tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:/posts TQ White II 2024-11-11T15:34:12Z TQ White II tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2151679 2024-11-11T15:29:54Z 2024-11-11T15:31:59Z Post-World War II Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview GPT SUMMARY VERSION

I took the CONVERSATION version and went back once more to to GPT. With a prompt that asked it to evaluate for errors and omissions and inappropriate conclusions. I asked it so suggest expansions and additional context. It gave me this intersecting summary.


Modern philosophy after World War II took many turns, with significant shifts and expansions on classical ideas, largely influenced by changes in society, science, and a growing skepticism of grand narratives. Here are some key areas and ideas that would give you a well-rounded view:

  1. Existentialism and Phenomenology

• Existentialism focuses on individual existence, freedom, and choice. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir emphasized the role of human agency and the burdens of freedom. This philosophy emphasized themes of authenticity, anxiety, and the “existential” condition.

• Phenomenology evolved with Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger before the war, but postwar philosophers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty continued to explore consciousness and perception. Merleau-Ponty, for instance, emphasized the body’s central role in shaping consciousness.

  1. Post-structuralism and Deconstruction

• Post-structuralists like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida questioned objective truths and emphasized the power of language and structures in society. Foucault examined how institutions control knowledge and shape social norms. Derrida’s deconstructionism challenged the idea of stable meanings in texts, arguing that meaning is always fluid and context-dependent.

  1. Analytic Philosophy

• In the English-speaking world, analytic philosophy continued to dominate, with a focus on language, logic, and scientific methodology. Figures like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Willard Van Orman Quine questioned the limits of language and meaning. Wittgenstein’s later work, for example, emphasized the social nature of language and the idea of language games.

• Philosophy of mind gained prominence with philosophers like Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett investigating the nature of consciousness, and John Searle developing influential arguments like the Chinese Room argument to critique artificial intelligence.

  1. Political Philosophy and Critical Theory

• After WWII, critical theory explored themes of social justice, power, and emancipation, led by thinkers from the Frankfurt School like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They critiqued capitalist societies and warned of mass culture’s impact on individual autonomy.

• Postcolonial philosophy, led by thinkers like Frantz Fanon and Edward Said, examined the impact of colonialism and imperialism, exploring themes of identity, power, and liberation.

  1. Pragmatism and Neo-Pragmatism

• Richard Rorty reintroduced pragmatism, emphasizing the idea that knowledge and truth are tools for achieving practical aims, rather than absolute ends. He argued against the idea of objective truth and embraced a more relativistic, flexible approach.

  1. Environmental Ethics and Eco-philosophy

• This field emerged as people became more aware of environmental crises. Arne Naess proposed “deep ecology,” emphasizing an intrinsic value in all forms of life. Other thinkers examined the ethical responsibilities humans have toward nature.

  1. Feminist Philosophy

• Feminist thinkers like Judith Butler and Iris Marion Young advanced ideas on gender, identity, and social justice. Butler, for instance, argued that gender is performative, challenging traditional notions of gender and sex.

  1. Contemporary Metaphysics and Ontology

• Modern metaphysics often revisits classic questions but explores new ones raised by science, especially quantum physics and the philosophy of time. Philosophers like David Lewis introduced ideas like “modal realism,” the theory that all possible worlds are as real as the actual world.

  1. Philosophy of Language and Logic

• Following Wittgenstein and Quine, philosophy of language explored how meaning works. Saul Kripke introduced causal theories of reference, impacting views on identity and language.

This overview includes key movements and ideas that capture the diversity and breadth of post-WWII philosophy. Let me know if any specific area interests you for further detail.

Evaluation of the Above

Key Strengths:

  • Good coverage of major movements and key figures
  • Clear organization by philosophical domains
  • Accurate basic characterizations of main ideas

Significant Omissions and Areas for Expansion:

