Existentialism does not play nice with others

Just a brief thought: if it's true that we define our own realities, then I think that conflict with others must be unavoidable. It's difficult to live harmoniously with others if everything that is true or good is merely relative. How can we learn to live in harmony with one another if my judgment of what is moral differs from my neighbors?

Debating consistency between rationality and God

On my drive home from Myrtle Beach last night I finally listened to the full debate "Does Science Refute God?" a debate that has been replayed on NPR multiple times in the last few months.

I think that the question in the debate can be better stated as "Is the idea of God incompatible with reason?" This is important, because it seems that most debates over God's existence usually entail making God work consistently with science, but I always get the impression that the word "science" is being misused. People arguing for the existence of God probably appeal to science because of a perception that science is more important and perhaps fundamental than reason.

However, science is based on a structured and rational background, so it seems to me that the two camps are fighting to either keep reason and God separate or to integrate God into the existing rational world-view. (Here, I by rationality I mean the exact same thing as reason.)

Kuhn on the cost of intellectual pursuits

"Anyone who has wrestled with a project like mine will recognize what it has occasionally cost them."
-Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. xii.

Equality and ability

I've lately been coming to terms with the idea that not all people are created equal. By this I mean that some people have certain aptitudes that may make them "successful" by the measures of our society, while others may not possess these abilities.

This idea is certainly not in agreement with traditional American values. A common theme in our culture is that hard work will earn someone success. That is, everyone has the capability to be successful. Of course, I don't think that anyone would argue against the idea that success is most commonly achieved through hard work. So, the idea that every person is created equally would imply that those who are not successful did not work hard enough to achieve success.

I find it dubious to believe that the difference between a homeless person on the street and a successful corporate executive is simply their willingness to work hard. So many differences between the two people's pasts exist that their current plight can't be correlated entirely to work-ethic.

The reason this is important is because success is typically equated with money. Now, of course I understand that money can get us what we want, but beyond that, money is a means of security. In America, those with large sums of money can afford very good health care and need not worry about how to support themselves in retirement. In some sense, money frees one from the anxiety felt by a lot of people struggling to earn an income. This anxiety is towards an unknown future: poor health, a broken vehicle, fires and natural disasters, etc.

I did not make an attempt in this writing to be rigorous. Instead, I wanted to clarify some ideas that have remained muddled inside my head. I should make an effort in the future to expand upon what success means, and whether or not a division of people into rich and poor classifications is fair or useful. I should also attempt to address the maxim "money cannot buy happiness."

Responding to bias

I wrote a reply to a comment on a very good article discussing cycling social norms concerning road use. I think it was a good exercise in responding to an argument that was founded on a few unstated and questionable assumptions.


The article may be found here: http://iamtraffic.org/2013/03/the-stories-we-tell-part-one/. I am ResponsibleRiderInOrlando. (Originial, huh?)

Feynman on Science and Morality

"The sciences do not directly teach good or bad."
from The Value of Science, by Richard P. Feynman

Feynman on Unpolarized Light as a Limitation of Measurement

"...light is unpolarized only if we are unable to find out whether the light is polarized or not."
-Richard Feynman, from "The Feynman Lectures on Physics: Volume 1," p. 33-2.

On the dichotomy of science

In the introduction to Part III of "The History of Western Philosophy," Bertrand Russell notes that there exist two types of science: theoretical and practical. Theoretical science

"...is an attempt to understand the word. Practical science, which is an attempt to change the world, has been important from the first,and has continually increased in importance, until it has almost ousted theoretical science from men's thoughts."

I find this dichotomy of science to be absolutely fascinating. What's more, I'm at this moment suspicious that this dichotomy may actually be different from the common division of science into basic and applied realms, as I will now explain.

First, I'll define basic and applied science as I understand them. Importantly, the definitions that I will present are, I think, what most scientists would agree on. Basic, or fundamental, science is a means for establishing modes of thought or logical frameworks for arriving at predictive models of natural phenomena.  According to Wikipedia, "basic science is development and establishment of information to aid understanding." Applied science, however, seeks to alter the course of natural events and achieve some purpose.

Now consider the mantra espoused by many scientists and professional organizations that is argued before governments and funding agencies: basic science and fundamental research often leads to important discoveries that are translated into new technologies. Importantly, technology and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. In this argument, it is therefore assumed that basic science is linked to applied science in some kind of linear chain which ends with technology and prosperity. Indeed, some current business models are capitalizing on the apparent gap between academic research and industry by creating a business for translating information from the former to the latter.

In this line of reasoning, basic science and applied science are both means to the same end: new technologies and their resulting economic stimulus. The goals of Russell's two types of sciences are different, however. Theoretical science increases our understanding of the world, whereas practical science provides us with more of something tangible, whether it be electricity, airplanes, or smart phones. Practical science encompasses both basic and applied science. As Russell points out:

"The triumph of science has been mainly due to its practical utility, and there has been an attempt to divorce this aspect from that of theory, thus making science more and more a technique, and less and less a doctrine as to the nature of the world."

