Occam's Razor Post: Mon May 30, 2005 8:58 pm

Date: Mon May 30, 2005 8:58 pm Subject: Physics behind unthinkable feats

This article was exactly how the author likes his subject matter: attention grabbing and interesting.

The first feat - walking on a bed of glass - was more of a magician's trick than a physics explanation. They guy hammers the glass down and moves and pointy edges to the side. This seemed like more of an illusion than an explanation in physics.

The next feat - dipping fingers in molten lead - was very fascinating. now that's actually using physics and thermodynamics to perform an otherwise impossible act. very cool stuff. that would've certainly grabbed my attention in class. I would've actually payed attention to how it worked (my physics teacher sucked).

The third act - bed of nails and brick smashing - was cool too. This time, it was more of a combination of physics and illusion. Physics explains the bed of nails and the distribution of weight and pressure. But the author explains that he chooses easily broken bricks and has his wife smash them. This creates the illusion that she's actually providing all her strength to crush the "strong" bricks, while her husband rests safely between a bed of nails.

The last thing was picking up a piece of orange-hot spacecraft. This was more of a physics explanation. Newton's Law of Cooling would seem much more fascinating after watching this demonstration.

Then, I suppose physics can explain such optical illusions as making an elephant disappear. (Mirrors, misdirection, light rays from elephant blocked and replaced by something the mirror is reflecting). Isn't science great!

Attempt at Finding Pseudo Science in Yahoo Philosophy Group

Date: Mon May 30, 2005 8:08 pm Subject: Re: The blank slate --- 1

--- In msacphilosophygroup@yahoogroups.com, "baoguan82" wrote:> This book is very different than the universe in a nutshell. Ilike> this book better than the other one so far. The black slate didnot> talk about science like the other one did. I guess that¡¯s why the> other book title as a science book and this book is not. I am more> interested in reading the blank slate because it talked abouthuman> nature other than scientific facts.>> I am totally believe Pinker¡¯s idea about ¡°The Noble Savage¡±which> means human beings are born good and as people grow up they slowly> corrupted by the society. There is no way that some people areborn> evil because as an innocent child human being can not distinguishwhat> is evil and good. As people grow up, they adapt the culture, valuethat> created by the society which contains many impurities andcorruptions.


that's cool that you like this book, but it is still a science book. it's not a physics book, but it is a biology/evolutionary book.

i'm only guessing that you are enjoying the first couple chapters so far. As you might have noticed, a few of your classmates have posted similar posts. But you might not have noticed a few people replying who have already read the book and know that it flips on you.

Pinker introduces you to ideas like The Blank Slate and the Noble Savage and the Ghost in the Machine in order to later refute them. It's good that you are warming up to them now, because you'll better understand Pinker's arguements as he progresses.

and people can be born biochemically predisposed to be "evil"

Enjoy the book. It was one of my favorites of the semester.

Occam's Razor Post: Mon May 30, 2005 7:11 pm

Date: Mon May 30, 2005 7:11 pm
Subject: My Critique of Viruses of the Mind

It was a very interesting approach to analogize computer viruses to our brains. It took a while to get the point across, but once it hit, the build up was worth it. It did seem like Dawkins had a target in mind with the Catholic Church, but I completely understand. Even for those who are Catholic can see the relationship and significance of the points in this paper.

It was kind of scary when he was talking about viruses evolving - learning and adapting. It's like a mini-Matrix kinda thing. Well it struck a chord with me, so...

Dawkins didn't go into this but i was thinking about how viruses evolve, and how he compared the Church to a virus. Well the Church has evolved. It it's almost scary to see how advanced it has become.

Hypothetically speaking, if some scientist proved that God didn'texist, there would still be a massive number of Catholics, Christians, Jews, etc. They wouldnt believe the man. Even if he had visible (i don't know how - this is hypothetical) evidence, these religious people would go on with their religious lives.

It's like that one rabbi in Dawkin's paper - he does it because he has been told to do so. If you tell and show these people that their God(s) are false, they are only going to believe it is a test of their faith.

The Viruses of the Mind are too strong.

I think this is the entire point of the paper. It's because of his sweet little six-year-old was going to be under the influence of nuns (Catholics = the most contagious virus of all). If she were infected, it would take extreme effort and will to convince her otherwise. And even that might not be possible.

Occam's Razor Post: Fri May 27, 2005 4:31 pm

Date: Fri May 27, 2005 4:31 pm
Subject: Response to Cold Readings

I'm glad I read the first chapter of Science Friction before I read this article because in the book Shermer gives specific examples of the general statements and questions.