  1. Continental-Analytic Divide
  • The text should acknowledge the significant methodological and cultural split between Continental and Analytic philosophy, which deeply influenced 20th-century philosophical development
  • The bridging work of thinkers like Richard Bernstein who tried to heal this divide deserves mention
  1. Philosophy of Science
  • Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and its paradigm shift concept is notably absent
  • Karl Popper's falsificationism and contributions to scientific methodology aren't mentioned
  • The debate between scientific realism and anti-realism deserves coverage
  1. Ethics and Meta-ethics
  • Major developments in moral philosophy are underrepresented
  • John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and its impact on political philosophy
  • Peter Singer's work on practical ethics and animal rights
  • The revival of virtue ethics by philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre
  1. Eastern Influence
  • The text is very Western-centric
  • Should mention the growing influence of Eastern philosophical traditions on Western thought
  • Kyoto School philosophers like Nishitani Keiji deserve mention
  1. Philosophy of Technology
  • Given technology's importance, this deserves its own section
  • Should include Don Ihde's phenomenology of technology
  • Discussion of artificial intelligence ethics beyond just Searle
  1. Social Epistemology
  • The social aspects of knowledge production
  • Miranda Fricker's work on epistemic injustice
  • Standpoint theory and situated knowledge

Contextual Additions Needed:

  1. Historical Context
  • The impact of the Cold War on philosophical thinking
  • The influence of social movements (civil rights, environmentalism)
  • The role of technological advancement in shaping philosophical questions
  1. Interdisciplinary Connections
  • The relationship between philosophy and cognitive science
  • Connections to developments in physics and biology
  • Interface with social sciences
  1. Contemporary Developments
  • New Materialism and Speculative Realism
  • Digital philosophy and information theory
  • The impact of globalization on philosophical discourse

Issues with Current Framing:

  1. The presentation sometimes oversimplifies complex positions (e.g., Rorty's stance on truth)
  2. Insufficient attention to critiques and counter-movements within each tradition
  3. Could better highlight ongoing debates and unresolved questions
  4. More emphasis needed on how these philosophical movements influence current issues


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2151678 2024-11-11T15:27:38Z 2024-11-11T15:34:12Z Post-World War II Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview GPT AND CLAUDE CONVERSE

Starting with "I have been interested in classic philosophy from Pythagoras to Aquinas to Descartes to Russel. I do not know anything about formal philosophy after World War 2. Tell me about it", I worked back and forth with ChatGPT and Claude to make this summary. 

Post-World War II Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview

Historical Setting

The post-WWII era saw unprecedented changes: the Cold War, decolonization, technological revolution, social movements, and economic transformation. Philosophy responded to these challenges while wrestling with the moral implications of the Holocaust, nuclear weapons, and totalitarianism. This period was marked by the institutionalization of the analytic-continental divide, the influence of the Cold War on political thought, the emergence of computer science and AI-driven philosophical questions, challenges to Western philosophical hegemony from postcolonial thought, and the rise of environmental and civil rights movements' impact on philosophical discourse.

1. Analytic Philosophy

Historical Context: Emerged from the ruins of logical positivism after its emigration from Vienna to Anglo-American universities during WWII. The GI Bill's expansion of higher education in America and the UK's post-war university investments created institutional homes for this approach.

Continuing the work of early 20th-century philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, analytic philosophy grew in prominence, especially in the English-speaking world. Key developments included:

  • The "linguistic turn" led by J.L. Austin and ordinary language philosophy
  • W.V.O. Quine's challenge to analytic-synthetic distinction and ontological relativity
  • Ruth Barcan Marcus's groundbreaking work in modal logic
  • Saul Kripke's contributions to logic, language, and metaphysics, especially naming and necessity
  • Peter Strawson's descriptive metaphysics and critique of Russell's theory of descriptions
  • Donald Davidson's work on truth conditions and radical interpretation
  • The Vienna Circle's influence and subsequent decline of logical positivism

2. Continental Philosophy

Historical Context: Developed in post-war France and Germany amid reconstruction, denazification, and decolonization. May 1968 student protests in Paris and post-war trauma significantly influenced these thinkers. The Berlin Wall became both physical reality and metaphor for the division between philosophical traditions.

Continental thought expanded through several key movements and figures:

  • Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism and phenomenology, emphasizing freedom and responsibility
  • Maurice Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of perception and embodied consciousness
  • The Frankfurt School's critical theory (Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas) analyzing mass culture and instrumental reason
  • Simone de Beauvoir's foundational feminist philosophy and ethics of ambiguity
  • Emmanuel Levinas's ethics of alterity and phenomenology of the Other
  • Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics and fusion of horizons
  • Post-structuralism through Michel Foucault's analysis of power and knowledge
  • Jacques Derrida's deconstruction and critique of Western metaphysics
  • Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's collaborative work on capitalism, desire, and multiplicity

3. Pragmatism and Neo-Pragmatism

Historical Context: Gained renewed relevance during the Cold War as an alternative to both Marxist and traditional metaphysical approaches. The Vietnam War era prompted pragmatists to reconnect philosophy with practical political concerns.

