A member of parliament in the UK has called for the reintroduction of capital punishment. See here. Is this a good idea? Before reaching any conclusions as to the desirability, or otherwise, of capital punishment, we need to be aware of a whole range of issues.
There's the issue of the purpose of executing. Is its purpose to act as a deterrent, or rather is its purpose an appropriate retribution or punishment instead?
Indeed, does it in fact deter? If it does, should we execute people if the net sum of peoples' lives are saved, even if we regard capital punishment as barbaric? Or if it does not deter, at least not significantly, is retribution or punishment enough of a justification for its reintroduction? Regardless of whether the purpose is deterrence or retribution, how does the possibility of executing an innocent person effect our decision here?
What about the cost of keeping them in prison for many years compared to execution?
What about the issue of the ultimate origins of our behaviour? Are we mere meat robots whose behaviour is determined by physical laws rather than our conscious intentions? Even if, in a suitable sense, it is me that determines my behaviour, am I just purely a product of my environment? In other words are we born morally neutral? If physical laws, or the environment, or both, wholly determines our behaviour then why would any punishment be justified?
Alternatively, do we have free will and are we the type of people we are, at least in part, due to an innate component? That is say, do we self-determine to a degree how moral we are even though the environment and genetics plays a large role in influencing our behaviour too?
Who should we execute? Anyone who illegally and with premeditation murders someone else? What about a woman who murders her husband as a result of being beat up by him day after day, year after year? Or murdering anyone who has made your life a living hell? What about murder due to a hopeless all-consuming jealousy?
Is executing, in fact, a greater punishment than spending many years languishing in prison? That also depends on what will actually happen to that person after death.
Sunday, 4 November 2018
Thursday, 1 November 2018
When I first went on the net
Got my very first computer ever at the end of 1998 (a place called Time computers and cost me around £1400. It had a 10GB hard drive and everyone thought that was huge at the time). Didn't go on the net till about 6 months later. You had to connect your computer to a phone line and you had to pay for each minute you were online. So even when I figured out how to get on the net, I only spent very brief periods online.
However, in 1999 or 2000 my phone company, NTL, introduced a special offer. On Saturday you could ring a national number (as opposed to a cheaper local number) and speak on the phone to someone as long as you like, all for 40p!
So what I did is I used this national number for my computer to connect up to the net! Hence, each Friday at midnight I went on the net. And in the morning I connected to the net and was on it all day until midnight. So spent around 2 hours after midnight on net, then on all day Saturday too (never went on for the rest of the week of course since it would have cost me a packet).
It didn't even cost me 40p since NTL had another offer whereby if you spent a certain amount on telephone bills you got a discount. But they applied the discount before reducing my Saturday bills to 40p. They result was that NTL actually gave me money for going on the net all day!
However, in 1999 or 2000 my phone company, NTL, introduced a special offer. On Saturday you could ring a national number (as opposed to a cheaper local number) and speak on the phone to someone as long as you like, all for 40p!
So what I did is I used this national number for my computer to connect up to the net! Hence, each Friday at midnight I went on the net. And in the morning I connected to the net and was on it all day until midnight. So spent around 2 hours after midnight on net, then on all day Saturday too (never went on for the rest of the week of course since it would have cost me a packet).
It didn't even cost me 40p since NTL had another offer whereby if you spent a certain amount on telephone bills you got a discount. But they applied the discount before reducing my Saturday bills to 40p. They result was that NTL actually gave me money for going on the net all day!
Tuesday, 23 October 2018
Computer Games
Back in 1998, before I'd even got my very first computer, I borrowed a PlayStation off someone together with a couple of games, "Resident Evil" and "Tomb Raider". I hadn't played any computer games since the early 80's when I used to play space invaders, asteroids, pacman etc, both in the arcades and in a simpler form on my Atari 2600 console.
Anyway, I used to love playing those games, although they did get tedious after a while. I got ridiculously good at all of them e.g watch me play the first Space Invaders here, or Space Invaders 2 here. And then I started playing Resident Evil . .wow . . just wow! Really it bore absolutely no relationship to the computer games I had hitherto played. I was in a 3D environment controlling a person called Jill being attacked by zombies and solving puzzles. I was entranced! 7/03/22 Edited to add. I've managed to get hold of this original 1996 version! Played it live as Jill using no saves and just using a knife. Go here.
Then I played Tomb Raider, and I was even more blown away! The haunting music, the satisfaction of figuring out the puzzles, completely exploring a level, only to then start a brand new level with more puzzles and exploring to do. I loved it!
Those two games, the first two 3D games I ever played, have remained unsurpassed. Tomb Raider 2, Half Life (the 1st one) and Far Cry (the 1st one) were all excellent too, but not as good as those first 2 games.
Now I'm trying to play games such as Far Cry 3 etc (see me play Far Cry 3 here), but these more modern games just don't hold the same magic, and I get sick of playing them. I don't know why, maybe because I'm older, but I suspect not so much thought has been put into these games to make them so entrancing.
Anyway, I used to love playing those games, although they did get tedious after a while. I got ridiculously good at all of them e.g watch me play the first Space Invaders here, or Space Invaders 2 here. And then I started playing Resident Evil . .wow . . just wow! Really it bore absolutely no relationship to the computer games I had hitherto played. I was in a 3D environment controlling a person called Jill being attacked by zombies and solving puzzles. I was entranced! 7/03/22 Edited to add. I've managed to get hold of this original 1996 version! Played it live as Jill using no saves and just using a knife. Go here.
Then I played Tomb Raider, and I was even more blown away! The haunting music, the satisfaction of figuring out the puzzles, completely exploring a level, only to then start a brand new level with more puzzles and exploring to do. I loved it!
Those two games, the first two 3D games I ever played, have remained unsurpassed. Tomb Raider 2, Half Life (the 1st one) and Far Cry (the 1st one) were all excellent too, but not as good as those first 2 games.
Now I'm trying to play games such as Far Cry 3 etc (see me play Far Cry 3 here), but these more modern games just don't hold the same magic, and I get sick of playing them. I don't know why, maybe because I'm older, but I suspect not so much thought has been put into these games to make them so entrancing.
Monday, 22 October 2018
How successful are people with high IQ's?
Reading the following article it says:
Termites = those with average IQ's of 151 at 11 years of age
Being successful in a capitalistic sense will presumable involve all sorts of factors of which IQ is only one small part. Equally essential is working hard at school, being ambitious, being able to get on with other people, being good looking, being gregarious and social. Most important of all is expressing views consonant with the prevailing consensus (i.e not rocking the boat). Otherwise you won't get promoted, or even land a prestigious job in the first place.
Also I'm not sure how far IQ reflects actual intelligence.
I have no idea why the author and so many others considers this to be remotely surprising. Moreover, I do not get the impression that rich people and those with Ph.D's, tend, on average, to be particularly intelligent. Regular readers of my 2 blogs (if there are any) will understand why I hold this view.
25/04/2020 Edited to add: Another link that supports my contention here.
[M]any Termites failed to become highly successful in any intellectual capacity. These comparative failures were far less likely to graduate from college or to attain professional or graduate degrees, and far more likely to enter occupations that required no higher education whatsoever.
Termites = those with average IQ's of 151 at 11 years of age
Being successful in a capitalistic sense will presumable involve all sorts of factors of which IQ is only one small part. Equally essential is working hard at school, being ambitious, being able to get on with other people, being good looking, being gregarious and social. Most important of all is expressing views consonant with the prevailing consensus (i.e not rocking the boat). Otherwise you won't get promoted, or even land a prestigious job in the first place.
Also I'm not sure how far IQ reflects actual intelligence.
I have no idea why the author and so many others considers this to be remotely surprising. Moreover, I do not get the impression that rich people and those with Ph.D's, tend, on average, to be particularly intelligent. Regular readers of my 2 blogs (if there are any) will understand why I hold this view.
25/04/2020 Edited to add: Another link that supports my contention here.
Sunday, 21 October 2018
More on Stephen Hawking
I'm sick of hearing in the past few days that Hawking said that there's no role for God since the Universe can be explained by physical laws alone. How is his reasoning different from the following.
Let's suppose there were an experiment where a wad of £20 notes was placed on the ground outside. We observe that every single person who see the notes stoop quickly down, put them in their pocket, and furtively look around. So we can formulate a natural law that all human beings act this way. There are certain patterns to their behaviour which always pertain.
Then a Hawking comes along and says we understand completely why £20 notes, initially lying on the ground, end up in peoples' pockets. It's because of a law which says that when people see a wad of notes they will stoop down and place them in their pockets. There is no need to appeal to any supernatural explanations -- that is there is no need to appeal to peoples' intentions, desires, motivations.
Obviously this reasoning is utterly asinine. But it's *EXACTLY* the same as Hawking's reasoning! (as well as most scientists).
Let's suppose there were an experiment where a wad of £20 notes was placed on the ground outside. We observe that every single person who see the notes stoop quickly down, put them in their pocket, and furtively look around. So we can formulate a natural law that all human beings act this way. There are certain patterns to their behaviour which always pertain.
Then a Hawking comes along and says we understand completely why £20 notes, initially lying on the ground, end up in peoples' pockets. It's because of a law which says that when people see a wad of notes they will stoop down and place them in their pockets. There is no need to appeal to any supernatural explanations -- that is there is no need to appeal to peoples' intentions, desires, motivations.
Obviously this reasoning is utterly asinine. But it's *EXACTLY* the same as Hawking's reasoning! (as well as most scientists).
More to Reality than what it seems?
I see no reason why there couldn't be something behind it all, some ultimate reason. That, after death, our existence might continue to adventures anew into new realities where everything comes right at the end and our hearts are filled with joy and happiness. Maybe, or maybe not, but I believe there's a damn sight more to reality than appears on the surface.
Wednesday, 17 October 2018
Stephen Hawking's last book
In his last book Brief Answers to the Big Questions Stephen Hawking said:
So his "profound realisation" wasn't some sort of mystical insight, or moment of enlightenment, but rather because science tells us there's no God or an afterlife.
It might be convenient here to repeat what I've said in other blog posts on this science rules out an afterlife and God contention (in this blog see relevant posts here, here, here, here, here esp part 7, here and in my other blog see here, here). Science deals exclusively with the quantifiable or measurable (at least currently). Consciousness cannot be quantified or measured. Hence consciousness, at least as science is currently conceived, escapes the purview of science. This is regardless of whether consciousness is embodied or whether there is any possible disembodied consciousness. As it stands science simply has nothing to say about whether consciousness could survive the death of our bodies. To contend otherwise is rather like somebody operating a metal detector making proclamations regarding the existence or non-existence of plastic, wood and rubber.
As for a "God", clearly it depends on one's conception of God. However, the regularities ("physical laws") describing the Universe could not possibly explain the existence of the Universe. This is simply to misunderstand what science does. How so?
Think of a computer game. In order to play a 3D game proficiently, we need to know how the game environment changes when the character moves and behaves in particular ways. The character you control who presses buttons in the game environment will cause certain things to happen in that environment. Shooting at certain spots will cause other things, such as "killing" a bot. And so on and so forth.
One can become extremely proficient at a game. Yet, at the same time, one might know absolutely nothing about what makes the game possible to exist in the first place, and why the game environment changes in the characteristic way it does. In other words, one might know nothing about the computer software, CPU's, RAM, or anything else about the underlying machinery of the computer, even though one might be better at the game than anyone else.
I submit that our science, together with the technology it has spawned, is analogous to playing a computer game proficiently. I submit, that is, that science deals exclusively with the patterns discerned in reality and how the world changes with particular actions on our parts. Similar to the game, science tells us absolutely nothing about the underlying machinery of reality. Science tells us nothing about how or why the world exists at all and why it has the particular physical laws it does. That is what metaphysics deals with. In particular, science could not possibly shed any light on a suitably sophisticated God.
"No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in the afterlife is just wishful thinking.
It flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust".
So his "profound realisation" wasn't some sort of mystical insight, or moment of enlightenment, but rather because science tells us there's no God or an afterlife.
It might be convenient here to repeat what I've said in other blog posts on this science rules out an afterlife and God contention (in this blog see relevant posts here, here, here, here, here esp part 7, here and in my other blog see here, here). Science deals exclusively with the quantifiable or measurable (at least currently). Consciousness cannot be quantified or measured. Hence consciousness, at least as science is currently conceived, escapes the purview of science. This is regardless of whether consciousness is embodied or whether there is any possible disembodied consciousness. As it stands science simply has nothing to say about whether consciousness could survive the death of our bodies. To contend otherwise is rather like somebody operating a metal detector making proclamations regarding the existence or non-existence of plastic, wood and rubber.
As for a "God", clearly it depends on one's conception of God. However, the regularities ("physical laws") describing the Universe could not possibly explain the existence of the Universe. This is simply to misunderstand what science does. How so?
Think of a computer game. In order to play a 3D game proficiently, we need to know how the game environment changes when the character moves and behaves in particular ways. The character you control who presses buttons in the game environment will cause certain things to happen in that environment. Shooting at certain spots will cause other things, such as "killing" a bot. And so on and so forth.
One can become extremely proficient at a game. Yet, at the same time, one might know absolutely nothing about what makes the game possible to exist in the first place, and why the game environment changes in the characteristic way it does. In other words, one might know nothing about the computer software, CPU's, RAM, or anything else about the underlying machinery of the computer, even though one might be better at the game than anyone else.
I submit that our science, together with the technology it has spawned, is analogous to playing a computer game proficiently. I submit, that is, that science deals exclusively with the patterns discerned in reality and how the world changes with particular actions on our parts. Similar to the game, science tells us absolutely nothing about the underlying machinery of reality. Science tells us nothing about how or why the world exists at all and why it has the particular physical laws it does. That is what metaphysics deals with. In particular, science could not possibly shed any light on a suitably sophisticated God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)