Why I Simply Assume The Outside World Exists

Or, Why I Think Solipsism is Irrelevant At Best

I never read a lot of works on solipsism, nor do frequently read a lot of philosophy, though I certainly appreciate the power and value of so much of it.  Truth is, I just like to figure out things on my own (Mom used to said to me, when a kid, that I was trying to “reinvent the wheel”!).  Also, I find a lot of philosophy too academic to have any bearing on real world events, although I do appreciate (and even love to read!) about the finer points of what makes an argument valid, coherent, etc. (though largely limited to reading about fallacies).  I guess all this means I have a love-annoyance relationship with philosophy – appreciating its very real value in shining light on formerly dark aspects of the nature of things, but irritated that so much of it is not readily applicable to helping people determine what truly is valuable in life, nor how the academics findings are applicable to ordinary people.

Anyway, on to the topic in the blog title…

Solipsism is the view that we cannot be reasonably sure that anything exists outside our minds. Its advocates may accept Descartes “I think, therefore I am”, but they do reject the absolute certainty of the claim “there exists things outside our conscious thoughts”. This is because they consider such a claim either false or impossible to prove sufficiently. As such, it is an extreme form of skepticism (not that “extreme” equals “bizarrely untrue” as surely as 4 + 8 = 12).  

On the other hand, their critics claim solipsism encourages, if not mandates “philosophical poverty”, for where can it go from its base assumption?[1]

solipsism seems only to have found a facile way to avoid the more difficult task of a critical analysis of what is 'real' and what isn't, and what 'reality' means.[2]

I can certainly see what both sides are talking about. On one hand, I see nothing that would fatally defeat the notion that, in principle at least, our minds may well be hardwired to see the universe in a certain fundamental way - a way that our free will cannot exercise the slightest control over. Mainstream philosophers apparently handwave away this point of view as "absurd" without any evidence conclusively proving it absurd.  

On the other hand, the Solipsist assertion does nothing to prove the outside world does not exist (as if that is possible). Yet neither can they prove that our minds do, in fact, create all of reality, or even a small part of it – as though we exist under a Matrix-like regime. Likewise, the Solipsists claims are impossible to prove or even outright false.

In the end, it's difficult to see how discussions about Solipsism beyond what I just wrote can be of any value beyond academic parlor games (and movie plots, as noted above).  Therefore, as a matter of practical application, I side with mainstream philosophers despite their inability to conclusively demonstrate Solipsism is, in fact, a false view of reality.   After all, even if the Solipsists are right, I cannot in the slightest way will any changes in the basic laws of the reality I experience.  

Therefore, it is best to treat my perceptions as if it they were real (i.e. actually exist outside my mind).  After all, that outside world (or the involuntarily generated illusion) has considerable bearing on how my state of mind is, so it is best to learn how that reality (real or not) operates.  I can only do so if I ignore other Solipsists claims entirely.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Philosophical_poverty

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Philosophical_poverty

The Limits of Occam's Razor

Occam’s Razor, also called The Law of Parsimony, is a principle that we shouldn’t add more explanations for a thing than absolutely necessary.  However, popular interpretations of this principle usually go something like “The simpler explanation is to be preferred over the complex one”.  While this does sound appealing on the surface, it is actually a distortion of Occam.  Even worse, this interpretation itself is open to rhetorical abuse.  This is particularly true when people are unwilling to do the actual hard work of considering the totality of the facts, deciding which facts are relevant, then deciding what the facts mean.

The truth is that Occam’s Razor applies only to explanations that account for identical sets of facts.  If the simple explanation takes into account eight relevant facts while the complex ones also take into account those same eight facts and only those eight, then Occam’s razor applies.  However, if the complex explanation takes into account even nine relevant facts, including all eight of the previously stated ones, then we should at the very least not dismiss the more complex explanation from the get-go simply because it’s not as simple as the one that takes into account only the aforementioned eight facts.  The complex explanation might still be wrong anyway, for any number of reasons.  Even so, if it is wrong, it is certainly not due to its complexity; for the explanation takes into account one more relevant fact that the simple one does.  

