their meaning is always relative and context based. When you isolate this kind of property to study it you redefine its meaning. This shouldn't be too revolutionary an idea. I'm just saying that intelligence when we use it in the universal sense is like beauty, justice and piety. If some scientists came up with a Justice Quotient, Beauty Quotient or Piety Quotient and they overcame the obvious objections to the inanity of such an enterprise they would then have to deal with the same objections people now have against the Intelligence Quotient. There is no Platonic essence, super capital 'I', intelligence. All an IQ test can do is measure how well you did and can be expected to do on IQ tests and maybe some tasks similar to taking IQ tests. This will never change no matter how you modify the test, no matter how comprehensive you make it for intelligence is phantasmal. There is simply nothing there to quantify.

Posting everywhere but my own site: ID

2006-03-09T14:44:00.000+09:00

It really amazes me that we even have this debate anymore. People dress ID up in mathematical complexities and arcane sounding scientific details to give more sciency appearance. But no matter what you wrap it up in the core of ID is faith not science. Faith that a superior being or beings created life on Earth. Faith is a science stopper: once you take something on faith there is no more need for investigation scientific or otherwise.

As for evidence for evolution, so much of the evidence is so abundant and observable around us that it is easy to forget it's there. We can manipulate and harness the forces that facilitate evolution on both a macroscopic and microscopic scale. On the macroscopic level we have created breeds of dogs through selective breeding, as we have also created new species of crops such as broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower. On the microscopic level we have created vaccines and useful bacteria. We can observe the forces of evolution when they rail against us as with the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria or transspecies drift of bird flu to humans.

The theory of evolution fits these facts about life. It even anticipated the discovery of the mechanisms of genetics and DNA by which it takes place. The postulation of a supreme creator or creators explains little and predicts nothing. It only produces more questions which could only be answered by faith like, why would a supreme creator create such a dynamic system with species drifting in and out of existence when they could have created a static unchanging system of equal or greater perfection and complexity?

Ian Turner asked what proof could disprove Darwinian evolution. Garrett Peters pointed out that the theory of evolution has moved on since Darwin. Mr. Peters said God coming down and telling us personally that he created us would disprove evolutionary theory. I would like to add immortal angels walking through the streets turning homosexuals to pillars of salt, and the discovery "Product of Apha-Centuri Terrestrial Eugenics Corporation" labels on the back of our necks, to the list of possible disproofs of the theory of evolution. You don't need to research obscure academic papers to prove the theory of evolution. You just have to open your eyes and see the observable phenomena around you.

I got a chuckle out of Lois Herrings rationalization that ID is different than creation science because its proponents advocate it as alternative to evolutionary theory not a substitute. Apparently teaching creation science along with evolutionary theory is what makes it ID.

Logic Puzzle: Which Ones?

2006-03-03T09:41:00.000+09:00

Remember, Aharmanites can only Lie and Mazdaysians can only tell the truth.
Omar came across ten inhabitants A1, A2, ... A9 who made the following statments:

A1: Exactly one of us is an Aharmanite.
A2: Exactly two of us are Aharmanites.
A3: Exactly three of us are Aharmanites.
A4: Exactly four of us are Aharmanites.
A5: Exactly five of us are Aharmanites.
A6: Exactly six of us are Aharmanites.
A7: Exactly seven of us are Aharmanites.
A8: Exactly eight of us are Aharmanites.
A9: All of us are Aharmanites.

Which ones are which?
Post your answers in the comments.

Cartoon Controversy

2006-03-03T09:13:00.000+09:00

I find it very hard to add anything to debate when Christopher Hitchens does such a succinct job of covering the issue.

Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

Mr. Hitchen is also right in calling for the rest of the civilized world to come to Denmark's aid. I use such strong language because the razing of foreign embassies is an attack on international civility; it is an act of war. And the cavalier attitude the press has shown for these barbarous atrocities is nothing short of astonishing. I guess after years of suicide bombings, calls for genocide and public beheadings of civilian hostages. Nothing Muslims do in the name of their faith surprises us anymore.

A Logic Puzzle: The Town Crier

2006-03-01T09:23:00.000+09:00

Aharmanites are bound by their religious beliefs to always lie and Mazdaysian are bound by their beliefs to always tell the truth.

Part 1
A certain town has one and only one town crier. Omar was interested in finding the town crier and narrowed the possiblities down to one of three inhabitants. I do not remember their names, so let us call them A, B and C. They made the following statements:

A: I am not the town crier.
B: The town crier is an Aharmanite.
C: All three of us are Aharmanites.

