Prostituting High School

Original Posting

Someone could make a fortune creating fake high schools, where people could go back and relive their glory days, or maybe live as someone they always wished that they could be.

People who were popular in High School and then experienced an adulthood of disappointment could return and have actors pretend that he's still a big shot. Intelligent underachievers could go back and have teachers consistently praise them for their brilliant work. Ugly girls could go back and have actors leer at them as though they were a beautiful chunk of jailbait. I imagine that you can come up with an example for every high school clique; some wanting to relive some of the best years of their life and some wanting to recreate some of the worst years of their life.

Perhaps the best part of such an endeavor is that many of the customers could probably be persuaded to become actors themselves, simply by offering discounts to customers who agree to gratify other customers. For example, one of the people who are there to have their work praised by a teacher could get a ten percent discount if he agrees to stare at the ugly girl and awkwardly ask her out, and then receive another discount if he agrees to make a bully feel intimidating, and so on. It's possible that some would even volunteer to act as teachers, due to whatever need they may have, and therefore cut the cost even further.

By starting the fees as prohibitively expensive, and then offering discount upon discount in exchange for agreeing to satisfy other patrons, the owner of this endeavor would be getting paid without needing to hire a large staff. If he's careful and intelligent, he could eventually arrange the customers so that they all begin satisfying each others needs in exchange for discounts. It would be necessary to rent the location or to purchase a location for the campus, and of course it would probably be necessary to hire at least a few actors in order to keep control of the situation, and a few security guards to keep the peace, but apart from that you could just sit back and collect 'tuition.'

And they would come. The people who were disappointed by life and look back at High School as their paradise would begin signing up. Classes would probably take place at night, so that students could work during the day. They could get together and roleplay, and it would be pathetic, and they would be mocked, and the man who thought of it would become rich.

If anyone out there has enough money to purchase or rent a campus, all I request is ten percent of the profits in exchange for coming up with the idea.

Why Value Truth?

Original Posting

Keeping with my belief that value is created by human beings, I ask whether it is wise to value truth.

Truth, here, is defined as holding beliefs that conform to reality. This is specifically about truth as it relates to human beliefs.

I'm not really asking why we should value truth, because asking why you should value something only makes sense when something is valued for the sake of something else. This blog assumes that truth is valued for it's own sake, and not for the sake of something else. Mostly, I want to bring up an inherent problem of valuing truth, and then to ask whether it's wise to continue valuing it.

The problem is the fact that it's unattainable. Human beings view reality through very narrow, very subjective slits. We have our senses, we have our reason, and we have instruments that we can use to feed data to our reason that would otherwise be unattainable for our senses. However, there is much that we can't perceive due to weakness (i.e. things that can be perceived, just not with our current equipment) and there may be some that we can't perceive by nature (i.e. things that simply cannot be detected by humans at all). Even leaving aside the possibility that there are things we can't perceive by nature, the fact of the matter is that everyone is placing bets on beliefs without all of the available evidence, and there seems to be no other way.

For one, there is often a great deal of information available, and it's difficult to take it all in. For two, there may be a great deal of information unavailable, which will be impossible to take in until we become capable of accessing it. For three, I don't see how we would know when we have acquired all of the relevant information, how do we know when we've uncovered everything? These are all practical problems to truth, which I think presents a challenge to those of us who value truth.

Why value something that you can't have?

Many people believe that it's counter-productive to point out a problem without offering a solution. Those people, however, can kiss my ass since it's my blog and I can point out whatever the hell I want. I don't really have a solution to this problem, but I'm certainly not bringing it up out of some sense of support for people who want to drop reason. I bring it up simply to illustrate that people who love truth are loving something that they will never absolutely have, they can only experience it in shades.

