What makes one's job enjoyable? What makes us work hard? I think essentially one needs to be intimately and emotionally involved in the product you're creating or the service you're providing.
Our society tends to assume how hard we work, how much effort we put into something, is closely related to how much we get paid for that work. I disagree. I reckon what motivates people to work hard is not so much how much you get paid, but rather the sense of achievement in producing something that other people really appreciate together with the knowledge that not many others have the requisite skills to do what you've done. It's working towards some goal, and for others to exclaim "wow" when they see what you've done. It's pride in producing something, or providing some service. And this in turn will make one very much enjoy the work they're doing.
But much work under capitalism tends to be repetitious just doing one task. You're not creating the object, only part of it. Hence you're a cog in the overall machine as I said in this blog entry. And the object is not ours. It belongs to someone else. Hence we are alienated from that we are creating, or the service we're providing.
Thursday, 8 February 2018
Monday, 5 February 2018
Enid Blyton.
I used to absolutely love reading Enid Blyton books as a child. When I was around 7 years old or so I was absolutely enthralled by her Faraway Tree books and Wishing chair books. And as a slightly older child I think what I refer to as the Fatty (five find-outers and dog) books were my favourite series of books.
I've just read the following article. It says:
The literary tastes of a large percentage of people leave a lot to be desired then (including myself).
Presumably it can't be because the stories are allegedly racist etc
that it reflects badly on people if they enjoyed them? I knew nothing
about that sort of stuff as a child. I'm guessing the stories are
considered to be shallow? I wonder what children's books she considered
to be superior? When I was 7 I wanted to read about magic trees with
weird and wonderful lands at the top and magic flying chairs. I can't
imagine at that age reading any other author who I would have enjoyed
more. That might make my literary tastes dire, but I'm happy with them! I might have been a very different person without Blyton stories to open up my imagination.
I've just read the following article. It says:
"Apparently, the Famous Five and Secret Seven made the police look
like buffoons, Noddy's sexuality was questionable, Golliwog was racist
and making fun of Big Ears was insulting to people with big ears," she
said. "After the meeting I told her that I had got a lot of pleasure from Enid Blyton's books, and she said 'Well, your literary tastes leave a lot to be desired'.
The literary tastes of a large percentage of people leave a lot to be desired then (including myself).
Presumably it can't be because the stories are allegedly racist etc
that it reflects badly on people if they enjoyed them? I knew nothing
about that sort of stuff as a child. I'm guessing the stories are
considered to be shallow? I wonder what children's books she considered
to be superior? When I was 7 I wanted to read about magic trees with
weird and wonderful lands at the top and magic flying chairs. I can't
imagine at that age reading any other author who I would have enjoyed
more. That might make my literary tastes dire, but I'm happy with them! I might have been a very different person without Blyton stories to open up my imagination.
Tuesday, 2 January 2018
The difference between science and metaphysics
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 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 analogical 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.
It might be thought that the existence of forces like gravity refutes this. Objects fall to the ground because the force of gravity compels objects to fall down. On this view, gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, are intrinsic to reality and make reality behave as it does.
But how do we know this? We can observe an object falling, but we never observe the gravitational force that allegedly causes it to fall. Or we never observe the warping of space-time that allegedly causes it to fall (indeed, what could a warping of space-time possibly mean?)
Consider the Earth as it orbits the Sun. It is considered that the Earth is compelled to follow a circular path around the sun due to gravitational force. If the force were to suddenly disappear, then the Earth would travel in a straight line at uniform velocity. Now, why is it the case that motion in a straight line is considered to be natural motion with no forces requiring an object to move in such a manner, but circular motion is considered unnatural with a force required to constrain an object to follow such a path? I suggest because it's simpler to think of reality in that way.
At the end of the day, all we know about the world comes from our senses; mainly from our visual qualia. Science is in the business of describing the patterns in our visual qualia. In physics we find that mathematical equations, such as Newton's equation (F = G(m1m2)/R2), describe the falling process. But these equations are all we need from a scientific perspective. Postulating such forces like gravity might make it easier to derive such equations, but they are not strictly necessary.
Note I am not saying that forces like gravity do not exist. They might exist (although I don't think they do), but if they do that is part of the underlying machinery of reality, and hence comes under the purview of metaphysics.
Think
back to our computer game. One's character can jump up and down. Why
does the character fall back down to the ground? Because of gravity?
Obviously not! The game operates according to its software instructions.
Now, let's consider our physical reality and why objects fall. It might, as mainstream opinion holds, be due to some force intrinsic to reality. Or it might be because we're living in a kind of virtual reality created by beings existing "outside" of our reality, and the falling down process is just the way our reality is programmed. Or it might be (to give my own personal opinion) that the explanation resides in the fact that reality is infused with teleology or entelechy, and that our scientific laws simply describes such innate propensities. But the point is that this is a metaphysical issue, not an empirical or scientific one.