Is the town crier a Mazdaysian of an Aharmanite?
Post your answers in the comments.

Part 2
But but Omar still did't know who the town crier was. Until A made the following statement:

A: C is an Aharmanite.

Who is the town crier?
Who is a Mazdaysian and who is an Aharmanite?
Post your answers in the comments.

2006-01-31T10:00:00.000+09:00

I'm on the last 15 pages of Steven Jay Gould's book, Full House. It is a great book, short and easy to read. My only complaint is that he belabors the the point a bit to much for me. He talks about cases where changes in extreme or average values look significant when they are actually an epiphenomena of increases or decreases in system diversity.

I am just trying to put it as siccinctly as possibly. It really is a simple idea that Prof. Gould does a much better job of explaining then I ever could and he doesn't use words like "epiphenomena."

He uses three main examples, his personal experience with cancer, the disapearance of 400 hitters in baseball and global domainance of bacteria. After the first example, you pretty much know where he will go with the other two examples but there are plenty of interesting snipits and factoids to keep one reading.
There is also a great radio interview with Prof. Gould about the book that can be found here. In the radio interview it is interesting to see how Gould avoids discussing the religious or philosophical implications of evolution. It is amazing how people can compartmentalize.

Dennett Interview on iTunes

2006-01-31T09:46:00.000+09:00

Stanford has published a philosophy radioshow it sponsors as well as some other goodies. The philosophy radio show has an episode on ID that features Dennett as their guest. Just go to this page and follow the philosophy links in your itunes browser.

Take your wrinkley paws off me, you damned aquatic ape!

2005-11-25T07:44:00.000+09:00

Have you heard of AAT? The aquatic ape theory. The first time I came across it was in Darwin's dangerous idea. It novelty of the idea convinced me to start going to the pool regularly. Here are some quick papers by some of its perponents Elaine Morgan and Marc JM Verhaegen and a through (some might say obsessive) stomping of it by Jim Moore. Jim Moore is very combative but he does make a lot of good points that I would like to see the AATs respond to. Still I have a hunch that there maybe something to this aquatic ape thing. If only because I want to believe my evolutionary ancestors had enough sense to chill out on the beach instead of struggling under the hot sun of the savannah.

Having an enviable career is one thing, and being a happy person is another.

2005-11-23T09:25:00.000+09:00

Creating a life that reflects your values and satisfies your soul is a rare achievement. In a culture that relentlessly promotes avarice and excess as the good life, a person happy doing his own work is usually considered an eccentric, if not a subversive. Ambition is only understood if it's to rise to the top of some imaginary ladder of success. Someone who takes an undemanding job because it affords him the time to pursue other interests and activities is considered a flake. A person who abandons a career in order to stay home and raise children is considered not to be living up to his potential-as if a job title and salary are the sole measure of human worth.

My friend Darren recently posted on his blog, a speech by Bill Watterson the creator of Calvin and Hobbes. The speech is absolute genius as is the speech by Douglas Adams, Darren posted earlier.
Douglas Adams is one of the best writers the Doctor Who series ever had, he also wrote for Monty Python and Dr. Snuggles. These works alone probably give him as great a role in shaping my young mind as my parents had. But Douglas Adams is best know for being the author of one of the greats philosophical works of the 20th century: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A series of BBC radio programs and books. Which has been made into a shameless sell out movie, white washed of any dangerous philosophical messages that might make people's heads hurt by causing them to think. The whole project to exploit his memory and life's work was started shortly after his untimely death which makes it all the more goulish and distasteful.
I don't know how Darren finds these gems or how long it takes him but I thank him for it. Now a little more from Bill Watterson:

You'll be told in a hundred ways, some subtle and some not, to keep climbing, and never be satisfied with where you are, who you are, and what you're doing. There are a million ways to sell yourself out, and I guarantee you'll hear about them.

It doesn't matter if your left or right

2005-11-17T00:27:00.000+09:00

I really don't like to take sides in the left, right debate because I think it is a ridiculous, nonsensical distinction. If you believe x you are a leftist and must naturally believe a whole bunch of other things. If you believe y you are on the right and must believe pretty much the opposite of everything people on the left believe. BULLSHIT! Why can't I be pro-choice and against gun control? The idiots can stick with their teams and combo-packed ideaologies. I am flying solo.