Nature and Supernature

Original Posting

In the blog before last I wrote:

If God is supernatural, then he is by supernature outside of our grasp. Our minds are natural, our minds deal with natural phenomena, we are natural. If God is supernatural, he would be so utterly unlike anything we've encountered that it would be impossible to conceive of him. Science, reason, and logic all work with natural material, but why suppose that they can also work with supernatural material? Why suppose that the supernatural even operates according to logic? Why suppose that natural minds are equipped to deal with supernatural matters? Most importantly, why suppose that a supernatural entity would leave natural evidence of its existence?

I'm not sure how well I explained myself, but it occurred to me that I should write a blog about the concept of “supernatural.”

Supernatural is one of those words that don't really give a positive description of something (although it might look like it does), what it provides is a negative description. Saying X is supernatural is to say that X lacks the property of being natural. Because of this, we can only understand “supernatural” by understanding “natural.”

So, what is natural? It is the universe. It is our realm. Basically the totality of our existence. All the forces of the universe are natural forces.

What, then, is supernatural? Everything that isn't natural. Specifically, I suppose, it would have to be beyond our natural world to avoid being subnatural, but I'll leave that alone for now. What's important is that “supernatural” refers to anything that is not a part of our realm of existence.

This means that if ghosts actually exist as part of our realm, existing due to hitherto undiscovered forces, they are actually natural, not supernatural. If God does not exist outside of our realm, but is himself part of our universe, then he is not supernatural. Only things that exist apart from our universe are supernatural.

This, as I mentioned before, is a key aspect of my view of God. Anything supernatural we should approach with agnosticism*, because it would be impossible for natural creatures to discover evidence one way or the other about something outside of our realm. All things supernatural would instantly check in at 50%/50% on the probability scale from our natural perspective.

*Although, you could ask if it's even possible for supernatural things to exist. After all, “existence” is a natural property, wouldn't that make it impossible for a supernatural entity to exist or non-exist? Existence would just be the natural property most similar that we would use to try to understand it.

My Agnosticism

Original Posting

After many religious changes, I have settled (for the time being) in agnostic theism. What I mean by this is that I consider knowledge of God's existence to be impossible, and therefore I cannot be said to believe or disbelieve in the existence of God. However, because all I have is a question mark, I choose whether or not I will live my life as though there is a God, and I have chosen to live as though there is*.

Now, my reasoning for being agnostic lies in my understanding of God: I have always defined God as supernatural. I know that there are some who conceive of God as something natural, something that's a part of the natural order, however I would not call such a being 'God' any more than I would call extremely powerful extraterrestrial life 'God.' Whenever I talk of God, I am talking about a supernatural entity.

That is why I judge that agnosticism is the most reasonable position.

If God is supernatural, then he is by supernature outside of our grasp. Our minds are natural, our minds deal with natural phenomena, we are natural**. If God is supernatural, he would be so utterly unlike anything we've encountered that it would be impossible to conceive of him. Science, reason, and logic all work with natural material, but why suppose that they can also work with supernatural material? Why suppose that the supernatural even operates according to logic? Why suppose that natural minds are equipped to deal with supernatural matters? Most importantly, why suppose that a supernatural entity would leave natural evidence of its existence?

That is why I have thrown in my lot with agnosticism, because I do not see any reason to suppose that knowledge on the topic is even possible.



*In principle. Really I live more like a heathen who prays before meals and sleep.
**Unless it's true that we possess spirits that are supernatural.

Our Prejudice; a Freethought Thought Experiment

Original Posting

Freethought is a term generally used to indicate the philosophical position that beliefs should not be based upon tradition, dogma, or fear of consequences, rather that they should be based upon evidence and reason. One of the key ideas that the freethinkers cling to is the idea that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (W. K. Clifford). What sort of free thought is that? It starts out by saying what kind of thinking is off-limits! They reject tradition and dogma, they take away the freedom to embrace irrational means of coming to beliefs!

I'm not, however, too concerned with the misuse of language when developing names for viewpoints. My main goal here is to call attention to the ways that “freethought,” traditionally understood, is not really free, so that I can then highlight what actual freethought would be. It's not really an attack on the freethinking worldview, it's a launching pad for a discussion of my conception of what genuine freethought would be, which is itself a launching pad for a moment of introspection.