Occam’s Razor is also easy to abuse rhetorically, especially in light of the above.  This is particularly true with regard to highly complex issues that vex practically everyone – religion, politics, economics, psychology, morality / ethics and so forth.  As emotionally charged as these issues are, these spheres are especially fertile ground for demagogic rabble-rousing.  In these situations, while it may appear the speechmaker seems a master at making the complex clear, it is at least as likely he or she is engaging in oversimple explanations – whether because he or she truly believes their own explanation or merely to provoke people into becoming outraged enough to given them support.  In either case, it is best stop and take a healthy skepticism toward any viewpoint that seems to explain a lot of things, especially about “human nature” issues.   If history and personal experience teach anything, human nature and human actions are often not easily reducible to one simple neat explanation.

So while Occam’s Razor, properly used, is often a powerful tool for discerning the truth of a matter, it’s very appeal as a supposedly simple method of discerning truth from lies makes it very vulnerable to abuse.   Therefore, like any other tool, we should learn what it can and cannot do for us before we actually use it.

Living for the Sake of Living is a Myth

It’s a common myth that we seek to live simply for the sake of living. However sensible this may seem on the surface, there is a lot of evidence against this; most noteworthy are suicides in the conventional sense (both attempted and successful) and “heroic sacrifices”. Further evidence comes from the “death with dignity” movement, which pushes to legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill people. This is especially true if they are likely to experience intense pain or debilitation in their final days.

In the opposite direction, it's safe to assume that most people with extreme disabilities do not want to die; for most do find pleasures in life not dependent on the physical or mental ability they lack (e.g. hobbies and interests, having favored company in their presence, etc). Also, many people say they do not fear death. By this, it’s safe to assume they mean the precise event itself (as opposed to the probably painful process leading to their deaths). Therefore, it’s likely more sensible to say people live for the sake of experiencing new pleasures rather than life per se.

Regarding the pain we will likely experience just before our deaths, it’s said pain exists to warn us of threats to our lives. While this is true, this doesn’t tell the whole story. Imagine we have a machine, drugs, or other means to fool our nerves into thinking that we’re being stabbed, beaten, burned, cut, whatever. Further suppose that researchers are conducting some kind of experiment in which experiencing intense pain is a relevant part of the experiment. They fully inform the prospective volunteers about what they will experience during the experiment and in all other ways conduct the experiment that exceeds all the highest ethical and legal standards. Then, when the person is hooked up to the machine, administered the drugs, etc. they will experience pain more excruciating than they ever experienced in their life – to the point that they actually want to die at that moment. Never mind that they know fully well there is no actual agent threatening their lives. They just want the pain to end right now (!!!!!). This is the clichéd “fate worse than death”.

The same goes for not having enough pleasure in life, even if we don’t experience physical pain, social rejection, poverty, or other commonly-considered “social ills”; for that creates boredom. This is also a pain, a psychic one to be sure, but a real one nevertheless. Therefore, it’s likely more plausible to say that people avoid pain not so much to avoid danger as it is to avoid pain for its own sake.

For these reasons, I think we don’t so much seek life as we do seek pleasure and avoid pain. In other words, life is only a means to an end – the end is experiencing pleasures to the extent those pleasures can mitigate pain. Excuse the anthropomorphism, but both are tricks our DNA uses to perpetuate itself as long as it can possibly do so.

On Hiatus

Today, I started a new job that'll take up a lot of my time and leave me quite tired. So for the forseeable future, I'll not post a whole lot. Thank you all for all the comments and compliments you left me, and I hope to be back soon one day.

Globalization and Diversity

It’s no secret that globalization is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing for many areas from an economic perspective, both “First World” ones and up-and-coming powerhouse nations. On one hand, the collapse of Communism as a credible ideology and protectionism as a credible way to create home-grown prosperity opened up vast swaths of the globe to opportunities that simply did not exist even a quarter of a century ago (aside from the odd North Korea and similar such isolated nations). As if to drive this point home on cue, the rise of the Internet pretty much coincided with the breakdown of government-imposed controls of all sorts - including (perhaps especially) communications barriers, both regulatory and structural ones. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that one event came about to support the other (but I do know the practically simutaneous collapse of governmental barriers and the rise of the technology making The Internet as we know it possible was just a fortuitous accident of history).

Regardless of its causes, the Internet and the collapse of the barriers brought us all closer together. Who on here has not chatted, posted, or twittered with someone from a foreign nation?! In this sense, globalization and the Internet brings us (sort of) face to face with new perspectives and attitudes that shape the very ways we think - for good or ill. Truly this is the next step in creating a global culture that allows the common person to interact with people in other cultures while reducing the risk of unfortunate cultural communications breakdowns (at least in theory).