Fake ID

2005-11-17T00:05:00.000+09:00

I'm trying to get out of the quagmire of politics abit and back into the phiosophical high grounds. ID seems like a good path to do that. It is a facinating social phenomena. Religion isn't allowed in schools so you spin creationism by defining it completely as anti-evolution and omitting the whole god part. But what you are left with is not a theory just an anti-theory. If such a thing can exist. I'll let Dennett , Dawkins and even Christopher Hitchens do the explaining.

It's all our fault!

2005-11-12T11:48:00.000+09:00

I've read a few articles on the BBC website about the riots in France: Clichy's 'les miserables', French riots defy emergency plan and Violence exposes France's weaknesses. And I can't get over the apologetic, masochistic tone of the articles. Some people actually seem to believe that these young people have a right to destroy private and public property and spread fear and mayhem. These young people must be in horrific straights, but reading Clichy's 'les miserables', I was relieved to discover that they are not being denied basic human necessities like mobile phones with photo mail and inflammatory personalized hoodies.

The theme here is one that I often see. People believe that poverty is ALWAYS something other people do to you. It is never your own fault. In truth, you disempower people by telling them they are victims, that they have no control over their destiny, by teaching them that it is the responsibility of other people to provide them with a future. These young men can’t get jobs, it must be racial discrimination. Every night they are out training in valuable workplace skills like loitering roving in gangs. Cat calling and bravado are just the sort of communication skills employers are looking for these days. Now, after this righteous rioting, they can add petty thuggery and arson to their resumes. I am sure it is only the purest of racism that is causing there job applications to be overlooked.

But the apologists are not completely wrong. We have failed these kids. We have failed them by leading them to believe they are entitled to wealth no matter how they behave. We have failed them by not teaching them the critical thinking skills they need to realize the absurdity of gantsa-rapstar materialism and islamo-fascism. And we are failing them now by glorifying violence and telling them that it is the solution to their problems rather than oraganized civil-disobedience and non-violent resistance.

Farm Aid supporting the drug trade

2005-11-12T10:56:00.000+09:00

As a person who is philosophically against farm aid and the war on drugs. I thought the idea of a connection between these two bad policies was an interesting idea: Rethinking the war on drugs. I doubt this line of thinking will be further investigated by anyone as the war on drugs isn't as sexy or flashy as the war on terror, or the war in Iraq are now. And farm aid is about as sacred a piece of bull as you can get. Still it is an interesting idea.

Report didn't deal with immigration

2005-11-10T07:08:00.000+09:00

Report didn't deal with immigration

The Toronto Star
Tue 08 Nov 2005
Page: A21
Section: Letter

Why we must plan our landscape

Opinion, Nov. 4.

I am amazed at the criticism of Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller's warnings around population growth in Southern Ontario. Miller has been an excellent environmental commissioner who has been critical of both governments where he needed to be. Miller had to defend his report against media and critics' labels of "anti-immigration," "overstepping his mandate," and, of all things, "racism."

The report did not deal with immigration but dealt with the government's lack of sufficient plans for sustainability with increased population The Star suggested that MPPs wouldn't touch commenting on a report that could be construed as critical of immigration. There is obviously no limit to the lengths politicians will go to support their own denial of a problem and to find excuses to do nothing.

David Arthur, Kitchener, Ont.

The Sudbury Star on my Dad

2005-11-08T19:58:00.000+09:00

Ontario needs population planning

The Sudbury Star

Mon 07 Nov 2005

Page: A10

Section: Opinion

Source: Owen Sound Sun Times

Ontario's environmental watchdog, *Gord* *Miller*, has sounded the alarm on a topic which should be obvious to anyone who's travelled on the 401 and witnessed steady, seemingly unstoppable urban sprawl.

In his annual report, Miller questioned the wisdom of southern Ontario's unbridled expansion. The provincial Finance Ministry projects up to six million more people will call Ontario home over the next 25 years, most in the Toronto area. His report was an attempt to open a rational discussion about population planning. It's about time. Toronto, like all municipalities, already has difficulty dealing with waste disposal and other local issues. Now, imagine adding a few more million people to the mix. According to Miller, Ontario's population growth should be directed away from Toronto toward less-populated parts of the province or the country.

We must ease the population pressure in some parts of the province. Our strategy should be to locate and relocate businesses from the Greater Toronto Area to those parts of the province with the infrastructure and land to accommodate them. In today's computerized and connected world, the idea that you have to be next door to your supplier or customer is not as relevant to many businesses. With proper planning, that means places such Sudbury, North Bay and Owen Sound can take some of this projected growth. A Toronto Star editorial said Miller has gone beyond his mandate by raising these population issues. That's simply not the case. Where people choose to live and work, how they move around, what they do for leisure activities all matter to the landscape. The question of protecting our environment is ultimately linked to population. We need to have this discussion.