Anyways, in both texts the cold readings are exposed as immoral, dishonest, and evil practices. I agree, but people enjoy them.

I've only had one reading, and it was pretty lame. It was at my Senior Grad Night a few years back. Some dude in a tent moved some rocks around and said something as general as "You'll be experiencing something new." It wasnt that exactly, but I remember thinking how stupid it was.

But I didnt have anything wrong with me when I went. People who go to psychics seek help. And help (bull shit) is what they get. Like the Cold Reading article said, someone just listened to them. I suppose it is cheap therapy.

It was entertaining to read Shermer and see how he was able to fool several people with only one day's practice.

Occam's Razor Post: Fri May 27, 2005 4:05 pm

Date: Fri May 27, 2005 4:05 pm
Subject: Hey Lane, are you a Bright?

I finished chapter 2 in Science Friction where Shermer talks about Brights. From what I know, you are a skeptic. And a Bright is just another name for one.

Is this why you always say, "Be happy. Be radiant. Be stoked."

Radiant =-=-= kinda Bright-ish....

yes? no?

Occam's Razor Post: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 p

Date: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 pm
Subject: My Critique of the Skeptical Manifesto

What I got from this Manifesto was that skepticism is required in science. If you approach science in a "believe everything" way, you're not practicing "good" science.

Then does this mean that all real, factual scientific findings should no longer be tested by skeptics (scientists), since there is nothing further to doubt?

If this is the case, then why are people still trying to either prove or disprove evolution?

Michael Shermer called evolution a fact, and I agree with him. But there are still some skeptical people who try to disprove evolution.

We have one group of skeptics who, through repeated testing and analysis, have determined the evolutionary theory might as well be fact.

But then we have another group of skeptics who don't buy the results and data, and still see evolution as just a theory, or even a hypothesis still.

So why have the first group of skeptics stopped and accepted something while the second group is still searching for answers?

Is there a correct degree or level of skepticism?

My skepticism tells me that the second group of skeptics dont want to believe in evolution because they are trying, in turn, to prove that creationism is correct. But if they used the same determination and skeptic rationality, they would be able to find that creationism is bull shit. As skeptics they shouldn't even be following a religion. All religions are filled with so many gaps and holes that a real skeptic would question and find erroneous.

So then are these second skeptics really skeptics at all? They are trying to disprove evolution scientifically, which would make them skeptics. But if they were skeptics, they would see the error of their ways and eventually realize evolution is correct. But they dont see this, and never look at themselves skeptically.

So can Shermer define a skeptic? By definition, the second group are and aren't skeptics.

One cannot label a skeptic, since there may be several variations to the definition of one skeptic.

I guess that's why he was including those definiions from the OED, so that whoever was reading it would know his angle.

Occam's Razor Post: Wed May 25, 2005 8:25 pm

Date: Wed May 25, 2005 8:25 pm
Subject: Response to Letter #1

My answer:

The "Sikh" intercepted mail that the American was sending home to his sister. In the letter to his sister, he would obviously spell his sister's name correctly, and possibly even mention their mother. Since I took the advice and did a web search, I found that the Sikh only perform miracles "out of compassion or to set an erring person right" (http://allaboutsikhs.com/mansukh/036.htm). So after finding this and remembering the Key Point #1 - "The Sikh approached the American saying he could do this psychic name telling for a price (100 rupeesor so... about 10 bucks)", I think this guy wasn't exactly a good sikh, and possibly a shifty fellow. I came to the conclusion that he found the mail and a chance at a quick buck.

END

END OF PHIL 8 - SUMMER '05
BEGINNING OF PHIL 5 - SPRING '05

Final Question 1

..

Final Question 2

..

Final Question 3

I received a C, but I was one of the two people that passed it on the first try.

Final Question 4

I’m on the C track.

Final Question 5

List all the books you read for this class this semester? How fully? Be honest.

I’ve read every book for the C track, with the exception of the second half of Modern Mind.


5a. LIST any extra credit films.

I had a great idea for one but never found appropriate software.


5B. How many classes have you missed? How many classes were you late to?

I’ve never missed a class and I was about four minutes late to one class.


5c. How well did you do at vertex?

I kicked ass at vertex! I got all the way to Father Yod (50), but choked on my T/F question. I worked my way back up to 42 though. If we hadn’t have stopped that day, I would’ve made it to 51 and won. I had that entire damn dictionary memorized too.


5d. What was your favorite thing in class?

Thinking. Listening. Walking out of class boggled and jam packed with new ideas. Comparing the lecture to my daily life and trying to improve and raise the bar. This is the most satisfying class I've ever taken, and I'll never forget it.