Science is not in the business of providing literal explanations, rather it is merely in the business of describing reality. To suppose one can use physics to explain why reality exists at all, or why reality is described by the laws we find, is to misunderstand the legitimate scope of science. For genuine explanations we have to look to metaphysics.
Similar posts by me:
Do scientific explanations actually explain?
What philosophical questions does science answer?
Is Reality real?
A very brief introduction to subjective idealism.
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 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 analogical 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.
It might be thought that the existence of forces like gravity refutes this. Objects fall to the ground because the force of gravity compels objects to fall down. On this view, gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, are intrinsic to reality and make reality behave as it does.
But how do we know this? We can observe an object falling, but we never observe the gravitational force that allegedly causes it to fall. Or we never observe the warping of space-time that allegedly causes it to fall (indeed, what could a warping of space-time possibly mean?)
Consider the Earth as it orbits the Sun. It is considered that the Earth is compelled to follow a circular path around the sun due to gravitational force. If the force were to suddenly disappear, then the Earth would travel in a straight line at uniform velocity. Now, why is it the case that motion in a straight line is considered to be natural motion with no forces requiring an object to move in such a manner, but circular motion is considered unnatural with a force required to constrain an object to follow such a path? I suggest because it's simpler to think of reality in that way.
At the end of the day, all we know about the world comes from our senses; mainly from our visual qualia. Science is in the business of describing the patterns in our visual qualia. In physics we find that mathematical equations, such as Newton's equation (F = G(m1m2)/R2), describe the falling process. But these equations are all we need from a scientific perspective. Postulating such forces like gravity might make it easier to derive such equations, but they are not strictly necessary.
Note I am not saying that forces like gravity do not exist. They might exist (although I don't think they do), but if they do that is part of the underlying machinery of reality, and hence comes under the purview of metaphysics.
Think
back to our computer game. One's character can jump up and down. Why
does the character fall back down to the ground? Because of gravity?
Obviously not! The game operates according to its software instructions.
Now, let's consider our physical reality and why objects fall. It might, as mainstream opinion holds, be due to some force intrinsic to reality. Or it might be because we're living in a kind of virtual reality created by beings existing "outside" of our reality, and the falling down process is just the way our reality is programmed. Or it might be (to give my own personal opinion) that the explanation resides in the fact that reality is infused with teleology or entelechy, and that our scientific laws simply describes such innate propensities. But the point is that this is a metaphysical issue, not an empirical or scientific one.
Science is not in the business of providing literal explanations, rather it is merely in the business of describing reality. To suppose one can use physics to explain why reality exists at all, or why reality is described by the laws we find, is to misunderstand the legitimate scope of science. For genuine explanations we have to look to metaphysics.
Similar posts by me:
Do scientific explanations actually explain?
What philosophical questions does science answer?
Is Reality real?
A very brief introduction to subjective idealism.
Monday, 11 December 2017
Venturing out in the dark
Just
got in from walk. Was fairly darkish walking in hubbard hills.
Deserted and dark. A eerie malevolent blanket of silentness enveloped
me, suffused through my being. It seemed I might be the only living
creature left on the Earth.
But suddenly I saw movement on the
ground matching my pace. What was this? Were dark evil creatures of
the night venturing forth from the underworld to attack innocent souls,
such as myself, who dare have the temerity to venture out into the dark?
Nope, it was a robin.
The world is strange
Why am I living on the surface of a huge ball floating in the midst of an infinite sea of nothingness?? We tend not to think reality is weird because we've lived in it throughout our lives. As children we thought our parents knew everything, and they didn't find such things surprising. So most of us just accept our situation, without thinking.
I sometimes think . .maybe we are all being systematically deceived. Something we're simply not getting.
I sometimes think . .maybe we are all being systematically deceived. Something we're simply not getting.
Thursday, 30 November 2017
Wikipedia
When I went to Wikipedia I saw a message at the top saying:
Independent from what I wonder? Is that just a polite way of saying that people can write any type of nonsense? It's continually re- edited by pseudo-intellectual young men providing information reflecting their biased views towards the world. I wouldn't even bother trying to put anything into it since it would just be deleted almost immediately. They won't be getting any money off me. The net would be better off without wikipedia.
