Red Hot Geeky Love

 Posted by on 12 March 2003 at 12:13 am  Uncategorized
Mar 122003
 

Paul and I just watched tonight’s American Idol; the performances were, on the whole, much better than in the top ten of last season. I must admit that I’m presently completely partial to Clay Aiken. The combination of the geeky look, the self-confidence, and the smooth voice is just too much for me to resist! Mmm… red hot geeky love…

I wasn’t going to bother to blog that silly little bit, but then I realized that I could blog with my laptop from bed, as our wireless home network is now up and running. Awesome!


Share This Post

Jimmy Wales, Secret Blogger Man

 Posted by on 11 March 2003 at 10:36 am  Uncategorized
Mar 112003
 

So what’s up with Jimmy having a blog?!? He’s been posting for months! And I only found out about it due to a chance perusal from The Volokh Conspiracy to Throwing Things. I’ve been blog-snubbed by a good friend! *grumble*

In any case, Jimmy’s blog is the ever-friendly A Sharp Stick In Your Eye. His latest post concerns the difference between Michael Jackson and Fred (“Mr.”) Rogers. Really. It’s a hot topic these days, I swear.


Share This Post

Bush on First

 Posted by on 10 March 2003 at 9:41 am  Uncategorized
Mar 102003
 

I am neither a believer in George Bush’s alleged stupidity, nor a fan of the “Who’s on first?” bit. As such, I almost didn’t bother to read this little dialogue. But sheesh, it’s really funny.

The President meets Security Manager Condoleezza Rice.

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What’s happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader in China.
George: Great! Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That’s what I want to know.
Condi: That’s what I’m telling you.
George: That’s what I’m asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow’s name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinese guy!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya’ asking me for?
Condi: I’m telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I’m asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That’s the man’s name.
George: That’s who’s name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That’s correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, Sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, Sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the UN on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don’t want Kofi?
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the UN.
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy in the UN.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the UN
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East. Just get me the guy at the UN.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
Condi: (picks up the phone) Rice here.
George: Rice? Good idea! And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?


Share This Post

Brains in Vats

 Posted by on 9 March 2003 at 10:49 am  Uncategorized
Mar 092003
 

I’m presently rewatching The Matrix while setting up my new and speedy server. (After setup, hopefully next weekend, I’ll be swapping out this new server for my present old and tired co-located server.)

I was inspired to watch the movie again after listening to David Chalmers’ excellent lecture “The Matrix as Metaphysics” yesterday at Boulder. Chalmers argued that the “Matrix Hypothesis” that “I have (and have always had) a cognitive system that receives its inputs from and sends its outputs to an artificially-designed computer simulation of a world” is not, contrary to our intuitions, a skeptical claim, but rather a metaphysical one. He argues this point by showing that the Matrix Hypothesis is really the conjunction of three non-skeptical metaphysical thesis, namely:

(1) Creation Hypothesis: “Physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time.”

(2) The Computational Hypothesis: “Microphysical processes throughout space-time are constituted by underlying computational processes.”

(3) The Mind-Body Hypothesis: “My mind is (and has always been) constituted by processes outside physical space-time, and receives its perceptual inputs from and sends its outputs to processes in physical space-time.”

So Chalmers writes:

If this [analysis] is right, it follows that the Matrix Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. If I accept it, I should not infer that the external world does not exist, or that I have no body, or that there are no tables and chairs, or that I am not in Tucson. Rather, I should infer that the physical world is constituted by computations beneath the microphysical level. There are still tables, chairs, and bodies: these are made up fundamentally of bits, and of whatever constitutes these bits. This world was created by other beings, but is still perfectly real. My mind is separate from physical processes, and interacts with them. My mind may not have been created by these beings, and it may not be made up of bits, but it still interacts with these bits.

The result is a complex picture of the fundamental nature of reality. The picture is strange and surprising, perhaps, but it is a picture of a full-blooded external world. If we are in a matrix, this is simply the way that the world is.

What is striking about this whole argument to me is how similar it is to David Kelley’s comments on the brain the vat in his 1987 lecture “Skepticism” from The Foundations of Knowledge. (David Jilk, also at the lecture, noted the strong connection too.) Unfortunately my notes on that lecture were deleted, so I can’t give the details of Kelley’s view. But, if I recall correctly, Kelley argued that the brain in at vat would be aware of reality, but the fundamental constituents of that reality would be different than for brains in skulls. Kelley’s comments in the tape were fairly brief, as he was addressing all four of the major skeptical arguments. But the basic similarity to Chalmers’ argument was as plain as day!


