Here is a riddle I made up:
You are trying to make a grilled cheese sandwich
You have two pieces of sliced bread, a slice of cheese, and a toaster oven. The toaster heats from the top and the bottom.
One side of each sliced bread can only be exposed to heat for only one minute before it becomes uneatable. The problem is, the sliced cheese takes 3 minutes to melt like you want it to. How can you toast your sandwich in your most preferred way?
Rules:
You cannot peal melting cheese from the slice it is on.
You can have the toaster oven on or off for as long as you want.
*Make a comment with a solution if you got one. I will post the solution later.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Aborting a Gay Baby
Watson, the guy who discovered DNA, is also an old geezer whose generation believes in out-dated racist and homophobic assumptions. He recently said that those of African decent are less intelligent than westerners. You can imagine your lizard-looking grandpa watching TV in his underwear blurting out the same thing.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
The article says that Watson once told a British newspaper “Woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.” This got me thinking, is that really unethical – to abort a child solely on the basis that the child has 100% chance of being homosexual? At first this may appear to be ethically ambiguous, but I believe I can prove why it is morally unethical.
We need to make one major assumption before I go on, we need to assume that discriminating against homosexuals is morally wrong. All morals fall somewhere on a ‘moral spectrum’ and I believe the consensus would agree this one is definitely on the bad side.
Lets assume Watson is NOT against homosexuals.
Lets say that Watson believes that woman have the right to choose why they want to have an abortion. In this case he says it's ok to abort when the child is homosexual. This may make sense because a homosexual child is going to be a hassle in a homophobic society.
In this case isn't the mother who aborts her gay child trying to dodge gay discrimination? Instead of her trying to work against homosexual discrimination because it's wrong, she side steps the issue by not having a gay child. This sort of "ignoring the issue" is why homosexual discrimination is perpetuating in modern societies.
It would be equivalent to saying that black slaves should have just ignored the problem instead of dealing with an injustice. And that black people (back then) should not reproduce because they will just be slaves. I hope we can all see something wrong with that.
When Watson says its ok to abort a gay child, he is implying that as a society we need to work AROUND gay discrimination not against!
From an economical stands point: More gay people = less population
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
The article says that Watson once told a British newspaper “Woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.” This got me thinking, is that really unethical – to abort a child solely on the basis that the child has 100% chance of being homosexual? At first this may appear to be ethically ambiguous, but I believe I can prove why it is morally unethical.
We need to make one major assumption before I go on, we need to assume that discriminating against homosexuals is morally wrong. All morals fall somewhere on a ‘moral spectrum’ and I believe the consensus would agree this one is definitely on the bad side.
Lets assume Watson is NOT against homosexuals.
Lets say that Watson believes that woman have the right to choose why they want to have an abortion. In this case he says it's ok to abort when the child is homosexual. This may make sense because a homosexual child is going to be a hassle in a homophobic society.
In this case isn't the mother who aborts her gay child trying to dodge gay discrimination? Instead of her trying to work against homosexual discrimination because it's wrong, she side steps the issue by not having a gay child. This sort of "ignoring the issue" is why homosexual discrimination is perpetuating in modern societies.
It would be equivalent to saying that black slaves should have just ignored the problem instead of dealing with an injustice. And that black people (back then) should not reproduce because they will just be slaves. I hope we can all see something wrong with that.
When Watson says its ok to abort a gay child, he is implying that as a society we need to work AROUND gay discrimination not against!
From an economical stands point: More gay people = less population
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Deist God
Atheists and agnostics have an easy time denouncing organized religion and the BS that it drags along. The Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other holy scripture is easy to disprove with its mounting contradictions and fallacious arguments they possess. The fact that God has never answered an amputee’s pray by growing their missing limb is a ‘humerus’ example of how effortless the debate is.