The Expositor on my Dad

2005-11-08T19:51:00.000+09:00

Greenbelt plans face questions

The Expositor (Brantford)
Mon 07 Nov 2005
Page: A10
Section: Opinion
Byline: Michael Allan Marion
Column: On the Record
Source: The Expositor

*Gord* *Miller*, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, is adding an important voice in the debate about the Dalton McGuinty government's policies on handling population growth over the next 25 years. Initial response has been muted since Miller released last week his latest report, Planning Our Landscape, which is highly critical of the government's assumptions and policies on a number of fronts that inevitably affect the environment. But if they're diligent, all appropriate decision makers would be advised to go thoroughly through the 225-page report in which the environment commissioner delivers his evaluation of how closely the government's actions across its various ministries comply with Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights.
Miller's critical examination focuses on the government's Places to Grow Act, Greenbelt Protection Act, the provincial policy statement by Municipal and Housing Affairs Minister John Gerretsen, and other associated legislation.
They're all based on forecasts that Ontario's population will increase from 12 million to 16.4 million, and perhaps a much as 18 million, with three-quarters of it expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto, in the Greenbelt lands and just beyond in the Grand River Watershed communities.
Miller asks these questions that kick at the underpinnings of the government's assumptions:
Why must the population grow at this rate in parts of southern Ontario?
Are the arguments really true that expansion is essential to support our consumptive economy, create jobs and futures for our young people, and protect the tax base and the infrastructure it supports?
He notes many prosperous European economies thrive without a burgeoning population.
If population expansion is necessary, where does that leave northern Ontario, he wonders, when the same population projections important to the government's plans in the Greenbelt area also predict that northern Ontario will decline by 8.5 per cent over the same 25 years?

big picture

Using the same logic, he wonders, does that mean we are abandoning the north to a collapsing economy, a crumbling infrastructure and no future for our youth?
He finds the government's policies merely accept the demographics and try to map out where the influx can and cannot go to protect the most environmentally sensitive areas, without asking big-picture questions.
"The reality is that a planning regime based on the continuous expansion of population and the growth in consumption of resources in the south-central part of the province is ultimately not sustainable," Miller writes.
He says the construction of major arterial roads and other infrastructure needs for a burgeoning population will chew up the natural environment, no matter how well we plan.
Further, he says, a planning system dependent on growth will render unsustainable many northern communities as they go through a period of depopulation and deindustrialization.
"At some point -- and it should be soon -- we will have to turn our minds collectively to what we want Ontario's society and Ontario's landscape to look like 25 years from now and beyond.
"We will have to cast that vision -- and then begin to create a planning model that will cultivate and support ecologically, socially and economically sustainable lifestyles and communities for the north, the urban south and the rural countryside."
Miller certainly isn't alone in questioning the assumption that we should just accept that a large population bulge is coming and plan as best we can, rather than ask what the natural environment can comfortably absorb and impose limits.
The Grand River Conservation Authority has pointedly been asking that question from the first day the organization was requested to contribute to the government's background work preparing for Places to Grow.
It has expressed concerns about the prospect of nearly 500,000 people expected to head toward watershed communities.
For instance, in the authority's 2005 annual watershed report, Chairman Peter Krause and CAO Paul Emerson wrote: "The challenge for all of us is to find the right balance, to live within our resources, to ensure that the decisions we make today will protect the environment tomorrow.
"One question we need to ask is whether there are limits to growth. At what point do we conclude that growth has to end, that our natural resources simply can't sustain any additional development?"
Emerson noted in a recent interview that early on in the Places to Grow venture, he wondered if the research should look at limits to population and growth.
"I was told it was not our responsibility to ask that," he said. "But ultimately, you don't have to be an expert to realize that all of these people coming are going to have an impact."
Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant MPP Toby Barrett, a Progressive Conservative, worries over what he considers the Liberal government's propensity to ignore altogether the possibility of imposing controls and just plow ahead with development.
In a recent conversation, he said the province would do well to look at the example of Haldimand County, which maintained a population balance of about 40,000 for a century, despite the tides of immigration and the post-war baby boom, and managed anyway to keep pace with the province's relative prosperity.
The "natural state of balance" only changed, he noted, in the 1970s with the arrival of big industry at Nanticoke. Still, 30 years later, the population has risen only slightly to a little under 50,000.

