Don't be evil

Eric Schmidt, Google CEO says:

Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men.

Sounds laudable. But let's not forget Eric that you are where you are from exploiting the people in your organization. I suggest everyone be paid the same hourly rate at Google, agreed?

Somewhere Einsteins phrase "Standing on the shoulders of giants" got translated into "Standing on the backs of the workers".

He is acknowledging that something called "evil" is a possible state to be in. I wonder if he is a Christian?

Still, I do like the google philosophy in general - with a wary eye on the marketing hype however.

Chess Boxing

Thoughts on this?

Generally I am in favour of the idea. But there could be some short matches, it can take a long time for some physically lightweight guy to beat a muscle man at chess but not long for the muscle man to punch the lights out on the lightweight guy.

So I think the sport would need weight categories, like in normal boxing.

But wouldn't it be satisfying to have a punch up with some *** who just swindled you out of a piece? I think it could work. Our warring nature on two fronts.

I sense shades of Cartesian Dualism (Duelism ? :-) in the two sides of human nature being exposed here, brains against brawn, beauty and the beast, the yin and the yang etc. Should be a winner.

Many thanks indeed for bringing this to my attention !

Behold! The seventh sign!

I think the end times truly are here:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002452.html
Thoughts on this?

Internal Inconsistency

Of course, if nothing can be certain, than my assertion of something being "the only logical conlusion" is itself wrong. But it can't be "wrong" because that's an absolute.

Pffzzzt.

No Purpose

You wrote:

1. To love God
2. To solve a problem
3. Entertainment
4. A power source
5. No purpose is necessary
6. Something else

My responses:

1. We can't know God exists, therefore loving what can't be known is foolish.
2. We can't identify anything as a problem since we can't know anything for certain
3. One person's entertainment is another person's offense.
4. It existence of the "power source" can be discerned or proven
5. What's "necessary" and what is not can't be discerned
6. We'll never know, so there's no point in contemplating "something else"

Honestly, there is no purpose. Since we can't prove a purpose exists, the purpose can't exist.

That's the only logical conclusion to today's "nothing is absolute" philosophy.

Our purpose

You wrote:

Therefore we have no purpose.

Damn!

Some offers of what our purpose is

1) To love God

2) To solve a problem (Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy)

3) Entertainment (The Truman Show)

4) A power source (The Matrix)

5) No purpose is necessary

6) Something else

There are many Hollywood blockbusters that will emerge from option 6 I am sure.
Everyone subscribes to one of the above don't they?

More Fundamental Still ...

My point goes even deeper ... nothing is knowable, so there's no reason to seek. Seeking is an illogical exercise in the face of an utter inability to find. Therefore, we will never find "our purpose." Therefore we have no purpose.

Human drivers

You wrote:

Why bother thinking any more?

Excellent, now we are getting somewhere! A very very good question. Why should we bother with anything?

My answer is: I do not know.

I am driven by things which I do not understand. These things create needs that I have to fulfil. One need is to seek. To seek I need to think, another need is to care for my daughter, another one is to love and another to be loved etc etc etc.

I don't know where these drivers come from. Perhaps between us we can work it out? And work it out in a way for all religions and beliefs? Those who believe in YHWH and those who do not, those who believe in natural selection and those who do not, etc.

To really answer the question of purpose, to answer the question of why? I need more information. Either someone needs to slip me the answer or I need to go out and measure it. My prediction is that I'll get better information from those who have gone out and measured stuff from those who sit in a room thinking up stuff.

I do not even know what is driving me to ask "why?"

In Search of Certainty

I'm coming to understand that nothing can be known for certain. Nothing in the realm of music, art, philosophy, history, politics or religion. Nothing in the realm of science -- physics, chemistry, astronomy or biology. Nothing in the realm of medicine. Nothing in the realm of math. Nothing at all.

Every single thing can be argued to have alternatives.

Everything.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to debate any point. Your arguments for are no better or worse than my arguments against. There is also no possible conclusion, so why bother?

And if that is true, then God does not exist. By definition he can't. The moment one person argues he does not, then he must not.

Why bother thinking any more?

Boys keep swinging

You asked:

Your turn -- do you think we're merely programmed beings, whose primary stimulus is the pain/pleasure variables?

Yes. Although I wouldn't use the adjective "merely" -- we are an amazing achievement !!

If we are indeed programmed to pursue self-interest, to the exclusion of all else, then it does leave little room for the influence of moral ideas.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. The examples you gave seem to clearly fit into the pleasure/pain principle. On these moral behaviours you asked:

Where does that come from?

Well I believe it comes from societal pressure. I have seen many people "being nice" to people. I've also sometimes seen how these people "play up" how moral they are in sacrificing something (money, time, etc). I suspect that inside they resent their kindness but do it for the reason that the pleasure they receive from society for doing so is greater than their loss. Or, society does not inflict pain on them for doing their kind deed. Or God may not inflict pain on them for doing their good deed. In all cases their actions adhere to the pleasure/pain principle. To appreciate this one has to be 100% honest with oneself (not something I find easy to do).

