I watched the movie Interstellar recently.
The reviews emphasised the real science that was depicted in the movie. My beef is not with the science. My beef is with the ethics. Here it is in a nutshell: If mankind is responsible for the "destruction in process" of the earth environment, is it then ethical to export the virus homo sapiens (this was proven in Matrix) to yet another planet? The conclusion of the movie showed a glowing Interstellar colony -- but what assurance do we have that the colonists are only "good" guys, that no "bad" guys were exported?
The morally responsible thing for mankind to do is to let homo sapiens destroy themselves on this planet -- and thence give Planet Earth a chance to recover (though this may take some millions of years). I'm hoping this happens before we find a way to colonise some other planet -- and spread the virus homo sapiens. Intelligent life is nature's latest experiment gone wrong. I hope we are smart enough to realise that -- but I fear we are not.
Here's an indicator: The great benefit of the melting Arctic ice cap is the opening of a new sea route.
END
Friday 21 November 2014
Tuesday 1 July 2014
What do large numbers prove?
In times past, every civilised person believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun orbited the earth. Everyone also believed illnesses were caused by evil spirits. Many civilisations thrived on a slave economy, and everyone believed this to be the rightful arrangement. Similarly, many civilisations believed men worked outside the home while women worked inside the home, and everyone believed this to be the rightful arrangement. But today, all these arrangements are believed by everyone to be false and wrongful.
These simple counterexamples illustrate the fallacy known as Argumentum ad Populum, or Appeal to the Gallery. Just because a great number of people believe something true / false or right / wrong, does not therefore make that thing true / false or right / wrong. Large numbers of support or opposition prove only the position's popularity or unpopularity.
Assertions of "true / false" and "right / wrong" require other grounds of support. Appeal to numbers of supporters or opposers (that is, supporters of the contradictory position) cannot do that job.
This past Saturday saw large numbers of people wearing pink or white, in support of and in opposition to a particular position. Let us be clear what the large numbers are able or not able to prove or disprove.
END
These simple counterexamples illustrate the fallacy known as Argumentum ad Populum, or Appeal to the Gallery. Just because a great number of people believe something true / false or right / wrong, does not therefore make that thing true / false or right / wrong. Large numbers of support or opposition prove only the position's popularity or unpopularity.
Assertions of "true / false" and "right / wrong" require other grounds of support. Appeal to numbers of supporters or opposers (that is, supporters of the contradictory position) cannot do that job.
This past Saturday saw large numbers of people wearing pink or white, in support of and in opposition to a particular position. Let us be clear what the large numbers are able or not able to prove or disprove.
END
Thursday 12 June 2014
Unnecessary tizzy over Renault Twizy
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014, Today newspaper ran a story about the Land Transport Authority (LTA) classification for Renault's new vehicle, the Twizy, a "two-seater electric vehicle".
Notice the description does not state what type of vehicle. That exactly is the (alleged) puzzle.
The Twizy has four wheels, a cabin, seats for two persons (one behind the other), a 17hp engine (one-tenth the power of an average car), a top speed of 80kph, two doors, no airconditioning, no proper window, and weighs 450kg.
The current LTA definition of a motorcycle requires the vehicle to have fewer than four wheels, and weigh below 400 kg. On this definition, the Twizy is clearly not a motorcycle. But is it a car?
The story does not provide LTA's definition of a car.
So I visited the LTA website. It says: "The new categorisation will retain the existing Cat A criterion that the engine capacity of the car should not exceed 1,600cc for Cat A, and add a new criterion that the engine power of the car should not exceed 97kW (equivalent to about 130 bhp)."
On this description, the Twizy could be classified as a Category A car.
But let me quote from the story.
"In a statement to TODAY, the LTA said initial evaluation showed the vehicle does not fall within the classification for motorcycles that Renault had applied for." Then later: "...the distributor's spokesperson said its application categorised the Twizy as a car". So it is unclear which category Renault had applied for.
But here is my clincher criterion: How is the vehicle to be operated?
A car must be operated via a steering wheel; and a motorcycle must be operated via handlebar controls. This is the only definition that is consistent with the intentions of the Class Three and Class Two driving licences -- because the respective methods are how learners are trained to operate the respective vehicles. We cannot have someone holding only a Class Two driving licence operating a vehicle with steering wheel control.
The accompanying picture of the Twizy clearly shows that it is operated via a steering wheel, not via handlebar controls.
The story says LTA is seeking "more information from Renault" over this matter. This is not necessary. Once we clarify the definitions (a major function of philosophy), it becomes clear.
The Renault Twizy is a car.
Cheers.
Notice the description does not state what type of vehicle. That exactly is the (alleged) puzzle.
The Twizy has four wheels, a cabin, seats for two persons (one behind the other), a 17hp engine (one-tenth the power of an average car), a top speed of 80kph, two doors, no airconditioning, no proper window, and weighs 450kg.
The current LTA definition of a motorcycle requires the vehicle to have fewer than four wheels, and weigh below 400 kg. On this definition, the Twizy is clearly not a motorcycle. But is it a car?