Even CERN, which at first glance is a triumph of theoretical science, is touted for its technological contributions to applied science. If it were otherwise, I doubt the European Union would have funded it.

The point I'm trying to make is that Russell saw in theoretical science something wholly different from most scientist's understanding about what science is and lies outside of their definitions of basic and applied. I think his theoretical science is more akin to how children see science. Working scientists, however, are forever having to justify their work to governments and funding agencies, which eventually erodes the role that the theoretical aspect plays on their conception.

What good would an awareness of theoretical science provide? Does the general public, i.e. non-scientists or government workers, even need to understand that this dichotomy exists? To a layman, applied science contains just as much wonder and insight as theoretical science does.

Socrates on allegiances

"Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and as long as I draw breath and have my faculties I shall never stop practicing philosophy"
Socrates, from Plato's The Apology

Ernest Rutherford on statistics

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Ernest Rutherford

Socrates on death

"Some one will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or of a bad..."
Socrates, from Plato's The Apology

Meditating on the right questions

Meditations all have a common cause. In fact, they're not so much about the existence of a problem and a need to address it, but rather they stem from the very human desire to analyze, to make sense of, to bring order to where there is chaos in the mind. People will debate forever, say, the purpose of the state or the origin of beauty, but is it really the implications of these questions alone that drive us into discourse? I suspect that there is more. Meditation is not solely for the achievement of a goal, but also to identify the form of a question that's worth answering. In so doing, we render a complex problem into something tractable and worth solving.

I am of course writing not about meditation in the Eastern-mystical sense, but rather about the act of pursuing a problem, investigating its premises, eliciting its subtleties, and reducing it to its bare essence. I think the art of meditation, if it may be called an art, is something that every man, woman, and child should practice, consciously or otherwise. It is a unique ability of the human mind. And, being fundamentally human, it can satisfy in some primeval way, much like the view earned from a hike in the Rockies above timberline or the final product of many hours spent painstakingly stripping, sanding, and then refinishing an old wooden table. Much like the latter example, it is an active sort of fulfilment which requires the brain to make concrete an abstract image rather than to simply appreciate some innate aesthetic quality.

So I propose this to those struggling to make sense of something in their lives: it is the nature of human beings to meditate, and this can be used to your advantage. Think about a question that relates to your problem and decide whether it intrigues you, whether it makes you want to turn it over and examine it from every angle. If it doesn't, your natural faculties of meditation cannot aid you and it may not be worth your efforts to proceed further with a solution. Reformulate the question  and try again. Through a process of trial and error, you'll happen upon the right question that cuts to the heart of your problem.

Addendum: I found an interesting blog post that stated that people minimize the negative feelings associated with an unfortunate event if they can "make sense" of it. However, "making sense" of some act also reduces positive feelings from an event as well.

Impact bias -- apparently I'm not original

I recently (within the last year) came to the conclusion that it is a fallacy to project my current emotional state far into the future. For example, I often worry that I'll become locked into the same job for the rest of my life with no opportunity for change. However, the reality is that opportunities present themselves regularly and I always possess the freedom to find some new career.

I realized that this fallacy could be generalized to many different things and have given it as advice to others under some sort of stress. I was rather proud of this idea and thought it to be original. Like many intellectual constructs, however, I was merely reinventing the wheel.

While reading through the comments on a post at LessWrong I discovered the idea of impact bias. It's precisely what I had in mind, though much more developed. For example, it also states that we have a tendency to project positive emotions too far into the future. Take a look at the link. It's interesting and to keep it in mind helps to alleviate a lot distress we inflict upon ourselves.

Into the lion's den

Confirmation bias is the term for seeking out sources of information that positively reflect one's current beliefs. Sometimes these sources can be other people.

Today I had a conversation with an old acquaintance who readily extolled his beliefs on religious open-mindedness, problems with government, and other weighty affairs. I agreed with nearly everything he said; I found myself making small remarks in agreement. And these were the only remarks I was making.

I notice that when like-minded people converse on polarizing topics, their conversations simply reflect their collective moods and nothing much new is learned. To arrive at new conclusions, we have to challenge our beliefs. Very often this means associating with people who have very different views from our own. It's good practice at arguing, and is valuable so long as we remain open-minded to allowing our beliefs to change.

Note: I wonder if my idea of values and beliefs, as defined in LessWrong, are the same thing.

What I've learned from the past few months

I'm home for the holidays and, as always happens on these breaks, I am in a very philosophical mood. So, I decided to write a little and see what became of it.