My observations of two young children growing up provide the information for my summation above. They need to be told to "be nice" in the altruistic fashion. Interestly though, they usually understand the concept of "treating others how they wish to be treated" though. When they see injustices in the world they recognize them, they do seem to have some innate sense of "right" and "wrong" I will grant you -- but it's rooted in "I wouldn't like that to happen to me".

Imagine a human child from birth brought up by an alien society where something we find abhorrent is common practise. How would that child act if dumped into Earth society?

Question: are you aware of any examples of animals appearing to pause and enjoy a sunset?

My old cat did once. I swear it. Who knows though. I'm a dog person really.

+++

Mustafa wrote: Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter.

Is he mandating a definition of "Cultural materialism" there? I would have thought that there are many things between "living as if there were no God or moral absolutes" and "all that matters is matter" (whatever he means by "matter" in this case). These binary statements remind me of your hero CSLewis. Were it has to be "A" or "B". Hey!!!! What about "C,D,E,F..." etc.

Mustafa, if anyone thinks believing in natural selection precludes (or excludes?) an Intelligent Desinger is most probably not correct. No more debate needed.

Mustafa, you and everyone one else will never know if there in an Intelligent Designer, but you and everyone else, are entitled to their beliefs.

+++

Ah the Lennon thing. I was led astray by a distraught female, I felt sorry for her crying her eyes out at John's departure. Turns out she had ulterior motives. Not a pleasant (first) experience !!

Other Story?

You wrote:

And in fact, Lennon being murdered led me to .... but that's another story :-)

Well ... we're listening. :-)

Intelligent Design ... from a Muslim Perspective

Interesting article by a professed proponent of ID, yet one who is a believing Muslim. I offer it without further comment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol200512020813.asp

Hobbes

Is the "Hobbes" to which you refer the tiger from the comic strip, "Calvin and Hobbes?"

http://images.google.com/images?q=Calvin+and+hobbes&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest

That comic strip is no longer drawn, but in its day it was a true classic. Superior artwork and very, very clever writing.

* * *
You wrote (with my [inclusions])

Hobbes's work: [premise] he possibly thinks of human beings as mechanical objects, programmed as it were to pursue their self-interest. Some have suggested [conclusion] that Hobbes's mechanical world-view leaves no room for the influence of moral ideas, that that he thinks the only effective influence on our behavior are incentives of pleasure and pain.

If I accept the premise, then I've got less argument with the conclusion. If we are indeed programmed to pursue self-interest, to the exclusion of all else, then it does leave little room for the influence of moral ideas. I have stated elsewhere in this blog that on its surface, the "Sermon on the Mount" is pure rubbish. The Sermon, within the context of purely selfish beings, would be rejected out of hand. "Blessed are the meek?" No they're not -- foolish statement, therefore disregard. "Love my enemies?" Don't be ridiculous; they'll slaughter me if I don't keep my guard up.

So, if premise, then conclusion. Yes, I agree with that.

The question in my mind is whether Hobbes' position is sustainable. I think it's pretty clear there's at least an element of truth to it ... as we look around, we see an awful lot of behavior done largely out of self-interest. We respond quite readily (and predictably) to pleasure and to pain.

But is that the whole story? I'm inclined to think not ... and not just because I have a lot invested in that not being the whole story.

If I consider the world of "natural selection" and "evolution," I see no reason why altruism or kindness should exist ... except to the extent it benefits the propegation of my DNA. So acts of sacrifice for my offspring is somewhat understandable within the context of natural selection. But what about kindness to others? Some argue that there's a survival instinct that kicks in at the herd or pack level -- a kind of community altruism. I doubt that ... I doubt that's something that can be demonstrated in the wild. I'm open to being contradicted there, but I don't think there's too many examples where animals in the wild sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others in their wider social structure.

Yet humans do demonstrate that. For instance, kindness and care extended to the elderly. From a DNA perspective, it's pointless -- their contribution to the propegation of the DNA is finished. In that narrow sense, they're worthless. Yet there appears to be a long history of humans caring for their elderly, and even examples of altruism when the elderly kill themselves rather than continue to be a "burden" on the others.

Where does that come from?

Here the theology kicks in ... if indeed we are "made in God's image" -- that is, we possess qualities of being and personality like that possessed by God, then there's something within us beyond the mere programmed pain/pleasure model.

Question: are you aware of any examples of animals appearing to pause and enjoy a sunset? I'm not ... yet we do, almost universally. Why? What's that all about?

But that's the extent of my insights on that topic ... philosophy is not a strong suit of mine. I'm easily tripped up by the dense language used.

Your turn -- do you think we're merely programmed beings, whose primary stimulus is the pain/pleasure variables?