Final Question 6

List ALL the posts you have done for this class (including EVERY POST YOU HAVE ONE).

All of my posts have been re-posted here, in my blogger.

6a. WHAT GRADE DO YOU DESERVE FOR THIS CLASS AND WHY?

I deserve an A because as agreed upon with you on the very first day of class, I’ve read every book, attended every 6:30am class, and passed the midterm. You said, "Stay on the C track," do all the work and you'll go up to a B. And because we needed inspiration to show up every day at 6:30, you said that if we had perfect attendance, we'd go up another letter grade. Also, on April 26th, you said that I “should get an A.” So I’m only holding you to it.

Final Question 7

Nietzsche would criticize Ramana Maharshi as not much more of an influential thinker then that of our daily blue collar worker. First off Nietzsche believes that there lies no real truth, while Ramana Maharshi’s truth is some what of a monistic thought where truth is found by realizing that everything is rooted to an ultimate truth - the doctrine of Advaita. This doctrine has an entire chapter dedicated to it. By Ramana’s acknowledgement of the existence of truth, and claims of interpreters of him having found the absolute truth makes Nietzsche red flag him. “[...] true knowledge is not ‘knowing’ but ‘seeing’. Realization is nothing but seeing God literally.” Since Nietzsche doesn’t believe in God or truth, he would say that Ramana never really realizes anything. Maharshi couldn’t be a real thinker if he isn’t able to come to any conclusions. Because Maharshi’s true knowledge is seeing God, Nietzsche would say that Maharshi will never see true knowledge. And since he couldn’t come to any conclusions, he wasn’t really a philosopher at all. His own book says that “his teaching was not ‘philosophy’ in the usual sense of the term may be seen from the fact that he did not instruct his devotees to think out problems but to eliminate thought” (83). Another way Nietzsche would criticize Maharshi is that Ramana believes in the existence of god, and not only of his existence but takes on a pantheistic view where he believes “God is everything, and everything is God” (104). Nietzsche does not believe in the existence of god so he would definitely not acknowledge that god is everything and everything is god. Nietzsche and Maharshi seem to be on exact opposite standpoints on the ethical system of thought; Nietzsche would not even acknowledge Maharshi as a philosopher, as Maharshi is not. Maharshi rarely challenges problems, instead he teaches his followers to deny the question ever existed. Nietzsche would criticize every view, thought, and aspect of life and truth that Ramana Maharshi believes to have found.

Final Question 8

Flynn takes the blame for everything he does, he knows he’s a New Guinean bastard. He just does it. He acts on his impulses. He does what pleases him. He doesn’t bother or waste time beating around the bush. He’s very straight forward. And by what he’s written, he seems very honest. Even when he slept with other guy’s women, he would admit blame and stand his ground. He wouldn’t pull some, “its not what it looks like” bullshit. He took nature for granted once on a boating trip, which kicked his butt because of a storm. He enjoyed real, raw beauty in nature. He built his house Jamaica. He really enjoyed the outdoors. He went through the jungles in Africa and really had a respect for nature. He saw it for what it was and didn’t really look at the spiritual side of nature. Same with women, they were beautiful things to him.


From what I grasped from reading about Ramana Maharshi, he was a hypocrite. So he lead a life of lies. He lied to his family when he left home, and he never really stopped contradicting himself. To me, this would make him a very dishonest man. He once said “whatever teasing or annoyances there was, I would put up with it quietly.” But this was not the case when the other guru on the mountain was throwing rocks in order “to kill Sri Bhagavan or frighten him away from the hill”, and Ramana “knew well what was happening and on one occasion he quickly and silently climbed the hill and caught the old man in the act.” If he claimed he was so peaceful and submissive, why did he bother to challenge this other guru? (64)

On another instance, one of his early devotees, Mudaliar who had “[an] eagerness and desire to make every effort drove [him] to the idea of renouncing home life and going forth as a penniless wanderer. As in other cases, Sri Bhagavan discouraged this” (93). Maharshi tells him not to and that the road is too difficult for him. While Sri Bhagavan had himself left home and everything behind to follow his believes, contradicting his actions and his teachings.

Throughout the entire book it seemed as though Maharshi was speaking what was supposed to be heard or what was wanted to be heard by his followers. If he was speaking from the heart, or if he was trying to speak the truth, he wasn’t following his words as he should have.

Final Question 9

Six weeks before he left, he had a sudden fear of death. He needed to figure out what to do about it. So he looked inward to find out. He found that he was a deathless spirit and that his “I” was separate from his body. This was his great change – his awakening. He started neglecting his schoolwork, and began to meditate. His brother yelled at him and then he realized “that one who wished to live like a sadhu had no right to enjoy the amenities of home life.” He then decided to leave and leave everything behind. His truth was life. Maharshi found that everything that ever existed in the spiritual and physical world defines god.