On the other hand, globalization also comes at the inevitable expense of losing at least some number of truths forever. Rarely is it due to any deliberate cultural extermination policy on the parts of governments, nor is it due to any cultural discrimination. It’s simply due to the fact that the predominant culture inevitably dominates the most paid-attention to media and Internet sources. The reason for this is simple mathematics. Whichever groups are largest are most likely to have their views expressed through the most watched, listened-to, or read communications channels.

The fact is that many cultures have different ideas, values, attitudes and general perspectives that may seem alien to the mainstream, but nevertheless they stand the test of time. Also, minority and indigenous cultures remind us that there are different ways of being human. This means that assumptions, actions, and attitudes that may be simple “human nature” or “common sense” to the majority may not necessarily be such if we take a closer look. These cultures are thus invaluable human resources, particularly as sources for new ideas (or even rediscovering old ones long forgotten by mainstream society - whether national or global). These ideas could very well prove to be humanity's salvation if we are convinced the minority belief about a matter is correct after all.

For example, languages themselves shape the way the brain thinks. The Finnish language, for example, uses a strikingly different grammar system from most other European languages. Therefore, when forming a thought, the Finnish mind automatically focuses on certain words, stressing certain words in a sentence, and so forth. Also, like all other languages, they invent short words and phrases that have no real easy equivalent in English. One example from German is Schadenfreude, the paradoxical joy of seeing pain come upon certain people, usually enemies. English has no such phrase that I know of. Still, in English itself there exists two common everyday words that sharply distinguish between two very roughly similar but still sharply different notions: “sky” and “heaven”. Spanish, French, and German do not have such simple phrases that I'm aware of. Of course it’s easy to overstate the case for how grammar and syntax shape our though process, but it does seem to be the case in subtle but no less significant ways.

From this vantage point, it’s easy to see the importance of preserving cultural diversity, specifically where it concerns advances in sciences, business fields, and the arts. The more differences that exist among people, the more people are forced to be flexible in their thinking, which is a fertile ground for creative thinking. Therefore, diversity, properly nourished and supported, can be a long-run economic advantage to a globalized world. Beyond the cultural and economic benefits, it helps us to see that many ideas and attitudes we hold are as more the product of our culture than of our genes. This is truly a nonrenewable resource – for once a culture dies, it and its ideas and assumptions are gone forever.

So while it’s true that a globalized culture can help reduce conflict and misunderstandings, the potential peace and understanding might well be obtained at the expense of truth. Therefore, for our own global society as well as our own souls, you might want to seek out people from different cultures and wiggle your way into a long conversation about their culture’s worldview. Both you and the world will be richly rewarded for doing so. Do it before the mass-global societal memes overpower its voice through the weight of sheer mass. Before it’s too late!

Transhumanism and Antinatalism

On the earlier post about transhumanism, Bazompora said something to the effect that both antinatalism and transhumanism have the same goals – eliminate suffering. I find nothing to strongly disagree with here, and in fact I think this is a self-evident truth. The only difference between the two groups is how we go about eliminating suffering.

Strictly speaking, I see no complete contradiction between these two schools of thought, for if we come to know how to switch off the genes giving rise to the parts of the sensory nervous system dealing with pain, plus similar knowledge regarding our ‘survival instincts’, then we could in theory eliminate all pain. As noted above, this is also a goal of antinatalism, probably the ultimate goal. However, eliminating all pain via transhumanist technologies comes with a price - it ultimately must eliminates our desire to live, though not our actual living existence itself (a root cause of pain is lack of desire satisfaction). This would essentially turn us into glorified robots in the classical connotation of the word. Picture a computer with self-awareness but without emotions and you get the picture.

This is all fine and good if you don’t mind the idea of being a DNA-based robot. However, most people would mind, and emphatically so at that. For this reason, transhumanism is not likely to be a realistic route to true happiness, although "non-robotic" variations of it might increase our pleasures (two different things if you think about it). Nevertheless, barring a very tiny fraction of the population who would see a robotic existence as preferable to a “human-like” one, transhumanism cannot be a permanent solution because most people will not use it to eliminate the very emotions and survival instincts which cause so much pain in the first place, suffering and evil (i.e, that which causes suffering).