I haven't written--at least in this blog--for a very long time, so I think a summary of things I've learned over the past few months is in order. I may expand upon each point later, but for now I'd like to simply enumerate with brief descriptions major thoughts I've had. They've all been fueled by major events in my life. If you choose, you may easily divulge what they may have been from their content.

I was asked recently what love meant to me. After a minute of thought, pouring over tired responses about dedication and sacrifice in my mind, I gave the following, honest response: I am a rationalist. I analyze ideas down to their roots. I look at them from different perspectives to gain an appreciation for how others view them and to gain new insights. I break them into their logical pieces until I possess cold, static blueprints of their workings, then I file them away until I need them to analyze other ideas. However, love is not something that I wish to subject to reason. I stubbornly refuse to define it. Love is something so intrinsic to human nature that it coexists in the hierarchy of the human being at the same level as intellect. No matter our mental faculties, we simply can't hope to understand something at so basic a level. I love, and am loved, and nothing can make me happier than this.

The greatest moments in my life have occurred during times of flux. Starting graduate school, making the conscious decision to be happy, the passing of my mom. Great moments are born when I am pushed by external circumstances to be great. Sometimes these circumstances are beyond my control, but often I possess the ability to place myself in the position to take advantage of the energy that change provides. For this reason, I don't foresee working in the same career or living in the same place for the remainder of my life.

On a related topic, I've recognized the ill effects of being in the same situation for so long. Graduate school is starting to wear on me. I think very little on the news, on philosophy, or things beyond science and optics since my thought is dominated by school. Most of my time is spent in the lab or in the office, often out of guilt for not having achieved as much the day before. My mental math skills aren't as sharp. I have more difficulties following conversations with friends. I need a change in my life to reinvigorate me. Finishing graduate school is a priority, but I don't want to slip further from my universalistic thoughts to achieve it. I'm very much looking forward to big changes in my near future. For now I must endure my current situation.

I think this is enough writing for now. My thoughts are starting to wander and I am losing focus. I am glad I managed to form these thoughts into words. I'll revisit them in the near future and hopefully act upon them accordingly.

Honesty and happiness

My recent forays into the dating scene and discussions with some of my friends have enlightened me to one important quality in the search for happiness. That quality, I believe, is nothing more than honesty, both with oneself and to others.

No one doubts the value of being honest to others, but I think that honesty with oneself is something that is extremely undervalued or not even recognized by many. Being honest with oneself means critically examining the choices that she or he makes with regards to things such as careers, dating, and outward behavior. Once one becomes truly open to his or her own feelings, I think that this person will be in a very good---if not the best---position to positively affect their life. Knowledge is power and it precludes constructive action, so I don't think that self-honesty is a quality whose value can be challenged.

But is this quality enough to achieve happiness? That question is debatable and subtle. A friend of mine argues that it is not simply enough to know what makes us the happiest. Often times we are unable to achieve those things. For example, a love interest may not reciprocate romantic feelings or income may not suffice to live the lifestyle of one's choosing. For this reason she argues that finding satisfaction with the things that she currently has is more important than knowing what makes her happy, since these things might not be attainable.

I can think of examples of friends with whom this idea may not work. Specifically, I have friends who are miserable at their jobs but are unwilling to switch because the money supports their lifestyles well. I concede that they may truly value their own entertainment and financial freedom more than satisfaction with their careers, but I honestly don't believe this. Being unhappy at work bleeds over into so many other aspects of their lives, so I doubt that settling for five unfulfilled days a week is an optimum behavior for being happy. Here I believe that a close self-examination of their situations would reveal the culprit behind their discontent and provide the basis for making a change for the better.

Despite this counterexample, my friend's advice has definite merit. I suppose then that there can be no general rule for finding happiness with either of the two approaches. Individuals must find a blend of the two that works for them and provides them a degree of satisfaction that they can be, well, satisfied with.

Side notes: What are the obstacles to self-honesty? Why do people value the things that keep them from attaining the maximum degree of happiness? I may be in error by placing so much emphasis on a quantification of happiness, but I think that without this tool I have no way of discussing it. I do wonder, though, what other models exist for such a thing.

Products of the mind

This morning I read an article in the Guardian about the late and former NFL star Dave Duerson. On February 17, 2011, Duerson killed himself inside his apartment in Florida by shooting himself in the heart. Though he had experienced several bad setbacks over the past several years, including a faltering business and divorce, family and doctors do not attribute these to his death. The cause, they say, was a disease known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is a severe degeneration of structures in the brain due to repeated blows to the head. The disease is most commonly found in athletes who participate in sports featuring strong physical contact, such as boxing, hockey, and American football.

Those closest to Duerson reported that he was becoming increasingly unable to focus on complex problems and recently made many uncharacteristically bad business decisions. He also suffered severe mood swings and was unable to enjoy his usual happy demeanor. Hours before his death, he had unofficially arranged for his brain to be examined by the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy. It seems that he understood that his life was deteriorating due to the problems with his brain.