To conceive of freethought proper, think of the kinds of thought used in everyday life. Now strip away every prejudice, every bit of non-freedom. What do you have left? Nothing, really. Without prejudice you cannot even say that truth is better than non-truth, you have no criteria for what is 'good' thinking and what is 'bad' thinking, there's nothing but a jumbled up mess of thoughts firing off. Without those little prejudices, there is no framework for our ideas, and everything falls into mental anarchy.

However, ask yourself if your prejudices are justified. How many beliefs comprise the framework of your mind that are based on little more than assumption and prejudice? How many things do you hold to be self-evident?

Our beliefs are one of the main aspects of our selves that we use to define ourselves. However, wouldn't a belief that's based on other faulty beliefs be itself faulty? Any faultiness in our foundations and frameworks could result in us defining ourselves by little more that prejudice. Is there really any other way to do things, though? Doesn't all thinking ultimately come back to those beliefs that we hold to be self-evident?

Is it possible that we just use the term 'self-evident' to escape the more plausible concept that we simply choose certain beliefs as being obvious enough? Is it possible that it all comes down to an act of the will, which states what kind of beliefs we think are obvious enough?

And if it all comes down to the will, what hope for truth do we have?

The Restrictive Nature of a Meaning to Life

Original Posting

If it were your decision whether or not there was an objective meaning of life, which would you choose? Not which meaning, mind you, that's out of your hands, you only get to choose whether or not such a meaning exists. Would you prefer life with a definite, objective meaning/purpose/end or would you prefer life without such a thing?

I have always figured that life would be better with an objective meaning for us to order our lives, principles, and ethics around, but at the same time just imagine how restrictive this would be. If there is an objective purpose to life, then living our life for any other end or any other purpose would mean living incorrectly (in fact, it would be what made living incorrectly possible). Living for another reason than the proper reason would be akin to playing soccer for the sake of patting your teammates on the ass instead of playing for... whatever the purpose of soccer is.

An objective meaning to life invalidates all other purposes we may give to our life. It means that a man living for the purpose is living an objectively better life than any man who does not.

On the other hand: if we say that there is no objective meaning to life except for the meaning we choose to give it, it becomes impossible to say that anyone is living a poor life. All lifestyles become equally valid: a life spent curing three different kinds of cancer is no better than a life spent trying to capture the flag in Warsong Gulch or a life spent trying to accumulate an impressive collection of pornographic Pokemon cartoons. Once we say that there's no objective meaning to life, any meaning becomes equal to all other meanings as soon as someone esteems it.

On the one hand, it seems wrong to say that the fellow who dedicates himself to Warcraft or Pokemon is living an objectively equally valuable existence as the doctor who dedicates his life to curing cancer, but it also may leave a bad taste in your mouth to think that there's an X out there and whoever lives his life for X is living properly while anyone who prefers to live for T, U, V, W, Y, or Z is living for an inferior, improper reason. In the former instance everything is under our will, in the latter instance nothing is under our will.

Of course, I've simplified things down here. Perhaps there are several appropriate things one may live their life for: we escape the horror of having only one valid thing to live for and we probably escape the horror of saying animated porn is equal in value to curing cancer, although we may become powerless to criticize many lifestyles we may find objectionable. But, the main reason I stripped it down is to show the unsavory things one may be believing if one believes in an objective purpose to life or if one believes we create our own meaning.

Let's return to the question we started with: if it were up to you, would you have a universe wherein life has an objective purpose or a life wherein there is no such purpose?

The Importance of Variation

Original Posting

As I was sitting here surfing the internet for things I probably won't even remember tomorrow morning, my mind hopped onto a certain train of thought.

You see, earlier today I was busy writing something for a website I contribute to once a week (that sounds a lot more prestigious when I don't describe the nature of these contributions) and I noticed something during that time: I suddenly had a reawakened desire to study. I suddenly had a desire to do some heavy thinking about some heavy topics. This desire, however, occurred at a time when I couldn't fulfill it because of my prior obligation.