zero population growth

Barrett has been an advocate of the zero-population ethic since its founding in the late 1960s, during the halcyon days of the environmental movement. In a recent conversation, he says he signed on after returning from a year of travelling abroad that included a stay in Calcutta.
He said he will never forget witnessing the "horrifying" misery of a million people sleeping on the street. When he came home, he joined the Hamilton chapter of Zero Population Growth.
Such formal advocacy never reached mainstream status in an immigrant country that still perceives itself as having a lot of space. Still, Barrett says it's time for people in southern Ontario to think about the limits question.
"I'm still very concerned about that from both a human and environmental point of view, but we're afraid to deal with it," he said.
"As soon as someone states that concern, the 'anti-immigration' tag gets put on. Of course, immigrants are welcome, but we should be able to ask if it's possible to direct them to declining population areas.
"So, I'm quite heartened that *Gord* *Miller* has asked those important questions."
Much of Miller's thinking is reminiscent of Garrett Hardin's 1968 seminal work The Tragedy of the Commons, which decried a state of affairs in which much of humankind's world is treated as a "commons" wherein individuals have the right to freely consume its resources and return their wastes without real limits.
The "logic of the commons," Hardin postulated, ultimately produces its ruin as well as the demise of those who depend upon it for survival.
The book was a standard text on the shelves mostly of university types and zero-population true believers.
It's doubtful Miller's report will spur enough interest for a reprinting of The Tragedy of the Commons.
Nonetheless, it is to our benefit that he has added his voice to the debate over how the Ontario of tomorrow should look.
Michael-Allan Marion is The Expositor's municipal politics reporter.

The Toronto Star on my Dad

2005-11-08T19:50:00.000+09:00

Issue for the voters

The Toronto Star
Mon 07 Nov 2005
Page: A19
Section: Letter
Why we must plan our landscape
Opinion, Nov. 4.
Environmental Commissioner *Gord* *Miller*'s observations and concerns are a wake-up call to us all. We have a shortage of farmland, doctors, hospitals, electricity, all kinds of infrastructure and possibly oil and gas in the years to come. If there ever was a time for sustainable development, it is now.
I am hoping this is an issue that will resonate with the Ontario electorate. If we can't find a place to put our garbage, grow our food and locate our power plants with a population of 4 million people in the GTA, how are we possibly to cope with 8 million people?
Limiting population growth is not without political risk. A prudent political party in Ontario might reasonably ask if it could be sold to a province where growth has been the catchword for the last 50 years.
Nevertheless, I hold that this is an opportunity for Conservative leader John Tory. He is an undoubted moderate and is likely to remain in opposition unless he conjures up a vision to distinguish himself from the Dalton McGuinty government. If this policy were articulated as a demand for Ottawa to relinquish control over immigration to Ontario (much as Quebec has control of its immigrants), to permit the province to deal with this issue on its own terms, then he might, just might, be the next premier of Ontario.
Rod Fraser, Whitby

The Record on my Dad

2005-11-08T19:45:00.000+09:00

Politics aside, environment commissioner has it right
The Record (Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo)
Mon 07 Nov 2005
Page: B1
Section: LOCAL
Byline: FRANK ETHERINGTON
Source: RECORD STAFF

Who could imagine the day would ever dawn when I agreed with a Tory loyalist and friend of former Ontario premier Mike Harris.

But that's what happened last week as I listened to Ontario's environmental commissioner, *Gord* *Miller*, being interviewed about his annual report.

During the mid-1990s, Miller, a North Bay buddy of Harris, was an unsuccessful provincial and federal Tory candidate in two elections. Criticized as a lapdog when appointed by Harris in 1999, he rapidly turned into an environmental pitbull.

Miller warned last week that southern Ontario is running out of land and can't support the extra six million people expected to come here in the next 25 years. He wants to see some of the newcomers located in northern Ontario or eastern Canada.

He also wants to see water conservation, reduced waste and increased public transit in the greater Toronto area instead of more cars and highways.

Noting that Toronto is already unable to handle its garbage and is trucking tonnes of waste down the 401 to Michigan, Miller said Ontario will have difficulty coping with increased demands for land, water and sewage-disposal in coming decades.

Asked to comment on how that impacts on Waterloo Region, he told Record environment reporter Bob Burtt that increased growth planned in the next quarter century means this area could be in serious trouble.

He said growing pains and demand for land could exact a heavy toll on the region where population could climb from today's 500,000 to 729,000 in 2030.

Miller said, and I agree, that runaway growth and its destructive impacts on local infrastructure should be subjected to public debate and not left in the hands of politicians and growth-promoting business boosters.