Stories like this one remind me how much we are products of our own minds, and not just of our thoughts. Many people have turned to ideas borrowed from eastern philosophies for finding happiness within their lives. Own little; eat lightly; think positively. There is however no amount of positive thought that can overcome depression when there is a physical reason for it.

But how are we to recognize the difference between the two causes---external and internal? I suspect that the growth of modern neuroscience will lead to new (albeit incomplete) understandings of the physical causes of depression, which in turn will lead to medicines with the possibility of their misapplication. Is it right to prescribe an anti-depression drug when the stress is external and natural or holistic remedies exist? These questions are of course relevant now, but I think it is enlightening to examine them from a philosophical context, especially one that attributes so much power to the mind in finding happiness for oneself.

A dynamic value system—revisited

It is interesting to note that a world view that is based upon a dynamic value system is similar to a Bayesian reasoner. This is a model for designing algorithms that must make decisions based upon incomplete information. Once more data is received, the degrees of plausibility that certain propositions are true are recalculated by the reasoner.

A world view based upon dynamic values changes its conclusions and outlook when its values change, and these change with experience (similar to acquiring new data in the Bayesian model).

This brings to mind a curious question: if two individuals share the exact same life experiences, are they necessarily the same person?

And to further explore this question: will differences in their physiology cause them to adopt different personalities and world views? Is it impossible to impose the exact same events in the two lives, making the question unanswerable? Because Bayesian reasoning, if it can even be correctly applied to human reasoning, is still based upon probabilities, is it actually only a question of how likely the two individuals will be more or less the same?

These thoughts have been fueled by E. T. Jaynes's "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science."

Addendum: I think the question above is only relevant within the context considering a Bayesian reasoner, i.e. not an actual human. Actual human thought is driven by more than reasonable analysis of propositions, such as physiology and emotion.

Happiness and careers

Last night I had a conversation with a friend about the nature of work and our careers. For context, I'm a graduate student entering my fifth year and hoping to finish in six; he's three years older than I am and working as a programmer for a web development company. Careers are important parts of the lives of those of us in our mid-to-late twenties since we are working so hard to establish them. The popular thought is that without a proper career, we can not find happiness later in life. This happiness comes from the attainment of wealth, family, and the approval of our friends and family for having achieved these things. This, at least, is my interpretation of the general consensus of my generation.

My observation is that, from this viewpoint, the happiness obtained by a career is from things external to ourselves. Wealth, a family, and social recognition are all independent of our own minds. But I think people often fail to realize the importance of the internal rewards earned through their careers. For example, one can find happiness knowing that their job helps others (teachers, doctors) or is aesthetically pleasing (artists, mathematicians). This is evident by the number of people willing to teach and the "starving artists" that frequent coffee shops and small venues the world over.

Many of my close friends are struggling to find what exactly they value more: internal or external rewards for their hard work. Granted, the two are not mutually exclusive, but the optimal ratio of the amount of the one to the other-the one that provides the greatest degree of happiness-can vary drastically depending upon the individual. Unfortunately, failing to recognize which of the two any of my friends value more can keep them from finding contentment.

A simple recognition of one's own values is not enough to find happiness with a career, though it certainly is an important first step. This observation (that self-understanding is not sufficient) underscores the importance of acting on one's desires. However, it takes courage to change careers (or even jobs within the same field), especially considering that one might suffer a severe cut in pay or the uncertainty in reestablishing oneself in a new workplace. An additional difficulty with changing jobs is that people may place the values of others above their own in deciding upon their career path. A society might greatly value wealth, so a person may lock themselves into a high-paying job, despite being unhappy, because it's what others think is important. In this case, I believe that the individual's values should trump those of others, though this too takes a certain degree of courage and sense of self.

To summarize, the point of a career is to find an optimum degree of contentment. This comes in the form of compensation, which includes both external and internal rewards. Though not mutually exclusive, people tend to favor one type of reward over the other. Failure to recognize what one wants out of their career often leads to boredom and discontent, but so too does failing to change careers because of prejudices based upon what career success means. The first step in finding happiness is to establish one's values, then act accordingly. This will take courage, but many things in life that are worthwhile do.

After thought:  I didn't address it, but some people may also find difficulty pursuing their chosen career field, which adds another degree of complexity to my analysis. For example, women may face barriers in many fields dominated by men. Consideration of these factors might change my conclusions, but I think that for the most part they apply in general.

I am not alone

It really is quite amazing when you stumble upon a quote from a historical figure that so precisely reflects your state of mind that it gives you a slight chill when you first read it. Such was my reaction upon reading a quote from Kierkegaard on Wikipedia's entry on existentialism:

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.

—Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835, emphasis added