Then, as I lay here in my bed surfing the internet, I had another sudden desire to just start pulling books off of my shelves and begin reading. This, however, occurred on one of the few days I actually need to wake up semi-early tomorrow. Again, the fact that I should not spend my time studying made me want to study much more.

So, I began thinking about what this meant. On the one hand, it's evidence of the fact that we (or at least some of us, apparently myself being one of them) always want what we don't have. When I had to do X I suddenly desired Y even though when I'm free to do Y I often do not have the passion for it that I have when I have to do X. The question, then, is what does this mean for us and our activities?

The conclusion I came to is that unlimited free time (a state I happen to live in for the time being) results in nothing seeming worth a great effort because there's always more time wherein to do it. Because we always have more time to do something, we often do not find this moment better than that moment to do it in. There's always more time, so we're more inclined to put things off and pursue easier pleasures.

This conclusion led me to realize the importance of variation. By variation I mean variety in the situations we find ourselves in at different times. Some situations are better suited for certain activities than others (i.e. it's better to read a book while working than it is while driving, but it's better still to read during your free time than while working), which means we are forced to make value judgments to decide what we're going to spend our time on.

Because we grasp the importance of Y best when you understand that you can only engage in Y for Z amount of time before you have to X. When you have infinite time to engage in Y, you'll have a difficult time grasping it's value in moments.

Unfamiliar Ergo Awesome!

Original Posting

Let me ask you a question. If you lived in a high fantasy world full of strange and unusual races, wonderful creatures like dragons and sex-crazed wood nymphs, wizards who can manipulate the material realm simply through the use of potions and words, and full of ancient treasures, what would boredom be like?

I'm not sure what you answered, but my answer would be: the same as it is in our world.

Go ahead and phrase the question in different worlds: sci-fi, pirate adventure, supernatural investigation, etc. In all those wonderful and fantastic worlds, what would boredom be like? Well, why should boredom be any different in those worlds than our own? Of course I don't think anyone imagines it would be otherwise, they just imagine that boredom wouldn't be much of an issue in those worlds. Or maybe they just imagine that there's a lot more potential for excitement in that kind of world.

Why should such a world seem exciting, though? The High-Fantasy world seems exciting to us, I think, because it contains things that don't exist in our own world. It contains the unfamiliar, and that's why it's interesting. If we lived in a world where Dragons flew over our house everyday, Dragons would become terribly boring to us; if they kept themselves exciting by being violent, then we would find a way to kill them or subdue them.

And then the excitement's gone.

What fascinates us about things unfamiliar to our world is their distance. You've never quite grasped them, there's always another interpretation or another matter to think about. We can always butcher up our own animals and post our knowledge about them on Wikipedia, and of course we might find it interesting, but it won't produce that same fascination that something unknowable would have.

Would it?

Sacrifice of Time

Original Posting

Each minute you can only do one thing (I'm not talking about multi-tasking, what I mean is that one can only do in a minute what one does in fact do in said minute), and then that minute is gone forever. We all have our minutes, but they are only good as sacrifices, we sacrifice them based on what we do in that moment.

Every moment spent reading a book is a moment not spent playing on the internet, every moment spent writing is a moment not spent exercising, etc. This is where the concept of sacrifice comes into play: I have to sacrifice this moment to something, what will it be? It's a sacrifice because once the moment passes you never get it back to spend on something else, it's gone forever.

Most of us take this very lightly, as well we should considering that we would probably go insane if we tried to measure the significance of every moment in our life as they passing away (not to mention it would be a terrible choice to sacrifice those moments to), but perhaps it's appropriate to spend a little time considering this. Ultimately, what you choose to sacrifice your moments to is what determines who you are; we are shaped by what we spend our time doing.