He also noted that as Ontario's population increases to 18 million from 12 million, there will be huge demands for more vehicles and bigger highways.

Miller's views came during a week when I reluctantly crawled out of my Kitchener cocoon and experienced a few nasty results of population growth that already exist in Waterloo Region.

Driving to Cambridge at 8 a.m. one day, I experienced traffic gridlock that I'm told exists most days on Highway 8, our main link with Highway 401. Traffic was backed up from Montgomery Road to beyond the Grand River bridge.

That jam was caused by sheer quantity of vehicles aggravated by the goofball design of the multi-million-dollar flyover connecting Highway 8 to the Conestoga Parkway. As 401-bound traffic exits the flyover, drivers are squeezed rapidly left and often grind to a standstill as our new and improved road narrows from four to two lanes approaching Fairway Road.

Existing population and traffic means we already need either an enormous investment in a rail connection between the region and Toronto or the terrible option of four-lanes going both ways between Kitchener, the 401 and Cambridge.

During the same week I drove to Toronto on the 401.

After struggling up Highway 8, I encountered the predictable and dangerously high volume of 401 traffic all the way to Pearson Airport, where I ran into the usual stop-go bottleneck.

I was thinking about Miller's predictions a few days later as I talked to regional housing officials about a situation where we have more than 4,000 families and individuals -- 10,000-12,000 low-income adults and kids -- on a waiting list for affordable shelter.

Considering the fact poor people already wait four years for subsidized apartments partly because of a difficulty finding building sites, I wondered how long the list will be after we bring another 229,000 people here.

Troubling experiences and thoughts that reminded me how, on rare occasions, even a Tory can make sense.

Frank Etherington can be reached at 894-2250, ext. 2608, or at fetherington@therecord.com

My father's annual report shakes things up

2005-11-08T19:20:00.000+09:00

My father's annual report recently came out. My mom likes to send me the news feeds about him whenever he starts making head lines again. I don't automatically agree with everything my father says but I think he is right about the current hot issue. Technology should be used to decentralize and reduce our evironmental impact instead of consolidating power and population wastefully in large centers like Toronto. People like to smoke screen this issue by making it about immigration but it is really about population redistrubution. Populations in small centers are declining as larger centers suck everyone in becoming more squalid and wasteful. If you want to educate yourself about the issue go to The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's webside and check out this years report.

My Dad is causing trouble again

2005-11-08T19:17:00.000+09:00

MPPs giving environment report a wide berth

Nov. 2, 2005. 01:00 AM

IAN URQUHART

Gord Miller is an interesting study. The province's 52-year-old environmental commissioner has been a lightning rod for controversy since his appointment six years ago by the Conservatives.The opposition and the media noted disapprovingly that Miller was a former Conservative candidate and a friend and supporter of his fellow North Bay resident, then-premier Mike Harris.(Harris's defence of the appointment at the time: "I know most people in North Bay. The vast majority of them are Mike Harris supporters.")Then, apparently biting the hand that fed him, Miller turned around and produced a series of reports that were critical of Conservative policies, from foot-dragging on measures to safeguard the water supply from another Walkerton to slipshod attempts to curb the imports of hazardous waste.This approach won Miller praise, sometimes grudging, from environmental groups.Says Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, who was highly critical of Miller's appointment six years ago: "His track record has been credible."Still, it was somewhat of a surprise earlier this year when the Liberal government moved to reappoint Miller to the $125,000-a-year post for another five years.The appointment is actually the prerogative of the Legislature, although, since the Liberals hold a majority there this is somewhat of a moot point. At any rate, the position of environmental commissioner was advertised earlier this year and an all-party panel was set up to interview the resulting short list of applicants (about half a dozen, including Miller himself).Questions were raised by the panel about Miller's extra curricular activities. (He is a candidate for Ph.D. in forest policy at the University of Toronto.) Miller told the panel he had cleared this with the Speaker of the day, Gary Carr, and been told it was no problem.Liberal MPP Deb Matthews, who sat on the panel, said yesterday: "The question was: Can he do his job (while also working on a Ph.D.)? I think he can."Of course, Matthews has her own extra curricular calendar as she is working on a Ph.D., and is also president of the provincial Liberal party.The panel also asked Miller questions about his management style, in the wake of a decision last year by his small office (just 17 employees) to unionize. "I don't think I want to talk about human resource issues to a reporter," said Miller yesterday of the unionization matter.In any event, the panel decided, in camera, to recommend Miller's reappointment, although it was reportedly not unanimous.Several Liberals I spoke to yesterday were shaking their heads over this following the release of Miller's annual report, which suggests southern Ontario is running out of land to develop and cannot sustain the additional 4 million to 6 million people foreseen in government projections over the next 25 years.Asked in yesterday's press conference whether this was not an implied call for curbs on immigration, Miller vehemently denied it. "Not at all," he declared. "Let's put people where the land will sustain them."He variously suggested that this would be in Northern Ontario or Eastern Canada."I don't understand, being a northern person, why everyone has to come to Toronto, why we have to have everything in Toronto," he said.Finally, as reporters continued to press Miller on where they should go, an exasperated Miller blurted out: "It's just not my job. I don't have to put the people anywhere ... I think the solution is an open public debate, not an attack on the environmental commissioner for raising the topic."But an open debate about what? Population growth in the abstract? Or immigration?Not surprisingly, politicians in the Legislature steered away from Miller's annual report during yesterday's question period. For them, it is in the category of something they wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.