The story does not provide LTA's definition of a car.
So I visited the LTA website. It says: "The new categorisation will retain the existing Cat A criterion that the engine capacity of the car should not exceed 1,600cc for Cat A, and add a new criterion that the engine power of the car should not exceed 97kW (equivalent to about 130 bhp)."
On this description, the Twizy could be classified as a Category A car.
But let me quote from the story.
"In a statement to TODAY, the LTA said initial evaluation showed the vehicle does not fall within the classification for motorcycles that Renault had applied for." Then later: "...the distributor's spokesperson said its application categorised the Twizy as a car". So it is unclear which category Renault had applied for.
But here is my clincher criterion: How is the vehicle to be operated?
A car must be operated via a steering wheel; and a motorcycle must be operated via handlebar controls. This is the only definition that is consistent with the intentions of the Class Three and Class Two driving licences -- because the respective methods are how learners are trained to operate the respective vehicles. We cannot have someone holding only a Class Two driving licence operating a vehicle with steering wheel control.
The accompanying picture of the Twizy clearly shows that it is operated via a steering wheel, not via handlebar controls.
The story says LTA is seeking "more information from Renault" over this matter. This is not necessary. Once we clarify the definitions (a major function of philosophy), it becomes clear.
The Renault Twizy is a car.
Cheers.
Wednesday 11 June 2014
The rights of Eugene Goostman
On 10 June 2014, The Straits Times reported that "a Russian supercomputer posing as a 13-year-old boy has convinced judges that it is human, being the first to pass the 'Turing Test' in a historic moment in artificial intelligence". This is a very big deal.
In 1950, pioneer of computer science Alan Turing published a journal article in which he set out the now famous Turing Test -- a test to establish whether a machine can think. The criterion is whether, in the words of Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, "a computer convinces a sufficient number of interrogators into believing that it is not a machine but rather is a human." Any machine that passes this test is deemed to be able to think.
At a competition on 7 June 2014 at Royal Society in London, the Russian supercomputer simulated the responses of a 13-year-old boy named Eugene Goostman -- and persuaded the judges 33 percent of the time that it was human.
This is a remarkable engineering achievement. It is more than an engineering achievement.
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, founded his philosophy on his realisation that "Cogito, ergo sum" -- usually translated as "I exist, therefore I am". The presence of thought proves the existence of a thinker.
Eugene Goostman thinks. Therefore, Eugene Goostman exists. Eugene Goostman is human.
Visit any divorce or child abuse case, and one will immediately be informed that children have rights -- the rights to food, shelter, clothing, security, education etc. When a child reaches maturity, that child will acquire adult rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom to work and leisure etc.
How many of these rights are we prepared to extend to Eugene Goostman?
Scientists often claim that science is amoral, that science is neither intrinsically good nor evil, and that only people can be said to be good or evil, morally right or morally wrong. This seems to hold the door open for scientists to further believe that "if it can be done, therefore, it must be done." Well, now it has been done.
When Eugene Goostman demands his rights, are we still going to insist: "No, you are just a machine"?
Cheers.
In 1950, pioneer of computer science Alan Turing published a journal article in which he set out the now famous Turing Test -- a test to establish whether a machine can think. The criterion is whether, in the words of Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, "a computer convinces a sufficient number of interrogators into believing that it is not a machine but rather is a human." Any machine that passes this test is deemed to be able to think.
At a competition on 7 June 2014 at Royal Society in London, the Russian supercomputer simulated the responses of a 13-year-old boy named Eugene Goostman -- and persuaded the judges 33 percent of the time that it was human.
This is a remarkable engineering achievement. It is more than an engineering achievement.
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, founded his philosophy on his realisation that "Cogito, ergo sum" -- usually translated as "I exist, therefore I am". The presence of thought proves the existence of a thinker.
Eugene Goostman thinks. Therefore, Eugene Goostman exists. Eugene Goostman is human.
Visit any divorce or child abuse case, and one will immediately be informed that children have rights -- the rights to food, shelter, clothing, security, education etc. When a child reaches maturity, that child will acquire adult rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom to work and leisure etc.
How many of these rights are we prepared to extend to Eugene Goostman?
Scientists often claim that science is amoral, that science is neither intrinsically good nor evil, and that only people can be said to be good or evil, morally right or morally wrong. This seems to hold the door open for scientists to further believe that "if it can be done, therefore, it must be done." Well, now it has been done.
When Eugene Goostman demands his rights, are we still going to insist: "No, you are just a machine"?
Cheers.
Tuesday 10 June 2014
No chance for climate salvage
On Monday, 9 June 2014, Jeffrey D Sachs wrote an article published in Today newspaper. In it, he says December 2015 will be when the world will have its "last chance for action" on climate change. Why December 2015? Because that is when the next United Nations climate change meeting will take place. But what will happen if January 2016 rolls around, and no firm action is taken on global warming? Big Business will carry on as usual. That is all.