Building on American pragmatism, this tradition expanded through:

  • Richard Rorty's critique of representational theories of knowledge and philosophical foundationalism
  • Wilfrid Sellars's critique of the "myth of the given" and coherentist epistemology
  • Hilary Putnam's internal realism and pragmatic turn
  • C.I. Lewis's conceptual pragmatism and theory of value
  • Robert Brandom's inferentialism and pragmatic theory of meaning

4. Moral and Political Philosophy

Historical Context: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), civil rights movements, and decolonization forced reconsideration of traditional ethical frameworks. The welfare state's emergence in Western Europe and the United States sparked debates about justice and distribution.

This era saw the emergence of new ethical theories and approaches:

  • John Rawls' A Theory of Justice and political liberalism, introducing the veil of ignorance
  • Bernard Williams's critique of systematic moral theory and moral luck
  • Isaiah Berlin's concepts of positive and negative liberty
  • Michael Walzer's spheres of justice and complex equality
  • Charles Taylor's communitarian critique of liberalism and politics of recognition
  • Elizabeth Anscombe's revival of virtue ethics and critique of modern moral philosophy
  • Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen's capability approach to human development

5. Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science

Historical Context: The development of computers, artificial intelligence (particularly after the 1956 Dartmouth Conference), and advances in neuroscience created new questions about consciousness and cognition. The "cognitive revolution" of the 1950s-60s challenged behaviorism's dominance.

Post-war philosophy of mind tackled fundamental questions about consciousness and cognition:

  • Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model of consciousness and intentional stance
  • Jerry Fodor's computational theory of mind and modularity thesis
  • Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" and the hard problem of consciousness
  • Patricia and Paul Churchland's eliminative materialism
  • Fred Dretske's information-theoretic approach to mental content
  • Andy Clark's extended mind thesis and embodied cognition

6. Additional Important Movements

Philosophy of Science

Historical Context: The Space Race, nuclear physics, and biological discoveries (DNA structure in 1953) challenged traditional views of scientific progress. The environmental movement of the 1960s-70s questioned the value-neutrality of science.

Key developments:

  • Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts
  • Paul Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism and against method
  • Imre Lakatos's research programs and sophisticated falsificationism

Philosophy of Biology

Historical Context: The Modern Synthesis in evolutionary theory, molecular biology's rise, and the discovery of DNA's structure transformed biological understanding, demanding philosophical attention.

Major contributions:

  • Elliott Sober's evolutionary theory and philosophical analysis
  • David Hull's philosophy of biological sciences and species concepts
  • Analysis of reductionism in biology and emergence

Non-Western Philosophical Traditions

Historical Context: Decolonization movements (1950s-60s) and the Non-Aligned Movement prompted renewed interest in non-Western philosophical traditions. Independence movements in Africa and Asia led to philosophical reexamination of cultural identity.

Significant developments:

  • African Philosophy: Kwasi Wiredu's conceptual decolonization
  • Latin American Philosophy: Enrique Dussel's philosophy of liberation
  • Indian Philosophy: B.K. Matilal's logic and epistemology
  • Comparative philosophy and cross-cultural dialogue

Environmental and Feminist Philosophy

Historical Context: Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (1962), the first Earth Day (1970), and second-wave feminism (1960s-70s) created new philosophical concerns. The personal computer revolution of the 1980s raised new questions about technology and society.