A Man for all Seasons

2005-11-06T20:55:00.000+09:00

If you don't know who Christopher Hitchens is, you should. I love this guy and not just because he has a glass of scotch in one hand and cigarette in the other at every convenient moment. His alcoholism, witt and bitter frutration with everyone around him make him very entertaining to watch, read or listen.
What I like most about him is that he has choosen to go it on his own. He doesn't play sides he doesn't completely align himself with the "left" or the "right." He is articulate, cerebral and extremely opinionated. He puts a lot of thought into his positions and defends them well. You can check out links to his most recent writings on his web page. I recommend checking out his recent cspan call-in or his debate with Mr. Galloway. Here is the web-cast of the debate. He is a man whose dedication to principle makes sympathetic enemies of his friends. That's why I compare him to Saint Thomas More.

2005-10-31T00:16:00.000+09:00

A smaller picture of me at festival

Free Will

2005-10-28T21:18:00.000+09:00

It impresses me how quickly some people are willing to deny their consciousness and free will. It impresses me but it doesn’t surprise me. It is a natural result of buying into the arguments of those who are defending irrational positions like belief in souls. Irrational believers frame their arguments in false dilemmas, desperately holding related concepts hostage to defend their problematic beliefs. “Surely,” IBers (Irrational Believers)* claim, “I have a soul because I have this marvelous conscious feeling experience to which your cold rational science hardly does justice explaining.” IBers go on to say, “Of course, my soul is not bound by the laws of the deterministic universe because I have this marvelous power of free will which is otherwise impossible.” The rational thinking few passionately leap to the defense of mother science from these gorgon-like dilemmas. They plunge themselves on to the horns of these dilemmas, selflessly (pun intended) gutting themselves of their internal life. So dedicated are they to mother science and reason that they are willing to accept that their free will is an illusion and their conscious experience is a lie.

Such martyrdom is commendable but unnecessary. For if we shift perspective these gorgon-like dilemmas shift into nothingness: shadows in the light of reason and the hostages, consciousness and free will, can be released unharmed. I submit that both consciousness and free will are self-evident which is exactly why IBers try to anchor their incoherent notations to them. It is only when philosophers engage in the signature thought experiments of their trade that anyone can seriously try to deny these notions.

Now this is a response to how my friend Darren outlined his position on free will on his blog, which was a response to his friend Josh's position. So I am now going to shift gears and start addressing Darren directly.

Before you accuse me of arguing across purposes Darren, I will attempt to define free will. No small feet because as you have pointed out people often define free will differently. I would argue that this is usually done to suit the purposes of the definer but there is an essential and powerful idea that these definitions encircle. To do this I am going to use the rather cliché method of breaking the term into its parts. Please do not fault me in my lack of originality in presentation.

First the free: freedom is a word that is extremely value loaded. Particularly in America right now, with their freedom towers and freedom fries. Freedom is basically a euphemism for power, the control sort of power rather than the ability sort or the energy sort. Control power is usually portrayed negatively as something only villains crave for they want it in excess. In reality control power is something we all rightly desire to a degree. Freedom is the amount of control power rightly desired by a moral agent. Notice I did not define it as the amount of control power needed to ensure absolute autonomy because that is not something most rational agents would want: for example we are willing to pass on a right to kill others so we ourselves are not murdered. My key point here is that the concept of freedom is intimately tied to control power and rational desire. I think the jump from moral desire to rational desire is a fair one on this occasion.