The Pleasure/Pain Principle

LOL @ the soup. It's a fine broth I will agree.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is today best known for his political thought. His vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to contemporary politics (so BBC Radio 4 tells me).

Hobbes's work: he possibly thinks of human beings as mechanical objects, programmed as it were to pursue their self-interest. Some have suggested that Hobbes's mechanical world-view leaves no room for the influence of moral ideas, that that he thinks the only effective influence on our behavior are incentives of pleasure and pain.

Thoughts?

25 years this week since Lennon was shot http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/lennon.shtml
I was living above a shop in London at the time and clearly remember hearing the news on the radio as I was getting ready for sixth form school that morning. I recall feeling shocked shocked shocked and wondered what this news meant for the world. And in fact, Lennon being murdered led me to .... but that's another story :-)

I wonder how long Chapman would last if he ever gets out of Attica State? Less than a week I would guess.

Shameful Admission

I like Campbell's Chicken Noodle soup ... really, I do.

Horsies and Duckies

Good grief ... quantum bytes? Computers based on massive arrays of quantum states?

It's too much ... too much ... too much.

I recall the manual that came with the first IBM PC ... it had cartoon pictures of ducks. Now that is the level of complexity I want to go back to.

Bah ... quantum state computers. Bah!

* * *
With regard to the movie, "War of the Worlds" ... Lisa brought up a good point. If this supposedly superior alien race had been watching us for millions years, you'd think they would have been smart enough to analyze our air and water to make sure they weren't going to expose themselves to harm.

Gosh ... even the original Star Trek series did that! "Class M atmosphere, Captain."

Plus ... why is it every Spielberg representation of an alien species is long and spindly with big slanted eyes? Everyone knows that vastly superior species are going to be elderly white men wearing shimmering white robes that dissipate into a pure energy field. That's what always happened on Star Trek. They're always pacifist, and they sit around in committee groupings. One speaks for the group, the rest sit there mute. Spock is fascinated by the "pure energy, Captain" aspect of it; Kirk ends up having the bemused smirk on his face that says, "They may be smarter pure-energy beings, but I get that hot Yoman Rand chick."

* * *
I tend to like spoken word on my MP3 player (a Rio Forge with 512MB of flash) rather than music. I have music on it, but when I'm sitting on a plane, the best way to occupy my brain is to have something to think about, not just listen to. So I've loaded up on some MP3's from my man R.C. Sproul. :-)

One of the things I like about the Rio is that it takes a single AAA battery. I don't like the idea of a rechargable built-in battery. If I'm on a plane halfway between Dallas and NYC, and my battery goes dead, all I have to do now is go into my backpack and grab another AAA. With the others, I have to think about recharging the built-in battery before trips. No problem, if I remember. But there'll be a day I don't.

"Well," you might say. "You have to remember to have a supply of AAA's."

...

...

...

Oh, shut up.

:-)

Yay!

http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1105/news/byte.html?1133470239046

We'll need one of these computers to solve chess. If Black wins I am not sure what that says about the Universe, if anything.

Adversaries

Man that was a funny diatribe ending with:

You broke me of chess ... you know that, don't you? :-)

"The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have points to gain, and competition or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or want of it." - Benjamin Franklin, 1779

+++

I thought that Cruise acted well in that movie, and I guess they did take a few liberties with the Wells original.

+++

Shopping in the Big Apple? What did you load on the iPod?

Didn't Like This Movie ...

... Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds." Too much implausibility. Typical Spielberg. Lisa is still watching it ... I've retired to the other room where I'm preparing my MP3 player for the trip to NYC next week. :-)

Loving the Unloveable

You wrote:

You can stand someone who is sick right?

Well ... that's hard for me. Without going into a lot of personal detail, I was raised by a woman who was -- and is -- very, very sick. There is a depth of selfishness and manipulation the likes of which I've never seen.

I'm well aware of this not in keeping with the example set by Christ our Saviour.

I'm aware of the specifics of your example. It's an awful situation -- I know from experience. But as I've said before, the key there is for you to be the anchor. Or, to put it into chess terms, you need to be that pawn at Q4 or K4 that buggers up the whole board! :-)

Note: on my death bed, some 50 years from now if the Lord grants me that much time, I will mutter something like, "That pawn ... that pawn ... damn that pawn." One lousy piece ... it's ability to move hindered ... effectively freezing the onslaught that was to be my offensive campaign. My bishops, rooks and knights arrayed ready for battle. And one lone pawn, steadfast in the middle, frustrated the ambitions of an empire! You broke me of chess ... you know that, don't you? :-)

Look ... I'm aware that of all the challenges laid out before us by Jesus, "loving your enemy" is probably the longest stretch. I'm doing well if I can simply cease from criticizing, which in the case of Mr. Moore I failed at. Perhaps in many cases "loving your enemy" can be something as simple as "if afforded the opportunity to attack your enemy ... don't." ???