It is obvious for any Atheist and agnostic that there is an infinitesimal probability that a universe-altering God can exist. What about those who believe God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe? This describes the deist, contrary to a theist, they derive the existence of God through personal experience and reason. Like atheists and agnostics they reject supernatural events and that God does not interfere with humans.
In my opinion, the majority of atheists and agnostics have a problem arguing with deists. There are no apparent logical fallacies nor do they explicitly contradict science in their argument. It also seems impossible to logically argue against a God that is beyond logic.
The typical atheist versus deist dialogs goes something like this:
Atheist: “Do you believe in God? (while holding back smirk).”
Deist: “Yes I do.”
Atheist: “Lol! You think the world began 6,000 years ago!”
Deist: “Oh, I believe in evolution - I don’t actually believe in miracles or prophecies, I just think God is beyond our knowledge.”
Atheist: “Uh, but you do know it is statistically improbable for God to exist.”
Deist: “Lol! God is beyond statistics or any other science – I just think he is exists and I don’t let that fact change how I live. Do you find something wrong with that?”
Atheist: “Well, fuck, Dawkins didn’t prepare me for that.”
Well, is anything wrong with being a Deist? Yes there is, but it is a question of ethics like abortion and whenever we bump into a moral dilemma we turn towards philosophy.
Believing in a deist God is a meaningless belief. The word meaningless carries some emotional baggage to it, so allow me to clarify what I mean. When I use the word meaning, I am not referring to the meaning humans impose on objects or events. For example, some people find fishing symbolic of the time they spent with their father and is meaningful in that regard. In this example, the son or daughter imposes the meaning on fishing. The way I am regarding something as meaningful is whether it appeals to logic and reason. When I assert that a deist God is meaningless, I am implying that it doesn’t appeal to logic and reason. Logic cannot answer whether the deist God is true or not.
A good way to figure out if a given hypothesis is true or false is to insert it into the scientific method machine:
The hypothesis of Intelligent Design is easy to find false because when it’s inserted into the scientific method machine it comes out a falsity. This implies that intelligent design is ‘meaningfully’ false. However, when you insert God into the machine, it gives you no answer because you cannot prove God’s existence using logic. You cannot derive the God hypothesis as meaningfully true or false. Therefore the God hypothesis is a meaningless one and will forever be in hypothesis stage.
There are an infinite amount of meaningless hypotheses that you can come up with. Why should you believe in one meaningless hypothesis over the infinite amount you can think of? The fact is, you don’t, and there is a good reason for it. In your daily life you never allow meaningless hypotheses to affect your life in a meaningful way. You use logic in the choices you make. For example, you know the sun is going to come up the next day because it has been doing so for your whole life. Never do you allow a meaningless hypothesis affect your daily choices. Why should the deist believe in a meaningless God? He would only be contradicting the way he lives.
Assume the deist does allow a meaningless belief to affect his life meaningfully. Then what is stopping him from using other meaningless hypotheses? If this deist wanted his behaviors to be consistent, he would seriously consider that global warming is a result of a shortage of pirates. Having meaningless beliefs affect your life meaningfully is a detrimental behavior that should not be practiced.
In summary:
The Deist has two options.
1) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it affect his life in a meaningful way.
2) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it NOT affect his life in a meaningful way.
In the first case, the deist is committing an irrational act that is similar to that of a theist. Most likely if you believe in a meaningless God, I can assume you are extracting some meaning from it or else you wouldn't be believing. In this case, again, you are being irrational like a theist.
In the second case, the deist is similar to an atheist. Both understand that God is a meaningless hypothesis and both don't let it affect their life. There is something contradictory about this sort of deist. How can you believe in God and not extract meaning from it at the same time? There must be a reason for believing.
In other words, there is no such thing as a deist, only a theist or atheist in disguise and it is probably the former.
It is obvious for any Atheist and agnostic that there is an infinitesimal probability that a universe-altering God can exist. What about those who believe God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe? This describes the deist, contrary to a theist, they derive the existence of God through personal experience and reason. Like atheists and agnostics they reject supernatural events and that God does not interfere with humans.
In my opinion, the majority of atheists and agnostics have a problem arguing with deists. There are no apparent logical fallacies nor do they explicitly contradict science in their argument. It also seems impossible to logically argue against a God that is beyond logic.
The typical atheist versus deist dialogs goes something like this:
Atheist: “Do you believe in God? (while holding back smirk).”
Deist: “Yes I do.”
Atheist: “Lol! You think the world began 6,000 years ago!”
Deist: “Oh, I believe in evolution - I don’t actually believe in miracles or prophecies, I just think God is beyond our knowledge.”
Atheist: “Uh, but you do know it is statistically improbable for God to exist.”
Deist: “Lol! God is beyond statistics or any other science – I just think he is exists and I don’t let that fact change how I live. Do you find something wrong with that?”
Atheist: “Well, fuck, Dawkins didn’t prepare me for that.”
Well, is anything wrong with being a Deist? Yes there is, but it is a question of ethics like abortion and whenever we bump into a moral dilemma we turn towards philosophy.
Believing in a deist God is a meaningless belief. The word meaningless carries some emotional baggage to it, so allow me to clarify what I mean. When I use the word meaning, I am not referring to the meaning humans impose on objects or events. For example, some people find fishing symbolic of the time they spent with their father and is meaningful in that regard. In this example, the son or daughter imposes the meaning on fishing. The way I am regarding something as meaningful is whether it appeals to logic and reason. When I assert that a deist God is meaningless, I am implying that it doesn’t appeal to logic and reason. Logic cannot answer whether the deist God is true or not.
A good way to figure out if a given hypothesis is true or false is to insert it into the scientific method machine:
The hypothesis of Intelligent Design is easy to find false because when it’s inserted into the scientific method machine it comes out a falsity. This implies that intelligent design is ‘meaningfully’ false. However, when you insert God into the machine, it gives you no answer because you cannot prove God’s existence using logic. You cannot derive the God hypothesis as meaningfully true or false. Therefore the God hypothesis is a meaningless one and will forever be in hypothesis stage.
There are an infinite amount of meaningless hypotheses that you can come up with. Why should you believe in one meaningless hypothesis over the infinite amount you can think of? The fact is, you don’t, and there is a good reason for it. In your daily life you never allow meaningless hypotheses to affect your life in a meaningful way. You use logic in the choices you make. For example, you know the sun is going to come up the next day because it has been doing so for your whole life. Never do you allow a meaningless hypothesis affect your daily choices. Why should the deist believe in a meaningless God? He would only be contradicting the way he lives.
Assume the deist does allow a meaningless belief to affect his life meaningfully. Then what is stopping him from using other meaningless hypotheses? If this deist wanted his behaviors to be consistent, he would seriously consider that global warming is a result of a shortage of pirates. Having meaningless beliefs affect your life meaningfully is a detrimental behavior that should not be practiced.
In summary:
The Deist has two options.
1) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it affect his life in a meaningful way.
2) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it NOT affect his life in a meaningful way.
In the first case, the deist is committing an irrational act that is similar to that of a theist. Most likely if you believe in a meaningless God, I can assume you are extracting some meaning from it or else you wouldn't be believing. In this case, again, you are being irrational like a theist.
In the second case, the deist is similar to an atheist. Both understand that God is a meaningless hypothesis and both don't let it affect their life. There is something contradictory about this sort of deist. How can you believe in God and not extract meaning from it at the same time? There must be a reason for believing.
In other words, there is no such thing as a deist, only a theist or atheist in disguise and it is probably the former.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Spirit of Yosemite
A while ago, I took an environmental college course that included a trip to Yosemite. After our trip we had to make a presentation about certain topics, mine was about the spirit of Yosemite.
Here was my attempt to turn a seemingly bullshit topic into an interesting one:
---
When we were in Yosemite, ranger Dick decided to use analogies to help us remember and understand important concepts about nature. I will do the same in describing the spirituality of Yosemite.
If I drop this marker on the floor (demonstrate), does the marker "desire" to fall to the ground?
Obviously is does not desire, it is just following the laws of nature; gravity.
Similarly, a tree does not literally desire water nor does it desire to grow towards the sun. It does not have a consciousness like humans in order to make that choice.
We, on the other hand, can choose. I can choose whether I want to drink soda or water (or at least it may seem so).
Who exactly is doing the choosing?
We are, fundamentally, our DNA coding and certainly DNA does not choose.
The 'magic' happens in the gene expression. We get a product, like our consciousness, that seems as if it is beyond the laws of nature. This illusion is deeply mystifying and provocative.
Yosemite has this same mystifying property.
Just as the human DNA, Yosemite possess very objective mechanisms that strictly follow natural laws. Trees, plants, insects, etc all follow nature's laws flawlessly and consistently – just as a succulent deposits money in its bank account or how a tree lays off the branches at the lowest tier.
Despite the mechanical aspects of Yosemite, the whole seems greater than the sum of its parts.
Just like the human consciousness, a mystifying beauty emerges from Yosemite.
This beauty is very hard to conceptualize so I will make an analogy to clarify.
Imagine all of you were watching the play "Romeo and Juliet" for the first time. Only, the characters and the scene are going in super slow motion (almost frozen) and they are in the middle of the story. With careful scrutiny of the scene you can make certain assumptions, like the fact it is a play or what time period they are living in. You might be able to construct possible plots for the story. What is almost impossible to know, are the deeper meanings of the story. The irony, metaphors, humor, or social commentaries will be almost impossible to depict.
We are looking at Yosemite like we are looking at this slow motion play, we can only understand it superficially. Maybe our human mind is not capable of conceptualizing this spirit of Yosemite, either way; it has different effects on different people.
Here was my attempt to turn a seemingly bullshit topic into an interesting one:
---
When we were in Yosemite, ranger Dick decided to use analogies to help us remember and understand important concepts about nature. I will do the same in describing the spirituality of Yosemite.
If I drop this marker on the floor (demonstrate), does the marker "desire" to fall to the ground?
Obviously is does not desire, it is just following the laws of nature; gravity.
Similarly, a tree does not literally desire water nor does it desire to grow towards the sun. It does not have a consciousness like humans in order to make that choice.
We, on the other hand, can choose. I can choose whether I want to drink soda or water (or at least it may seem so).
Who exactly is doing the choosing?
We are, fundamentally, our DNA coding and certainly DNA does not choose.
The 'magic' happens in the gene expression. We get a product, like our consciousness, that seems as if it is beyond the laws of nature. This illusion is deeply mystifying and provocative.
Yosemite has this same mystifying property.
Just as the human DNA, Yosemite possess very objective mechanisms that strictly follow natural laws. Trees, plants, insects, etc all follow nature's laws flawlessly and consistently – just as a succulent deposits money in its bank account or how a tree lays off the branches at the lowest tier.
Despite the mechanical aspects of Yosemite, the whole seems greater than the sum of its parts.
Just like the human consciousness, a mystifying beauty emerges from Yosemite.
This beauty is very hard to conceptualize so I will make an analogy to clarify.
Imagine all of you were watching the play "Romeo and Juliet" for the first time. Only, the characters and the scene are going in super slow motion (almost frozen) and they are in the middle of the story. With careful scrutiny of the scene you can make certain assumptions, like the fact it is a play or what time period they are living in. You might be able to construct possible plots for the story. What is almost impossible to know, are the deeper meanings of the story. The irony, metaphors, humor, or social commentaries will be almost impossible to depict.
We are looking at Yosemite like we are looking at this slow motion play, we can only understand it superficially. Maybe our human mind is not capable of conceptualizing this spirit of Yosemite, either way; it has different effects on different people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
