On "Anthem"

The other day I read Ayn Rand’s “Anthem.” Like all of her other novels, it was little more than a piece of Objectivist propaganda. Nonetheless, I would like to talk about some of the concepts discussed in the book.

The basic premise is that society has become so collectivist that people have forgotten the word “I.” The main character, however, wishes to be individualistic, so he runs away from society and lives by himself in the woods. The last chapter, which is the actual anthem described in the title, is about his discovery of the words “I” and “ego.” The book scathingly criticizes the fictional collectivist society and praises individualism. In the introduction, Rand likens any kind of conformism or collectivism to slavery.

I found the whole thing somewhat reminiscent of 1984 or Brave New World, since the lesson each novel is trying to teach is very similar. Here, though, the lesson is more extreme—BNW speaks out against consumerism and conformism and 1984 against fascism and false revolution, but Anthem seems to be against any kind of government whatsoever.

Rand’s description of a collectivist society, though chilling, seems very unrealistic to me. The society is technologically backwards, which seems a bit ironic, since more advanced technology could be used to achieve a great amount of control. However, examples such as China show that Rand may be on to something.

The whole concept of forgetting the word “I” was very intriguing to me. I could not help thinking of it as a thought-experiment to prove the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic determinism). 1984 explores a similar idea, but in less detail—the government plants to use the “newspeak” argot to control how people think.

I would also like to take a moment to talk about Objectivism in general. Here is a short dossier of Objectivist ideas:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality, or the idea that reality exists independently of the human mind. Objectivism states that the purpose of the senses and consciousness is to perceive reality, not create it.

Epistemology: Reason, reason, and more reason. Rand rejects mysticism and skepticism, and it holds perception, combined with reason and rationality, is sufficient to achieve knowledge. 

Ethics: Objectivism rejects any kind of determinism, but it also rejects the concept of a soul. Instead, it states that human beings have a conscious mind that possessed free will. In terms of ethics and morality, Objectivism holds that the only concrete form of morality is that which is required to ensure man’s survival, not only physically but also as a rational being. Beyond that, the only morality, according to Rand, is self-interest. In other words, man is an end, not a means. I also suspect that Rand has a personal bias against moral systems that stress altruism, since she highlights this point in the book’s introduction.

Politics/Government: Objectivism states that a concept such as “the State” has no moral value whatsoever. Rand also argues that no man can force his values on another, and physical force is discouraged, except in self-defense. Man’s political purpose, according to Objectivism, is to interact with others independently, like traders. Laissez-faire capitalism is also strongly encouraged, since it allows people to interact in this way. Thus, Objectivism is strongly against any kind of collectivism or socialism.

Naturally, I reject most of these claims. The whole philosophy is based on a few assumptions, and since I am a skeptic I do not agree that these assumptions are true. However I can see how Rand came up with this philosophy, since she grew up in Soviet Russia—the invidious Russian political system angered many during her time.

This is probably not the last time I will be talking about Objectivism here, as I look forward to reading more of Ayn Rand’s books. 

Clarke and the mind

In many of his works of science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke often muses about the concept of the mind. In books such as 2001, Childhood’s End, he toys with the idea that there is “something special” about the mind. He suggests that human beings will eventually learn to become independent of their bodies, and that their minds will be amorphous, “free from the tyranny of matter.” But is there any substance to all this, or Clarke just being poetic? In other words, is this really possible?

I think the answer depends on the exact nature of the mind. Clarke never explicitly stated if he believed in the concept of a soul, but he always attached a kind of importance to consciousness and self-awareness. However, I think he had a very scientific reason to do so—he hinted in his novels that he had a somewhat deterministic view of the mind—he often portrays it as a computer, a processing machine—but with the ability to connect with the supernatural. Clarke probably figured that the brain, the physical component of the mind, could be mutated or rebuilt (as computers have proved to a certain extent).This seems in accordance with the entities described in his books; in works such as the 2001 series, he describes an alien race that gradually becomes machine-like.

However, Clarke also goes one step further. He states that minds can eventually become contained in “lattices of light.” In other words, he is saying that the mind can be reproduced with non-physical materials such as light. This, of course, it pure speculation, and we probably do not possess enough knowledge of the universe to confirm if this is possible.

But what about the mind’s connection with the supernatural, which Clarke focuses on in novels like Childhood’s End? (In this novel, there is much discussion of the paranormal, and almost all of the characters have ethereal or otherworldly visions.) At first, this seems to conflict with the idea that the mind can be reproduced ad physically altered—after all, a deterministic view of the mind cannot explain the supernatural. However, I think that Clarke simply thought of the mind as more than the sum of its parts. Though I am critical of this view, the supernatural has yet to be explained—and Clarke may be closer to the truth than I would like to believe. 

The Mumbai attacks

Though I don’t usually discuss current events on this blog, I feel I must talk about yesterday and today’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Unfortunately, the event will probably go down in history as what happens when security goes to pieces.

As usual, the American press largely ignored the event. Yesterday morning, when the worst of the violence was going on, the only thing on the major networks was the Thanksgiving Parade. In fact, I was only aware of the event because the BBC website was providing live updates. If I did not read the BBC every morning and night, I would not have even heard of the attacks until today. (Sadly, the violence is still going on, even as I write.)

What does this attack tells us? A few things, I think. Firstly, it reminds us that Al-Queda, though beginning to wane, is still a powerful and influential group. (Though it has not been proven that Al-Queda was behind these attacks, the gunmen targeted Westerners and left messages warning the Indian government to respect Muslim groups in India.) Next, I think the world must intervene in talks between India and Pakistan in the coming months; India’s PM Singh came very close to accusing Pakistan of being behind the attacks. We cannot allow relations between the these two counties to deteriorate—if President-elect Barack Obama is correct, the Waziristan region of northern Pakistan houses multiple terror cells which need to be eliminated. If India, our ally, is no longer on good terms with Pakistan, the Pakistani government may be even more reluctant to let us in. Finally, this is yet another reminder that India is far from stable. Despite multiple terrorist attacks last year and in 2006, they have been unable to provide better security. However, I have hope that the world’s largest democracy will prevail, and send a message to the East about how successful democratic government can be.          

I would also like to give my condolences to the families of those killed or wounded in these tragic attacks.

Thanksgiving revealed

Thanksgiving (today) is considered one of the most innocent of American holidays; after all, what could be wrong with the uplifting story of oppressed pilgrims coming to America in search of religious freedom? And what could possibly be more inspirational than a bunch of Indians feeling sympathetic towards these pilgrims and agreeing to help them harvest their crops?

Actually, this story is mostly false. It has been retold so many times since the actual event that today we accidentally equivocate when retelling it, concealing some of the more sinister aspects of what actually happened.

Firstly, the pilgrims were hardly innocent. They did not travel to America to find religious freedom; they came to institute the worst kind of religious tyranny, as later events such as the Salem witch trials proved.

As for the Native Americans—they ended up far worse off because of this event. Afterwards, negotiations between Indian tribes and white became capricious, and soon the newly born America government began organizing sorties to harass and drive away Native American tribes. Eventually the formerly great tribal civilizations were reduced to a battered, saturnine bunch as white Americans began pushing westward. When the Native Americans finally ran out of land to move to they reached the nadir of their suffering, as they were persecuted and discriminated against to no end. Thus, the supposed dinner held at Plymouth Rock did not change relations between white and Native Americans in any way.

Lastly, I doubt the picnic the pilgrims and Native Americans had was the ebullient affair it is usually described as (if it existed at all). Both parties were probably highly suspicious of one another, and I doubt they could put aside their differences even for one meal. 

The BBC’s four questions (part 4)

The series on the BBC’s philosophical questions concludes with what is probably the most important one of the four:

Did you really choose to read this article?

The passage goes on to describe an imaginary entity, “Fred,” who has an infinite amount of intelligence and memory. Fred uses these skills to figure out the state of every molecule and particle in the universe, and uses that to predict the future. Thus, Fred knows the location of every particle in any future time, meaning the future (and past) is predetermined. 

The passage is basically laying out the fundamental principles of determinism, and is showing how it invalidates our idea of making choices if it is true. This is a huge topic—there is no way that I can completely cover this in one post. However, I would like to throw my two cents in and write down some of my thoughts on the topic.

First, I’d like to talk about the topic in general. Determinism has been argued about for centuries, and almost every philosopher I can think of has an opinion on the topic.

One of the most prominent “common-sense” arguments against determinism has to do with the fact that human beings supposedly have free will. The proof for this, according to the argument, is that consciousness, emotions, and self-awareness indicate the presence of free will. However, I would like to refute this claim with a common-sense argument of my own:

Consider a computer, or a computer program. A computer program is obviously deterministic in nature; it simply performs the tasks assigned to it. However, a computer program can be made very complicated by allowing it to make “decisions” and act differently depending on what data it is given. A simple organism, such as a single-celled amoeba, functions the same way; it follows a set of instructions programmed into its DNA—though these instructions give it some leeway, it has no brain of any kind, as it is simply following orders. (The nucleus of a cell is not its “brain,” despite what we are taught in biology; that is simply an analogy to help us remember its function, keeping the cell’s DNA safe.) Thus, a single-celled organism is just as deterministic as a computer. Next, consider a multi-cellular organism, such as a slime mold or plant. Neither of these organisms have a brain, like the single-celled organism I just mentioned. Though, they are more complex than the single-celled organism, they are essentially the same: they follow the instructions in their DNA. Though a plant or a slime mold has more “choices” to make than an amoeba, their nature is still basically deterministic. Next, let’s move on to a simple animal, such as a mouse or worm. Both of these possess a brain, which changes things somewhat. However, these organisms can still be reduced into deterministic terms: the brain is still a product of the animal’s DNA, and all of the “decisions” it makes must be explained in terms of its chemical and biological structure. In other words—“Fred” would be able to figure out the locations of all the molecules in the brain, and he would be able to predict what “decisions” it makes. Thus, the brain in and of itself is not anything special; organisms with brains can still be explained in terms of determinism. Next, I would like to discuss a self-aware animal, such as a chimpanzee. As we have just seen, the fact that chimps have brains does not mean that they have free will. However, many would argue that since chimps experience emotions and are self-aware, the situation changes. However, I believe that this is false. Emotions and self-awareness can be explained medically as chemical reactions in the brain—they do not indicate free will in any way. Finally, we must take the last step and ask the key question in this proof: how is a human being different from all of the other organisms I just discussed? Humans possess no aspects or parts I did not just explain away; the only difference between a human being and another animal is complexity. Thus, a human being is in essence the same as a computer program: deterministic.

(In the grand scheme of this argument, this simple proof means little. But, if the universe does lack inherent spirituality, it may be true.)

I would also like to add a quote from my favorite novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which I have spoken at length about before. In the novel, one of the main characters is a computer, who is self-aware. When another character is asked how this computer could be alive because it lacks a soul, the snappy response is:

“‘Soul?’ Does a dog have a soul? How about a cockroach?”

The point is quite clear: many philosophers assume that human beings have souls (but not other animals), and use this as an argument against determinism. However, they are guilty of “taxonomic discrimination,” which casts doubt on the concept of a soul in general. 

However, there is strong a scientific argument against determinism: quantum mechanics. This relatively new idea suggests that electrons and other subatomic particles are very different from the matter they make up, since they possess several odd properties that have to do with the fact that they are neither waves nor particles. Also, the Uncertainly Principle states that it is not possible to know all of the information about certain subatomic particles at the same time. This might make in impossible for “Fred” to gather all of the information he needs to predict the location of every molecule in the future.

Because of all this, parts of the universe may truly be random in nature, and these small quantum random patterns can add up to change the movement of molecules, thus disproving determinism. Though quantum mechanics has not been fully worked out, it is generally scientifically accepted, and it is a striking argument against determinism (it does not fully disprove it, though, at least in my skeptical mind.)

The BBC article comments on this, though the language the writer uses is a bit unclear. Here is the passage in question:

“…modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So free will begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness.”

I’m not really sure if I can consider this a legitimate response to the quantum mechanics argument—it seems like the writer is confusing a whole bunch of things in this passage, mixing responsibility and free will and using an unconvincing common-sense example.

That’s all I have time for today. Don’t worry, though—this will certainly not be the last time I discuss determinism here; it’s far too important a topic for me to just talk about it once and put a moratorium on discussing it. For now, at least, the issue remains unsettled. 

The BBC’s four questions (part 3)

My previous two posts have been on the subject of two philosophical questions found in the BBC’s online magazine; in this post, I’d like to look at question number three:

Is that really a computer screen in front of you?

I have to chuckle at this one—it is essentially asking the reader if anything can be known since there is no way to verify if one’s senses (vision, hearing, smell) are correct. However, I feel I must castigate the writer of the article for confusing the issue somewhat. The passage describes two issues: the fact that the senses are often beguiled into perceiving something that is untrue, and the fact that subjective reality has yet to be disproven (meaning that there is no way to externally verify if what we are perceiving actually exists).

The two topics sound similar, but in fact they are very different. The first assumes that there is such a thing as objective reality, and that we can perceive and interact with it using our senses. In this case, the only time we are deceived is when our senses are confused by some kind of illusion, such as the one above.

The second case has more in common with objective reality than with illusion. This case assumes that the senses are correct, but the sense data they perceive is not related to what the universe actually is. Or, in a similar variant, objective reality does not exist at all, and the sense-data is not actually tied to a real object. Because there is no way to externally verify if what the senses are perceiving is correct, it is impossible to know if subjective reality exists or not.

Though coalescing the two topics into one is incorrect, on the whole I agree with the article in both cases. It is impossible to verify if our senses are correct, and there very well may not be a computer screen in front of you. 

The BBC’s four questions (part 2)

As you know, I have been responding to a BBC Magazine article that colloquially and humorously discusses a few very deep philosophical questions. The second question is as follows:

Are you the same person who started reading this article?

The passage goes on to talk about the exact definition of a human being, and what distinguishes one person from another. It explains that the definition of a person cannot be their physical form, since most of the cells in a person’s body are replaced after a few years. (To explain this, it uses the example of a burgeoning sapling compared to an aging oak tree.) Next, the article states that the definition of a person cannot be their brain or their mental state, either, since the brain can hypothetically be put into another person’s body or duplicated.

I think this question is a bit lame. Though the author of this article is correct in saying that people’s physical form does changes over time, making the physical definition of a person hard to pin down. This is because human beings are organisms, and the whole is still recognizable even after each part has been replaced. As to the article’s “proof” that this is untrue because of the nature of the brain and the mind—well, it’s just pure poppycock. Admittedly the article is correct in saying that the other organs such as the spleen, lungs, or other components of the body are just as much a part of a human being as a brain, what defines a person is their mental state, which exists in the mind alone. Additionally, the fact that the brain can hypothetically be reproduced seems to be irrelevant, and I am not sure why the author brings it up.

Overall, I am not as impressed with this one as I was with the first question—I hope the next two improve, not get worse. 

The BBC’s four questions (part 1)

I love the BBC. My morning ritual for the past two years has been to skim the BBC World News website for a few minutes, and I often glance at it during lunch. I find them to be far more objective when dealing with America politics, and they provide a delightful selection of very interesting international news. I am not alone in my exultation of the BBC—I have heard that they have the most cachet and prestige worldwide. America news channels, in my opinion, do not have enough world news, and they are far too sensationalist for my tastes. I’ll save my scruples with US news for another lecture, though—this morning I found something I would like to discuss.

In the online version of the BBC magazine, I found a humorous (or is it “humourous”) article entitled, “Four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt.” For the next few days, I’d like to discuss these.

Number one: Should we kill people for their organs?

This is asking if it is moral to sacrifice the life of one person for several other people. The article describes three hypothetical cases of this: First, it asks if it is moral to kill someone to cannibalize his/her organs, which can save the lives of five people. Next, it asks if it is moral to choose one person out of six to be killed so that the other five can live (if you do not choose, all six will die). Finally, it asks which is better—to allow one person to be run over by a train, or five people to be run over by it?

What the passage is really trying to ask is this: If it is moral to choose the death of one person over five people, why isn’t it moral to kill one person to save five people? My answer to this question is, as usual, “Don’t know.” However, I would like to analyze the rational for either a “yes” or “no” answer.

This question is based on moral philosophy, which is based on metaphysical philosophy. In this example, it may be moral to kill one person to save five others—or it may not, depending on the exact nature of the universe. To use a simple example, if God decided that yes, it is moral, then of course it is moral to do so. But if he decided that it is not moral to kill one person to save five others, then it is not. Also, the three situations described above may be equally moral or immoral, also depending on the nature of the universe. In a universe without and inherent morality the answer would probably depend on the will of the person making this choice, since no moral standards exist to judge them by.

Also, an update on my post on AI: read this article. Amazing!  

                        

Musings on Daisyworld

James Lovelock and Andrew Watson’s classic computer simulation Dasiyworld is a major proof for the Gaia (“Earth as one organism”) hypothesis. In the simulation, a planet has only two species, white daisies and black daisies. The black daisies warm themselves; the white ones cool themselves. According to the simulation, when the planet’s temperature is cooler there is a predominance of black daisies, and when it warms the white daisies increase in number as the black ones decrease. The idea is that the combination of the white and black flowers serves to regulate the planet’s temperature to a certain extent. The Daisyworld planet’s temperature is more moderate than that of an empty planet because of this balancing effect. This has been used to “prove” the Gaia hypothesis because it highlights that fact that organisms can unwittingly work together to function as one large organism.