Given all this, I throw my lot with antinatalism as the most realistic route to suffering elimination, though I use "realistic" loosely; for there is practically no chance of everyone embracing antinatalism before they embrace transhumanism. Antinatalism offers the promise of a permanent solution to both suffering and evil (at the very least for humans, and potentially for other neurological life). It does so in a theoretically simple way besides - simply stop having children. By contrast, transhumanism, were it to be successfully implemented, would be just a means to an end. That end to increase the emotions and joys of human existence, even if it still means at least some inevitable misery, and even retaining the risk of severe misery besides. In the end, though, it’s much easier and simpler to just not procreate in the first place.

Is "Manliness" Obsolete?

This blog entry is inspired by a discussion by my friend Karl and a commenter named dali at this Page. His post wasn't about manliness but certain reader comments did steer into that topic. In particular, the commenter dali said that men pushing buggies and taking care of children in the middle of the afternoon was effectively "unmanly", which Karl implicitly agreed with. This blog post counters the claim, namely by showing that "manliness", as defined by popular culture, is inherently arbitrary - i.e. just a bunch of ideas pulled willy-nilly out of thin air with little to no rhyme-or-reason about them. In fact, I conclude by saying that "manliness" is obsolete at best and even potentially counterproductive for a society with our level of sophistication and especially our level of technology.

Manliness is an elusive term in many respects. Personally, I stick to the minimalist definition, the one that makes the most sense scientifically because it’s the least ambiguous and most objective - “a physically mature member of the species Homo sapiens with an XY chromosome configuration that allows for unambiguously male physical reproductive traits and simultaneously unambiguously lacks any female reproductive organs”. Popular culture, on the other hand, while agreeing with this definition, goes a lot further. It adds traits that while not specifically male are usually associated with traits many (if not most) cultures consider to be characteristic of an adult human male: strength, decisiveness, take-charge attitudes, plus inspiring loyalty and respect in others.

My definition plus the popular addition is highly likely satisfy most people. Even so, plenty of others will go still further - namely all the above plus a tendency toward bluster, swagger, and a slightly cocky and aggressive mannerism. If we take these traits still further - and some people do - it conflates “manliness” with frank “douchebaggery”. Even where most people are concerned, they would still consider “douchebags” to be “real men, although of a very unpleasant and – ironically – immature sort”.

This last phrase shows a blatant contradiction. Either maturity is necessary for manliness or it’s not. Of course it depends on what one (or in this case prevailing societal opinion) means by "maturity". Even so, most people would consider mature behavior as necessarily including civility, consideration of others, self-control, judicious thinking, planning ahead, considering the consequences of your actions, and almost always refusing to break the rules of civility and etiquette. Even in refusals to abide by the last point, mature people break the rules only when there is absolutely no other choice if you are to successfully secure your life, liberty, dignity, and reputation - or those of your loved ones and friends. Yet for all this, many people would still consider douchebags as "real men".

This is at least one place where popular definitions of manliness are arbitrary. The only way to escape this contradiction is to say that the aforementioned douchebag traits (bluster, swagger, and a very cocky and aggressive mannerism) are more "manly" than the aforementioned civilized traits. Few, if anybody, will go that far; including many knee-jerk fans of douchebags themselves. So this definition of a "real man" ultimately contradicts itself.

The social and psychological sciences also imply there are mental and emotional components to maturity, although having more to do with the civilized traits plus my minimalist definition (to a degree) than to the popular definition. To this, these sciences add what is basically definable as "meeting my minimalist definition AND functioning independently in society" (though even "independent functioning" itself, ironically, inevitably depends on prudent interdependence with other functionally independent adults). Under this definition, mentally challenged male humans would not qualify for this definition of manliness. Still, in some contexts popular culture almost certainly would call this person one, albeit more in the sense of character strength and "giving it the hero's try”, as opposed to independent functioning in a financial and related senses.

Therefore, so far, I seems that “manliness”, the popular definition, is based more on imagery than productive content. I'm still open to alternative popular, widely believed-in definitions of manliness but so far the evidence seems to point to a popular definition of it that is very much arbitrary and contradictory, and therefore cannot stand up to logic and rational judgment.