People who spend much of their time on intellectual matters become intellectuals, people who spend much of their time in social situations become more social people, etc. This is the largest way we shape ourselves and mold our character: if you ever wonder who you are look at what you spend your time doing, and if you ever wish to change yourself change what you sacrifice your moments to.

What, then, does your day reveal about you? As for me and my friends, we sacrifice our time to the Void. We prefer to pass the time, i.e. sacrifice time to nothing more than the sacrifice of time.

Damn browser games and Warcraft.

You Know What Would Suck?

Original Posting
Time Machines.

I can think of no more obvious example of where science and human power would be more detrimental to human flourishing. Think about what would happen, if you will, if we were ever able to expand our knowledge and understanding to the degree that we can manipulate the flow of time itself, allowing us to create a device that would allow us to move backward (or forward) in time.

The first issue would be availability. Presumably this would be very expensive machinery, accessible only to a small group of powerful individuals. Still, the excitement and outrage from the public would cause a panic. 'We can go back in time and kill Hitler!' they will think, 'but we can also go back in time and kill Washington, or Newton, or Einstein, or Darwin.' People will be excited about the possibilities of undoing the horrors of the past, but they will also be afraid that someone could undo the great achievements of the past (after all, there's bound to be people who think the world would be a better place without some of them).

Of course, that will only be part of the population. There will be a huge portion of the population that understands what a horrible instrument this could be. After all, one little change in the past can have radical, unpredicted, and unwanted effects on the future. 'Stop the whole thing!' they will say, 'we can't control this! Maybe we can be proud of this accomplishment, it says a lot about human ingenuity to build a device that would allow us to go into the past... but at the end of the day the effects of our actions could have all kinds of unintended consequences. A simple trip to assassinate teenage Adolf could end with us all under Communist rule! Or maybe the Nazis win without Hitler! Or maybe it'll allow anti-Jewish sentiment to persist long enough for someone else to come along and do a more devastating holocaust. Too dangerous, put it away.'

It will not, of course, be put away. If the main argument about changing the past is unpredictable results, this simply means we need to increase our understanding. We cannot say we cannot, it's all a matter of effort! It simply means we need more evidence, more data, more research so that we can precisely calculate the effects of our alterations. Those who decry it as dangerous and unpredictable are passing up a golden opportunity. We finally have the power to fix history! It would be unethical not to use it.

After all, if you (who have knowledge of Hurricane Katrina) could go back in time and warn the appropriate people of the devastation it will cause, wouldn't you be a horrible person not to do so? If you, with all your knowledge of the Nazi's and their attempts to exterminate the Jews and create an Aryan world, do not attempt to warn people then you're no better than the god who sits back while these things happen! For the good of humanity, we must use this technology!

The outcry is still great, of course, so the government has to step in. The government will be asked to put a stop to all this, to keep the people who want to change history from actually doing so. Naturally, the government sees the value of this technology: all of their errors can be fixed. Brush away the Vietnam War, that didn't turn out right. Now that the War in Iraq is no longer popular, get ready to hit the 'undo' button. The public doesn't like it? Well, if we change it, the public won't have any knowledge that history's been changed would it? We were elected to do what's good for the people; even if the people do not like what's good for them we must still do it.

Then, in the name of what's good for humanity, in the name of human flourishing, in the name of living well, the scientist will study to make results predictable and a government team of planners will map out a series of changes that will improve the life of humanity. They'll go back and improve humanity, the ultimate triumph of human power and reason over the natural course of things! They'll control history, in the name of humanity's good of course, and that will result in absolute power.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the [machine] controls the past."

We could all be manipulated easily then, all one would have to do in pinpoint the points wherein we as a society were least suspicious and most willing to trust authority, then make their sweeping changes. If they don't work, just hit 'undo,' and try something else. You've got all the time in the world to find something that works. They'll brush away any ethical objections by reminding themselves that it would be unethical not to try to improve the world in this way.

Then, we'll be powerless. We'll be utterly at the mercy of those who are able to control the machine. Even if we're powerless because our overlords seek our good, we're still powerless.

That's why time machines would suck.