However, I feel I must deprecate this idea. Though I cannot refute the fact that organisms often work together as a single organism, there are too many random factors involved for this hypothesis to be true. Evolution itself is a random factor, brought about by the mutation of genes. A random mutation could easily create a new species that does not fit into “Gaia.” I suspect humans are the perfect example of this—how is it that Gaia would welcome a species that is psychologically unstable but can build nuclear weapons? Also, environmental or other external factors can clearly unbalance this cycle.

Because of all this, it is absurd to think that this kind of a relationship between species exist for more than a short period of time. Though this kind of symbiosis can occasionally occur, the idea that the whole planet follows this pattern seems a bit of a stretch. 

What computers can teach us

Philosophers and even computer scientists will often argue that computers can never achieve our “thinking power,” and that they definitely cannot surpass us in terms of cognitive ability. However, I strongly disagree with this, for both a philosophical reason and a practical one.

First, the “practical” reason: Simply, computer science in increasing at a terrifying rate (an exponential rate, if you believe in the technological singularity). Twenty years ago, people believed computers would never be able to solve the “salesman problem” for only 50 or so cities—today, we have solved it for thousands, according to this New York Times article.             

The fact is, unpredictable advances in the way we understand computers will probably allow them to do some serious number-crunching, making them far better and faster at mathematics and science than we are. Furthermore, computers will soon have the ability to improve themselves, thus increasing the rate that artificial intelligence, or AI, increases.

Next, the “moral” argument I mentioned. The point that skeptics of AI often mention is that AI will never be truly human, since a computer is simply a complex series of pre-programmed responses. However, I have to ask: what, then, are we? Isn’t a human being very similar—just a very complex series of responses programmed into our brain? Granted, we are affected by our environment, but computers can also learn from experience—the ability to learn is nothing special. As any computer programmer knows, with enough “if” “else” and “while” statements, computers can learn and adapt to their environment no matter what the circumstances are. Thus, human beings as computers are not so different after all, and artificial intelligence might not be as impossible as some people like to think. Though this sounds deterministic, this is the most salient argument for AI.

The fact is, computers are already on of the most important inventions of the modern world, and the development of true AI is implacable. The important thing, though, is how we deal with the fact that computers will still be far smarter than human beings. I do not agree with those who would ban computers or put a moratorium on computer research—the answer to the problem of computers must be one of wisdom, not deliberate ignorance. We must not simply succumb to the inevitable—we must ride the crest of this wave, using the enormous potential of AI to help us in a way that will not infringe on our humanity. 

The problem with Christmas decorations

As anyone in America knows, as soon as Thanksgiving rolls around a Christmas tree will appear in front of every town hall. I am not the first to bring up this controversial issue—atheists, Muslims, Jews, and many other have hectored mayors and town officials about this public display of religion. For the most part these people have simply been viewed as liberal malcontents who need something to complain about. Unfortunately, this is true of some of them, but others are civilly demanding equal representation, and rightfully so.

However, I have a problem with the fact that religious symbols are in front of a public building at all. The Bill of Rights dictates that the State will not discriminate against any religion; we have interpreted this to mean a separation of church and state. However, “state” is a slippery word—remember that it means all things related to government in the US, including local governments. This is because the US is a federal nation, and state and local governments are still technically a part of the whole. Having a religious symbol in front of a building obviously denotes the fact that the “state” is recognizing it—violating the implied separation of church and state.

Why do I have such a problem with this? I detest religious tyranny in every form, and I do not believe that religious organizations should have any political power whatsoever. In our Constitution and Declaration, we vowed to protect civil liberties, and promised that the majority cannot oppress the minority. However, this has happened in terms of religion. The majority of people in the US can be considered Christian, and this enormous Christian influence has corrupted our government, society, and social conditioning. The state openly flaunts religious symbols, recognizes religious holidays, and even bans certain acts or objects for moral reasons (examples: public nudity, polygamy, pornography, “cussing,” etc.) I feel we should correct this error, by abrogating public displays of religion by the state, and by ensuring that our government follows through with its promise to be separate from religion.