Share This Post

Silly Joke

 Posted by on 6 March 2003 at 6:46 am  Uncategorized
Mar 062003
 

I’m finishing up my mental causation paper this morning, so all I have to offer is this silly joke:

Jesse Jackson was visiting an elementary school and he visits one of the classes. The class is in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the Rev. Jackson if he would like to lead the discussion on the word “tragedy.” So Jesse asks the class for an example of a “tragedy.”

One little boy stands up and offers: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks him dead, that would be a tragedy.”

“No” says Jesse Jackson,”that would be an accident.”

A little girl raises her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”

“I’m afraid not, ” explains the Rev. Jackson. “That’s what we would call a great loss.”

The room goes silent. No other children volunteer.

Rev. Jackson searches the room. “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”

Finally in the back of the room a very small boy raises his hand. In a quiet soft voice he says: “If a jet carrying the Rev. and Mrs. Jackson were struck by a missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.”

“Fantastic!” exclaims Jackson,

“That’s right. Can you tell us why that would be a tragedy?”

“Well”, says the boy, “because it certainly wouldn’t be a great loss and it probably wouldn’t be an accident either.”


Share This Post

Soliciting Murder

 Posted by on 4 March 2003 at 9:17 am  Uncategorized
Mar 042003
 

Ever since I first heard of the payments to the families of suicide bombers, I’ve had a legal question that I hope some blogosphere lawyers can help me answer. The question is: Is the payment of families of “martyrs” for killing infidels substantially different from murder-for-hire?

Potential suicide bombers know that their families will be paid (by Saddam, Saudi charities, and so on) if they kill some Jews and Christians in the process of blowing themselves up. Granted, no personal contact is made before the bombing. And particular individuals are not targeted, only members of groups. But isn’t knowledge that the money will be forthcoming as a result of criminal action enough to justify murder-for-hire? In particular, don’t the families of the murderers enter into the conspiracy by accepting the payment for the murders?

Back in April, Bush said that those paying the families of suicide bombers are “guilty of soliciting murder of the worst kind.” Is the charge of soliciting murder only a metaphorical or moral claim? Could it be made to stick in a court of law?

P.S. Today is my blogiversary! Horray!


Share This Post

Rationalization or Denial?

 Posted by on 2 March 2003 at 4:42 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 022003
 

As I was going through some old files, I found this little bit, written a few months ago. It’s still pretty relevant today:

I’ve often idly wondered why deep racists bothered denying the holocaust. If the Jews are so terrible, so subhuman, then what was wrong with sending millions of them to the gas chamber? Why spend so much effort denying something that the morality of deep racism indicates is a positive good?

Along similar lines, Best of the Web made an interesting observation:

There’s an intriguing parallel between Holocaust deniers, who argue simultaneously that the Holocaust didn’t happen and that the Jews had it coming, and those in the Arab world who say both that Sept. 11 was a “remarkable achievement” and that Arabs didn’t do it.

Even more odd is that those who deny Arab responsibility for 9/11 often claim that Muslims would have been justified in the attacks, given the oppressive policies of the United States. It all sounds like that most ridiculous courtroom defense: “I didn’t do it, but if I did, it was justifiable homicide.”


Share This Post

Mar 022003
 

An e-mail note from Marsha Enright:

Today’s the last day to get the lowest price on my seminar, “Ayn Rand’s Vision: How to understand it and use it in your life,” April 4th-5th in Columbia, MD (between Washingon, D.C. and Baltimore).

For more information on the seminar, visit my website, www.fountainheadinstitute.com. Send me a message if you want to register.

The price today is $300 for a two day seminar, going up to $350 ($150 for students). However, I am offering a special price of $150 each for groups of 10 or more. I will honor the lowest price for those who notify me that they wish to register by the day they get this email notice. Thanks for your attention!

Marsha Enright
The Fountainhead Institute
Chicago, IL
773-677-6418


Share This Post

With Criminals Like These, Who Needs Cops?!?

 Posted by on 28 February 2003 at 9:18 pm  Uncategorized
Feb 282003
 

I’ll be away from the computer for a few days, one of which is my one year blogiversary: March 4th! Horray for NoodleFood! To warm you up for the coming celebration, let me recommend this insane story about drug dealers crashing a party and working diligently to sell drugs to the crowd of cops.


Share This Post

I Should Be Writing My Paper on Mental Causation!

 Posted by on 28 February 2003 at 3:21 pm  Uncategorized
Feb 282003
 

Catholicism, birth control, menstruation, primitive tribes, cancer, and atheism… this article has it all!

And this one on the technology of disposable diapers was even more fascinating!

Okay, I’m going to go work on my paper now. I swear. Really.


Share This Post

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha