I recently completed my best work to date: the formulation of an instrument to address any question whatsoever. Here's the basic concept. All questions fall into one or more of seven generic question forms, each of which can be addressed with an algorithm. The set of seven question forms and their associated algorithms enable us to address any question whatsoever.
Eager to test my creation, I asked several of my philosophy cafe regulars to try it out. They were nice enough to agree, and we gathered in a food court to do the needful. After some chit-chat, we began the experiment.
The two questions they tossed at my newly created instrument were: "Is a red apple a green apple?" and "Can a thing be also not a thing?" They said these were intended to stress test the instrument. When it produced the answers "no" and "no", the testers' reaction was less than enthusiastic. They seemed dismayed that the answers were what they were, and that the answers were so quickly arrived at.
I have long known that people like to jump to conclusions, with little or no concern for sound arguments supporting those conclusions. The work that needs to be done here is to slow their thinking down and to make them give due regard to supporting arguments.
This experience awakened in me a new insight. People interested in philosophy are reluctant to reach conclusions, regardless the supporting arguments. Certainly this is what I find in published philosophy -- endless hairs being split, and endless complications being introduced, with no end in sight. The work that needs to be done here is to persuade philosophers that answering one question does not entail the demise of all questions. There will be other philosophically interesting questions for us to examine.
The experience also makes me wonder about whether or not to resume my philosophy cafe sessions. Is there now no point in resuming it, or is there now an additional point in resuming it? What would Don Quixote say?
END
Showing posts with label miscellaneous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label miscellaneous. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
PIQUE
In this wondrous land of acronyms, here's one I thought up recently.
PIQUE stands for Philosophically Interesting Questions for You to Examine.
I think it's quite nice.
END
PIQUE stands for Philosophically Interesting Questions for You to Examine.
I think it's quite nice.
END
Philosophy of religion
The cartoon strip "Non Sequitur" in The Straits Times of 6 November 2010 has Danae setting up her own church. She says: "I'm taking the doctrines from all the mainstream religions into one church to end all the fighting over who has the most peaceful religion."
It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.
It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?
I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.
The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.
The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:
1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.
Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.
END
It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.
It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?
I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.
The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.
The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:
1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.
Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.
END
Friday, 30 July 2010
Investigating Inception
Here's a quick post on the movie that so many commentators are raving about: Inception.
It's a great action movie, set in five different locales: Reality, and four increasingly deeper dream levels, each identified by a different physical setting (airplane, van, hotel, ice, beach). The dream levels are achieved by the simple plot device of declaring it to be so. Inception is really no different from any typical James Bond action movie set in several exotic parts of the world. The only difference is that instead of storyboarding the shifts as travelling across the globe, it is storyboarded such that the shift is achieved by entering a deeper level of dream. Neat trick.
Now for the dreams. The characters in the movie enter a shared dream in a location designed by an architect. We have no ordinary experience of people sharing dreams, but I suppose we can stipulate that this is possible with some (undefined) technology (which the characters in the movie have somehow mastered).
However, we do experience solo dreams, and even occasionally a dream in a dream. But notice that our (unconscious) attention is always on only one level of dream at any one time. When we are in the first level of dream, we are not aware we are tossing and turning in our beds. When we are in our dream within a dream, we are not aware that we are already in a dream -- we are engrossed in the third reality. In short, we do not dream simultaneously at several levels -- but that is what happens in the movie. Well, perhaps we can also stipulate that this is possible with some (undefined) technology (which the characters in the movie have somehow mastered -- but I do wonder how the "victim" has also mastered this skill).
What really caught my attention is the movie's initial premiss: that the only way to plant an idea in someone's mind is through inception -- invading someone's subconscious via his dreams.
This is just not true.
Pedagogues and demagogues have always known how to plant ideas in others' minds. They do it through newspapers, magazines, books, television, speeches, pictures, conversations, hints, satires, plays, novels; indeed, through any medium they can find -- even movies. There is absolutely no need to resort to anything so mysterious, difficult and complex as inception.
It may be claimed that only inception will work if we want the victim to think that his new idea is original to him. This again is not necessary. In our ordinary experience, we come up with many ideas that we believe originate with us, but it's just that we do not know where the seeds of these ideas come from. It could easily be from any one or more of the media mentioned above.
In conclusion, Inception is not a masterpiece (as so many say it is). It is an ingeniously disguised action movie. We have been inceived.
END
It's a great action movie, set in five different locales: Reality, and four increasingly deeper dream levels, each identified by a different physical setting (airplane, van, hotel, ice, beach). The dream levels are achieved by the simple plot device of declaring it to be so. Inception is really no different from any typical James Bond action movie set in several exotic parts of the world. The only difference is that instead of storyboarding the shifts as travelling across the globe, it is storyboarded such that the shift is achieved by entering a deeper level of dream. Neat trick.
Now for the dreams. The characters in the movie enter a shared dream in a location designed by an architect. We have no ordinary experience of people sharing dreams, but I suppose we can stipulate that this is possible with some (undefined) technology (which the characters in the movie have somehow mastered).
However, we do experience solo dreams, and even occasionally a dream in a dream. But notice that our (unconscious) attention is always on only one level of dream at any one time. When we are in the first level of dream, we are not aware we are tossing and turning in our beds. When we are in our dream within a dream, we are not aware that we are already in a dream -- we are engrossed in the third reality. In short, we do not dream simultaneously at several levels -- but that is what happens in the movie. Well, perhaps we can also stipulate that this is possible with some (undefined) technology (which the characters in the movie have somehow mastered -- but I do wonder how the "victim" has also mastered this skill).
What really caught my attention is the movie's initial premiss: that the only way to plant an idea in someone's mind is through inception -- invading someone's subconscious via his dreams.
This is just not true.
Pedagogues and demagogues have always known how to plant ideas in others' minds. They do it through newspapers, magazines, books, television, speeches, pictures, conversations, hints, satires, plays, novels; indeed, through any medium they can find -- even movies. There is absolutely no need to resort to anything so mysterious, difficult and complex as inception.
It may be claimed that only inception will work if we want the victim to think that his new idea is original to him. This again is not necessary. In our ordinary experience, we come up with many ideas that we believe originate with us, but it's just that we do not know where the seeds of these ideas come from. It could easily be from any one or more of the media mentioned above.
In conclusion, Inception is not a masterpiece (as so many say it is). It is an ingeniously disguised action movie. We have been inceived.
END
Friday, 30 April 2010
Ip Man 2 and philosophy
I have just finished watching Ip Man 2. It is a great action movie. The plot is thinnner than rice paper, but it's a great action movie.
English boxer Twister disparages Chinese martial artists as dancers rather than fighters, and scornfully challenges them to duels. Master Hung accepts the challenge. Twister beats Master Hung to a pulp. Master Hung refuses to surrender, saying that he cannot allow Chinese martial arts be insulted. The fight continues -- until Master Hung dies in the boxing ring.
After the funeral, Master Ip challenges Twister. He beats Twister to a pulp. At the post-fight interview, Master Ip says: "I did not fight Twister to prove that Chinese martial arts are superior to Western boxing. I did it to prove that even though people are not equal in social status, we are equal in deserving of respect." These philosophical words were greeted with a standing ovation -- by both Chinese and English members of the audience.
I have questions.
Master Hung fights to protest the insult to Chinese martial arts. Look around the world today. Many use violence to protest what they perceive as insults to them. The rest of the world calls the violent protesters names, which are seen as further insults, to be replied to with more violence. Is violence the correct answer to insults?
Master Ip said his philosophical words after he had beaten Twister to a pulp. Suppose Twister had beaten Master Ip to a pulp, or even killed him the way he had earlier killed Master Hung. I doubt then that the same philosophical words would have evoked the same emotional response, the same moral approval. It appears that the outcome of the fight is relevant to the truth of those words. Can this be?
People do generally say that respect is not freely given, but must be earned and deserved. One does not respect those not deserving of it. This directly contradicts the claim that all people are equal in deserving of respect. (Social status is irrelevant to this consideration.) Are Master Ip's philosophical words, emotionally evocative as they were in the given context, upon cold examination after all not true?
Enjoy the movie -- then think about it.
English boxer Twister disparages Chinese martial artists as dancers rather than fighters, and scornfully challenges them to duels. Master Hung accepts the challenge. Twister beats Master Hung to a pulp. Master Hung refuses to surrender, saying that he cannot allow Chinese martial arts be insulted. The fight continues -- until Master Hung dies in the boxing ring.
After the funeral, Master Ip challenges Twister. He beats Twister to a pulp. At the post-fight interview, Master Ip says: "I did not fight Twister to prove that Chinese martial arts are superior to Western boxing. I did it to prove that even though people are not equal in social status, we are equal in deserving of respect." These philosophical words were greeted with a standing ovation -- by both Chinese and English members of the audience.
I have questions.
Master Hung fights to protest the insult to Chinese martial arts. Look around the world today. Many use violence to protest what they perceive as insults to them. The rest of the world calls the violent protesters names, which are seen as further insults, to be replied to with more violence. Is violence the correct answer to insults?
Master Ip said his philosophical words after he had beaten Twister to a pulp. Suppose Twister had beaten Master Ip to a pulp, or even killed him the way he had earlier killed Master Hung. I doubt then that the same philosophical words would have evoked the same emotional response, the same moral approval. It appears that the outcome of the fight is relevant to the truth of those words. Can this be?
People do generally say that respect is not freely given, but must be earned and deserved. One does not respect those not deserving of it. This directly contradicts the claim that all people are equal in deserving of respect. (Social status is irrelevant to this consideration.) Are Master Ip's philosophical words, emotionally evocative as they were in the given context, upon cold examination after all not true?
Enjoy the movie -- then think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)