Next we move on to will, the less remarkable and often overlooked part of the term. It is so elemental that most seem to skim over it without much thought. Will is the desire to do. The verb is different from the noun because it posits agency twice, that of the desirer and that of the doer who may be different people: to will x is to desire that x be done (it doesn’t matter who does x.) But the will we are talking about is more closely related to the auxiliary verb: I will eat, I will philosophize which has a strong sense of agency. What we are talking about is the noun will, which once we get inside the head is the essence of agency. If we say someone has an iron will or a weak will we are really describing the exterior quality of their agency. Once we get inside the skull the exterior quality drops off and we are left with pure agency.

Now Darren, before I fully reveal my self evident definition of free will (it’s a bit of a show stopper) I feel it is important to give you my understanding of your argument. Your argument against freewill hinges on the question, “Who is doing the choosing?” To put it another way when I eat, who wills to eat? I’m afraid you are begging the question because your formulation posits two entities from the beginning. The doer and the chooser and you deny Josh the obvious answer that the doer is the chooser. The dichotomy you point to later was created the moment you asked the question. Consider the similarly structured questions, “If you think a gun shoots, what is doing the shooting?” and “If you think your computer is malfunctioning, what is doing the malfunctioning?” Then the responses, “Okay, please describe what a computer is?” Followed by, “But, that doesn’t really say who or what is malfunctioning, it just gives a general description.” But if this misstep was fatal to your argument I wouldn’t have bothered with the long introduction.

Your real argument is implied more than it is directly stated. You point out that we are products of evolution. You point out that there is no Cartesian theater (mind/soul sitting in the theatre of the brain). You point out break downs in mental control such as addiction or conflicts in mental dialogue and action. You point out the limits of our introspective ability. You point out limits in our perceptive ability and the accuracy of mental representations. Then you point to a slip you made, “The speed and complexity of the processing of your brain, creates a simpler world for you,” and despair because you have implied a Cartesian theater. You then point out we are products of our brains, bodies and environment. Your arguments seem to be two fold. There is no need or room in this deterministic mess for free will and you can’t even discuss the idea of free will without creating a Cartesian mind/brain split that we know does not exist. Therefore free will does not exist. I hope my characterization is accurate.

Darren you are wrong free will does exist. And it is no more an illusion than you, Canada or a volcano. The problem that you encounter exists in the language we use to talk about it.

Our hands are great tools in our daily lives. I can climb, tie a knot and carry things with them. However hands stop being so directly useful for micro-surgeons and electrical engineers who work on scales that hands were not designed for. Our language is also very useful in our daily life but runs into scale problems once we start talking about what is going on inside our heads. Which is why I was so meticulous in defining my terms, the tools of common place language are too cumbersome for the job. If we are talking about the phrase, “I will to swim,” It looks like there is indeed a separate willer and doer (a mind/brain). Or at the very least something could intercede between my willing and doing inside my head. But this is nonsensical. It is not the sort of will we are really talking about when we speak of free will. We are speaking about the pure agency will and to say that they are the same thing at this level would be a fallacious equivocation.

I am now going to some all those same facts about the world you did Darren: the brain/body/environment constitution of “I”, evolution, conflicts between mental dialogue and action, the limits of introspection and I will say they all are consistent with only one conclusion. At the mind level, what I will is what I do. Thus I do what I rationally desire to the limit of my rationality with perfect fidelity of control. The freedom of will is self-evident from our current understanding of the universe. It is bound or enslaved will that is inconsistent and only conceivable if there was a mind/brain split. Now Darren take that gutting dilemma horn out of your chest for your will is supremely free. It is just the IBers who have to worry about a freedom inhibiting breakdown between their willer and their doer.

*Irrational Believers or IBers is my response to ID “Intelligent Design”

I don't think in your toilet. Don't piss in my mind.

2005-10-25T19:07:00.000+09:00

Wow, my first blog post. It took a lot of mulling and deliberating to get to this point. I often feel overwhelmed by the wealth of information available to me through the internet and lesser media. The thought of contributing my own mental trickle to the incomprehensible deluge seemed somehow intimidating. I am not entirely sure why this is. I don't think that I would feel the same apprehension about pissing in flood waters. But there in lies the problem, my ego. I like to believe my stream of consciousness is somehow more valuable than my stream of urine. Where as I hope my bodily effusion will defuse into non-existence within a greater body of water, I hope for a different fate for my mental effusion. I want to see it somehow change the oceans of ideas in a noticeable way and I know I am going to be humbled when it doesn't. I don’t think I’m alone; these hopes for grandeur are human nature.