Final Question 10

Horgan seemed to really like Wilber. He agreed with everything that he said and did. It wasn’t until he realized this that he tried to find something wrong with him. He noticed that Wilber was “an arrogant asshole” (Wilber’s words, not Horgan’s), even though Horgan claims that that was not what he was getting at. He pointed out that although Wilber seemed modest in person, he was only appearing that way. Really, Wilber was a bragging know-it-all. He just hid it very well. Horgan kept remembering Wilber’s comment, “I’m enlightened, and you’re not.” Just that statement alone is screaming ARROGANT ASSHOLE. So I would say that Horgan’s chief critique of Ken Wilber is that Wilber thinks he knows it all.

Final Question 11

Houston Smith and Ken Wilber were both huge proponents of the perennial philosophy. While smith believes that science is an enemy to the perennialist cause, Wilber embraces science as an ally. Wilber thinks that science is a crucial addition to our society and its progression. Even though smith thought very highly of religion as opposed to science, he doubted the ability of reaching enlightenment or whether enlightenment even ever existed. Wilber on the other hand, “makes enlightenment the be-all and end-all of existence,” and claims to have achieved enlightenment. Smith defines enlightenment as “a quality of life” instead of how Wilber sees it as a state of mind. Also, Wilber is against the use of mind-expanding substances to achieve mystical experiences and doesn’t believe that they are able to produce a “stable, long-term spiritual growth.” Smith isn’t against the use, and uses(used) them himself, but has a similar standpoint saying “Entheogens (what he thinks is the more appropriate term for the drugs) alone do not constitute a spiritual path. [...] they cannot deliver you to that realm permanently.” So they both acknowledge the fact that the drugs can open a path or trigger a “genuine breakthrough”, but they’re not the correct tool to approach or achieve enlightenment.

Final Question 12

I’d say that drugs and mysticism are connected, at least more so than following some crazy guru. At least with drugs it is a personal pathway to guide one’s own divergence into one’s own spirituality. No one can tell you if you’re doing it right or wrong. No one can tell you what you did or did not see. Your experiences are your own. And whether nightmarish or spiritual gateways to the universe, it’s up to the user. I believe mysticism should be judged on a case by case basis, and only by the person experiencing. These judgments can then be generalized or categorized or whateverized, by whomever in order to come to some conclusion about them. But really, it will still be left up to the person experiencing. So Ken Wilber admits that drugs can trigger a “genuine breakthrough” in some people but doesn’t believe it will lead to a stable, long-term spiritual growth. But he only tried LSD once. How does he know it’s not a stable, long-term spiritual growth? He still admits that there is a connection between drugs and mysticism. Stanislav Grof took LSD many times and seemed like he has a nice, stable spiritual growth. Grof’s experiments and research definitely produce a strong positive correlation with drugs and mysticism. Some may disagree. Some might not like it. But drugs are connected to mysticism. It doesn’t discredit the other ways and forms of acquiring mystical experiences. Merely, it’s another option as to how to obtain one.

Final Question 13

Saint Augustine walks into a bar and notices three gentlemen sitting on the barstools. There sat Plato, then Nietzsche, and next to him sat Aristotle. Augustine walked behind the three and listened to them for a while.
Plato: “It’s in your soul, man.”

Nietzsche: “Guys, guys, guys. There is no ultimate truth. It just doesn’t exist.”

Aristotle, pointing to his napkin: “But take a look at my Forms. They clearly lay out truth.”

Plato then says: “Forms do not exist in the physical world. Truth can be conjured in the mind, but not expressed in the physical world in the shape of the Form.”

Nietzsche interrupts and says: “I don’t know why you guys are arguing with me because, as I stated earlier there is no such thing as truth.”

Plato leans over Nietzsche and says to Aristotle: “Dude, he’s just never seen the fire” (fire = enlightenment/truth page 52-56).

Aristotle laughs and then says to Nietzsche: “Dude, you know the truth, its just that you don’t know that you know.”

At this moment, Augustine has had enough. He leans over Nietzsche’s shoulder and brings his head into the argument. He says, “Dude, Nietzsche, you’re so wrong.” He then looks at Plato then Aristotle and says: “you guys have the right idea, but are misguided. The real truth lies in God. You must look to Him, and there you will discover truth. But beware of Evil, because it lurks behind every corner.”