In yet another way, the popular definition of “manliness” ultimately refutes itself, which further reinforces its meaninglessness. If “manliness” necessarily includes not caring deeply about what others think (and most of mainstream society does), then what about a stay at home dad who helps take care of the kid and performs a lot of functions around the house – especially if he is, for example, studying for his PhD or working at home for a software company? Is he any less of a “man”. Furthermore, what if the man is a truck driver who has a week off? Surely the latter is entitled to spend even more time with his child because the child has fewer chances to see him, an important part of his or her life. Given that fathers are such an important part of a child’s life development, a man spending all the time he can with his children is far from being “unmanly”, it's more like being a good father. Surely you wouldn’t call “manly” a distant father who neglects the emotional well-being of his children, even if he is good at providing them a realistically humane standard of living AND good at protecting them from trouble.

Also, suppose a man backs down from a street fight because he realizes any benefits he may gain from punching them in the mouth aren’t worth the consequences (to say the least, getting arrested, which can very well hurt his resume. Even worse he might get stabbed, shot, or bludgeoned with a blunt object). That’s also far from being “unmanly”, that’s being judicious – a sure sign of real manliness, even by the standards of much of mainstream society itself. In fact, those same people would likely call risking the fight a rash action at best, lacking in self-control at middling, and childish at worst. Yet some people with a "Mortal Kombat" definition of manliness (basically the definition based on adolescent emotional reactions, only turbocharged) would call the guy backing down from the street fight a "pansy wimp" merely for being judicious. Yet another point at which the pop cultural definition contradicts itself, thereby rendering the "manliness" concept meaningless.

Or, what if the man may be physically timid but in a debate can hold his own in arguing his points convincingly, especially if he’s as experienced and well-trained in argumentation as any professional boxer is with his craft?

The other difficulties with manliness are legion. In the end, the closest thing to a coherent pop culture definition I can think of is "having physical survival skills, social dominance talents, and competence - especially as judged by our first intuitions,impressions, or animal instincts".

Even if this definition were complete and internally self-consistent, it still has the feel of someone throwing spaghetti against the wall - just chucking out initial reactions as they come out of the brain and mouth and hoping they'll stick to the wall and form some kind of recognizable pattern. It's one thing to define something in a way that's both complete and internally self-consistent, but entirely another thing say we should accept this as the only legitimate definition of the term. In this case, why should we accept those traits described in that definition as the only possible definition of "manly", thereby suggesting that any adult human male lacking in even one of those traits as automatically "unmanly". As I show below, anyone seeking to prove this as the only possible definition of "manly" will have a difficult task on his or her hands.

This 'best' popular definition of "manliness", even assuming it's very much defensible in the eyes of mainstream society, fails to take into account of the demands of a modern civilization, where the very means of making a living are incomprehensible to a hunter-gather or other Stone Age culture. Therefore, I have reason to believe that my proposed coherent pop culture definition of "manliness" is based on the demands of earlier ages - when physical survival skills were vital to even pick nuts and berries, let alone bring down mastodons with an obsidian-pointed spear and wolves with fire-sticks.

In short, I hold that contributing ideas and products that further humane development of civilization are far more important in the 21st Century than any conformity with society's gender expectations per my proposed definition above. This is because there's no logical relationship between pop culture definitions of "manliness" and ability to contribute high-valued, cutting-edge goods, services, and ideas that further widen the gap between ourselves and death/extinction. History shows that ideas and products are ultimately what create a world more pleasant and less painful to live in. The higher a society's level of organizational sophistication and especially it's level of technology, the more true this is and will become (although we in advanced technical societies certainly have pains and troubles that we did not have in the past).

Regardless of the pros and cons of 21st century living, we're here in this time and place and therefore we have to conform to its demands in terms of achieving prosperity and happiness. That includes creating new cultural and societal attitudes needed that allows us to achieve prosperity and happiness in our time on this earth. Common knowledge shows that "manliness" in the pop culture sense is not required for an adult human male to be a valuable contributor to society.

Therefore, even if "manliness" were somehow necessary in earlier ages (esp. the Stone Age and early Agricultural Age), the usefulness - even helpfulness - of the "manly" traits shrinks over time. It's time to put “manliness” in its proper context, respect it for helping us to survive and thrive as a species in earlier ages but today give it a respectful escort to the retirement home of ideas and behaviors that were perhaps necessary in their time, but no longer have any real usefulness in the betterment of the human condition.