To all our readers in the UK,
We will get straight to the point: This Thursday we ask you to protect Wikipedia's independence. Time is running out in 2017 to help us. We depend on donations averaging about £10. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone reading this gave £2, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of your Thursday
coffee is all we need. When I made Wikipedia a non-profit, people
warned me I’d regret it. Over a decade later, it’s the only top ten site
run by a non-profit and a community of volunteers. Has it crossed my
mind how much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be
the same. Wikipedia continues the legacy the internet promised us, that
of collaboration, connection and neutrality. Can the internet have
moral values? We think it can, but we need your help. Please keep
Wikipedia growing. Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder
Independent from what I wonder? Is that just a polite way of saying that people can write any type of nonsense? It's continually re- edited by pseudo-intellectual young men providing information reflecting their biased views towards the world. I wouldn't even bother trying to put anything into it since it would just be deleted almost immediately. They won't be getting any money off me. The net would be better off without wikipedia.
Tuesday, 28 November 2017
Thoughts about psi
I've been asked why I think the burden of proof should lie with the skeptic to prove that psi doesn't exist. This is my response below (a little tidied up).
There's nothing else to add apart from saying people have experienced psi throughout all cultures and throughout history, and furthermore scientific investigation in the form of Psychical Research and parapsychology suggests the existence of psi.
I'm well aware of the standard dismissal of such anomalous experiences as being due to folly, delusion, cognitive illusion and pathology and so on, and yes, I think such a dismissal is justified in most claims. I'm also leery of scientific results in the soft sciences. We are all, including scientists, very easily fooled, especially when a certain result is desired (although it is my understanding that in parapsychology a double blind protocol is normally employed).
None of this makes any difference to my belief in psi. But I can’t say anything in addition to the foregoing to make you question your beliefs, or disbeliefs. I would just say that at this moment in time science cannot explain consciousness. Indeed, at least with the present concept of science as dealing with the quantifiable (measurable), it seems science cannot in principle explain consciousness. It’s why we have had the mind-body problem for millennia, a problem that has become especially acute with the birth of modern science in the 17th Century.
You might retort that materialism explains everything. But there are many varieties of materialism and materialists vehemently attack each other’s variety of materialism saying it’s nonsensical! Eg Searle and Dennett. But the bottom line is that since consciousness is left out in our scientific description of reality, then we simply are in no position to stipulate that consciousness can’t have certain abilities. That includes the denial of mental causation as well as psi. We can only go by experiences, whether they be anecdotal, or more formal scientific investigations. Yes, they might all be wrong, we might all be fooling ourselves. But why suppose we are?
I know why, it’s our modern culture's metaphysical beliefs regarding the nature of reality. For sure, people don’t know what variety of materialism is correct, but they feel that some variety must be correct, or at least something like property dualism or epiphenomenalism. But I think all these positions are absolute nonsense, so they don’t have any hold over me. Since both anecdotes and scientific research overwhelmingly suggest psi, that’s what I’ll believe until someone provides any reason to make me doubt my beliefs.
There's nothing else to add apart from saying people have experienced psi throughout all cultures and throughout history, and furthermore scientific investigation in the form of Psychical Research and parapsychology suggests the existence of psi.
I'm well aware of the standard dismissal of such anomalous experiences as being due to folly, delusion, cognitive illusion and pathology and so on, and yes, I think such a dismissal is justified in most claims. I'm also leery of scientific results in the soft sciences. We are all, including scientists, very easily fooled, especially when a certain result is desired (although it is my understanding that in parapsychology a double blind protocol is normally employed).
None of this makes any difference to my belief in psi. But I can’t say anything in addition to the foregoing to make you question your beliefs, or disbeliefs. I would just say that at this moment in time science cannot explain consciousness. Indeed, at least with the present concept of science as dealing with the quantifiable (measurable), it seems science cannot in principle explain consciousness. It’s why we have had the mind-body problem for millennia, a problem that has become especially acute with the birth of modern science in the 17th Century.
You might retort that materialism explains everything. But there are many varieties of materialism and materialists vehemently attack each other’s variety of materialism saying it’s nonsensical! Eg Searle and Dennett. But the bottom line is that since consciousness is left out in our scientific description of reality, then we simply are in no position to stipulate that consciousness can’t have certain abilities. That includes the denial of mental causation as well as psi. We can only go by experiences, whether they be anecdotal, or more formal scientific investigations. Yes, they might all be wrong, we might all be fooling ourselves. But why suppose we are?
I know why, it’s our modern culture's metaphysical beliefs regarding the nature of reality. For sure, people don’t know what variety of materialism is correct, but they feel that some variety must be correct, or at least something like property dualism or epiphenomenalism. But I think all these positions are absolute nonsense, so they don’t have any hold over me. Since both anecdotes and scientific research overwhelmingly suggest psi, that’s what I’ll believe until someone provides any reason to make me doubt my beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)