Nietzsche shakes his head and says: “I can’t believe you’re bringing God into this. Don’t you know that GOD IS DEAD!”

Augustine removes his head from the conversation and takes a few steps back. He is speechless.

Nietzsche has had enough and says: “Whatever! There are no original texts! What am I even doing talking to you incorrectly interpreted buffoons?!”

At this very moment, Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine all vanish in three clouds of smoke. Naturally freaked out, Nietzsche spins around on his barstool to find Hume and Kant staring at him with their mouths gapping open.

Nietzsche, eager to explain himself, walks over to their table and sits down. He begins: “He guys, look...

But he’s cut off when both Kant and Hume yell: “Shut up!”

Kant begins: “Look, we were trying to have a discussion until your noise interrupted us. What were you screaming over there?”

Nietzsche replies: “We were discussing truth and then some asshole came in with God this and God that.”
Kant and Hume laugh and say: “We were talking about that very same issue. So what’s your stand?”

Nietzsche rolls his eyes and says: “Well I think that there is no absolute truth, no God, no anything.”

Hume slaps his hand on the table in triumph. He looks at Nietzsche and says: “that’s the conclusion I keep coming to too. You see I have this system of question set up that are able to determine what’s real and what’s not.”

Kant cuts him off and says to Nietzsche: “Ya, but I’ve already proved those wrong.”

Hume frowns and turns to Kant and says: “how so?”

At this moment, their waiter came up to the table and began to pick up the empty glasses. The young, tan, and handsome waiter then asked if there was anything he could get for the gentlemen. Nietzsche shook his head but Kant suggested another round. The waiter nodded and went to retrieve their order. Just then, the manager of the bar walked past their table and Hume grabbed his sleeve gently to get his attention.

Manager: “Is there anything I can help you with, sir? Any problems?”

Hume replied: “No sir, I just wanted to complement you on your staff. Your waiter was extremely courteous and polite.”

The manager nodded and said: “Ya, that David Lane’s a great guy. He enjoys working here because he believes he can gain something from gentlemen like yourselves talking about life, love, truth, and philosophy.”

Hume whispered into the manager’s ear: “We’ll be sure to speak up then.”

After the manager walks away, Hume turns back to Kant and says: “As you were saying”

Kant said: “well I was able to take your two questions which you’ve based this system upon and fixed a flaw. With this correction I’ve obtained my own question, 'is it a synthetic a priori truth?' I’ve been able to use this question to prove that truth, and even God exist”

Hume’s eyes were lit up, and his face became red: “You cant do that. There’s no such thing as a synthetic a priori truth”

Kant then said: “Ah, but there is. It’s more of a meaningful statement about reality whose truth is known independently of observation”

Hume was now speechless.

The beers arrived, and Nietzsche downed his instantly. He said, hoping it would work: “You know guys, Whatever! There are no original texts! What am I even doing talking to you incorrectly interpreted buffoons?!”

At that very moment, Kant and Hume disappear in two clouds of smoke. Nietzsche grabs their beers and drinks them. “Fuck, I’m going insane.”

Final Question 14

Other than occupying Grof’s interests and investigations, LSD changed his life. Horgan writes, “Although he began his career as a strict Freudian and an atheist, over the years his views changed radically as a result of his research on LSD and other drugs.” LSD was the reason behind his work. Grof originally studied to be a Freudian psychoanalyst in college. After college he tried LSD and obviously enjoyed it enough to base his career around it. He argues that LSD can unlock unconscious memories, including scenes from childbirth and infancy. I think his Freudian teachings had a large impact on how he interpreted his research on LSD. He derived many other logical ideas that went along with psychedelic use. I also think that without LSD, Grof wouldn’t have work or a career, or at least famous ones. He’d still be dream interpreting and listening to people’s free associations if he hadn’t experimented with LSD. LSD was essential to his work because that’s mostly what he worked on. It gave rise to his different thinking and different approaches to research.

Final Question 15

From what I understood, Kant’s most significant contribution to philosophy was how he was able to defend philosophy against Hume’s attack on it. Hume had these two yes or no questions that he used to determine what actually existed or not. According to these two questions, God didn’t exist, self didn’t exist, etc. they all received “no”’s for their answers to the question and therefore couldn’t exist. These questions could also state that philosophy didn’t exist. This is where Kant comes in to save the day. Using logic and reasoning he was able to prove that God did in fact exist. Kant took Hume’s two questions and turned them around into a “synthetic a priori truth”, which was “a meaningful statement about reality whose truth is known independently of observation.” So you didn’t have to see God in order for his existence to be true.

Final Question 16

I didn’t read all of Modern Mind. I’ll do my best.