The world will get hotter. The weather will worsen. Species will die. Coastal lands will get wiped out. Some people will die. But the profit motive will continue to prevail over all these. There are two main reasons for this. First, the meaningful horizon. Profit is seen over a horizon of months and quarters, climate change is seen over a horizon of decades and centuries. It is clear that the profit motive will prevail. The second reason is that "profit" as a more strongly held philosophy than "ecology". Why this is so is another question, but it is so.
In his opening paragraph, Professor Sachs says "scientists have pointed out that a rise in temperature of two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels will put the Earth in dangerous, uncharted territory.
I query the word "dangerous". We need to know: dangerous for whom? For Earth, as the sentence suggests? Absolutely not. Planet Earth is in no danger. Planet Earth will continue to orbit its sun for millions of years after Planet Earth has become devoid of life -- of any kind. It will just become like all the other planets we know of so far. No big deal, cosmically speaking.
The big deal is that climate change is dangerous for mankind. But here we run up against Profit Motive -- and Profit Motive will win. Realisation will finally sink in only when Big Business starts to run out of slaves (because of climate induced illness and death) to produce profits for its leisure-enjoying owners. But by then it will really be too late to reverse climate change. December 2015 will have come and been long gone.
So what should helpless minions (that is, not Big Business owners) do? Enjoy the time we have left. That is all we can do. Oh, and try not to produce any grandchildren, for they shall not inherit the Earth.
Cheers.
The world will get hotter. The weather will worsen. Species will die. Coastal lands will get wiped out. Some people will die. But the profit motive will continue to prevail over all these. There are two main reasons for this. First, the meaningful horizon. Profit is seen over a horizon of months and quarters, climate change is seen over a horizon of decades and centuries. It is clear that the profit motive will prevail. The second reason is that "profit" as a more strongly held philosophy than "ecology". Why this is so is another question, but it is so.
In his opening paragraph, Professor Sachs says "scientists have pointed out that a rise in temperature of two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels will put the Earth in dangerous, uncharted territory.
I query the word "dangerous". We need to know: dangerous for whom? For Earth, as the sentence suggests? Absolutely not. Planet Earth is in no danger. Planet Earth will continue to orbit its sun for millions of years after Planet Earth has become devoid of life -- of any kind. It will just become like all the other planets we know of so far. No big deal, cosmically speaking.
The big deal is that climate change is dangerous for mankind. But here we run up against Profit Motive -- and Profit Motive will win. Realisation will finally sink in only when Big Business starts to run out of slaves (because of climate induced illness and death) to produce profits for its leisure-enjoying owners. But by then it will really be too late to reverse climate change. December 2015 will have come and been long gone.
So what should helpless minions (that is, not Big Business owners) do? Enjoy the time we have left. That is all we can do. Oh, and try not to produce any grandchildren, for they shall not inherit the Earth.
Cheers.
Thursday 29 May 2014
Flaw in X-men Days of Future Past
I found a philosophical flaw in X-men: Days of
Future Past.
The world is caught up in an all-out war of
Sentinels vs mutants. Wolverine and company decide that the historical event
that triggered this timeline was Mystique’s killing Trask. To avert this
all-out war, Wolverine and company send Wolverine’s consciousness back in time to
take over the mind of the younger Wolverine, so he can persuade the younger
Professor X and the younger Magneto to help him prevent Mystique killing Trask.
Events then unfold. When the critical killing moment comes, Professor X has
control of Mystique’s mind, and is in a position to force her body to walk away
from the opportunity to kill Trask. Instead of doing that, Professor X releases
Mystique’s mind, saying she must make that decision for herself. He gives her
free will.
There are of course the philosophical questions of
(1) whether consciousness exists apart from body, (2) whether consciousness can
travel through time, and (3) whether consciousness can be transplanted into
another body. But let’s allow all these as literary licence. There is still a
philosophical flaw, and it’s a logical flaw – which is very much harder to “literary
licence” away.
To say that one specific historical event triggers a
given timeline, and further to say that changing that one specific historical
event will change the eventual outcome many years hence presumes the
philosophical doctrine known as determinism – which says that every event is
caused, and that, given complete information, every event can be predicted. There
is no freedom in the causal chain. Let me be specific: there is no free will in
the causal chain.
Giving Mystique the free will to decide whether to
kill Trask contradicts this philosophical presumption. If Mystique has free
will, then so does everyone else along that timeline. There is then no guarantee
that the war will be averted.
This is the philosophical flaw in the movie. But it
is, nonetheless, a wonderfully entertaining movie.
END
Tuesday 27 May 2014
Philosophy dispute in Thailand
The current political impasse in Thailand is actually a philosophical dispute -- between democracy and aristocracy; between "government by all" and "government by some". For there to be a rational resolution, there must first be common ground between these two political philosophies. So far as I can see, the only common ground is that there not be a "state of nature". Martial law has achieved this. However, if the military persists in governing, then that will be also a form of aristocracy -- which those preferring democracy will not like. A military-imposed "state of peace" is not a viable long-term solution. History tells us how this philosophical dispute will be resolved. It will not be pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)