Key developments:

  • Ecological ethics and environmental philosophy
  • Judith Butler's gender performativity theory
  • Feminist epistemology and standpoint theory
  • Ecofeminism and environmental justice

Key Historical Contexts

Institutional Changes

  • Creation of UNESCO (1945) promoted international philosophical dialogue
  • Expansion of higher education systems worldwide (1950s-60s)
  • Foundation of critical journals and societies
  • Rise of interdisciplinary centers and institutes

Technological Impact

  • Television's spread influenced discussions of mass media and reality
  • Space exploration sparked new questions about humanity's place in cosmos
  • Nuclear technology raised novel ethical and existential questions
  • Computer development challenged notions of mind and intelligence

Social Transformations

  • Mass migration changed demographic landscapes
  • Consumer society emergence prompted criticism of materialism
  • Urbanization affected discussions of community and alienation
  • Globalization challenged traditional philosophical boundaries

Political and Cultural Context

  • The analytic-continental divide reflected institutional and cultural separations
  • Cold War influence on political philosophy and ethics
  • Civil rights movement's impact on social and political philosophy
  • Postcolonial thought's challenge to Western philosophical assumptions



]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2151185 2024-11-09T18:08:39Z 2024-11-09T18:08:39Z Stop the Victim Blaming I hear Kamala was wearing a short skirt and was pretty drunk. Probably she deserved what she got.

STOP THE VICTIM BLAMING!!!

Kamala did a fine job. Perfect, no. Fine, yes.

She lost because the American electorate is mostly vile. Focus on, internalize that fact. She didn't lose because she was flawed. She lost because America does not want decency. She lost because America hates people who are difference, who are smart, who want order and the rule of law. She lost because she's not a racist and Donald Trump is.

These post-mortem flagellations that try to push the blame away from the assholes and the women/hispanic/black people who did not show up for Kamala, ie, the voting public, are not only a waste of time but counterproductive.

Read it and weep: You live in 1930's Germany now. The Democratic party isn't going to save you no matter how much you criticize it. Read about the French Resistance. Start learning about the tactics of the American Revolution against King George. Start an underground network to create fraudulent green cards and abortion clinics.

The Democratic party did as good a job as they ever did, as good as they did for Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, ie, barely competent. Kamala focused like a laser on everything the polls said she should, ie, abortion and the economy. None of that matters now.

What matters is how you are going to fight.

Buy a gun.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2151181 2024-11-09T17:45:54Z 2024-11-09T17:45:55Z New Policy: I Give Up I cannot afford to leave the country and don’t really want to do that much work anyway. Fortunately I am a white man and my wife is beyond reproduction. Until they screw up Social Security (which I actually consider a low likelihood), it is unlikely that anything will practical will happen to us.

Until this year, I have worked in just about every election in my adult life. I have protested, donated and worked. It didn’t work. Sometimes you just have to accept reality. I don’t matter.

If there was any chance of improvement, I might try to exert myself. Problem is, there isn’t. 73 million people voted for him. There’s no way to be rid of them and, with Congress and the Supreme Court in his thrall, his agenda will be cemented for much longer than I will live. Anything short of violent revolution is a waste of time and, unfortunately, so is that. The American people have spoken. We have no right to change their decision and no meaningful ability to do so.

I have deleted all of my news and current events bookmarks. I plan to set my Bluesky account to suppress all mention of politics and public events. I plan to get new hobbies to replace my obsession with politics and current events. I might still vote but, it will be the simple ‘vote against the other side’ strategy of the willfully ignorant.

Is my attitude, “Fuck the country. Fuck the immigrants. Fuck the young women. Fuck the gender fluid, the environment and everything else.” Well, pretty much. I worked long and hard to help them out. Trump won because they didn’t turn out. They have made clear that they are not willing to take responsibility.

I feel sorry for the minority that does care and did show up, but I am done. I have learned that my efforts are wasted. The people and things I want to protect do not care about protecting themselves. The forces of evil have won so decisively that resisting is a waste on any timescale I care about.

So, I no longer care. As soon as I can complete my mental remodeling, I will be the sweetest, least aware old man you ever met. My goal is to be unaware of Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment until well after they are installed. I will have lots of opinions about AI, Javascript, the best kind of tomato sauce (I made amazing spaghetti sauce this week!), and all manner of things that do not require me to pay attention to this stupid fucking country that has betrayed everything I care about. ‘Cared’ about.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2150751 2024-11-07T14:56:24Z 2024-11-07T14:59:12Z The dems don’t know how to fight. Always bringing a knife to a drone war. My friend said, "The dems don’t know how to fight. Always bringing a knife to a drone war."

I thought you might find my reply interesting...

Sort of. But that's like saying a chef is no good at auto repair. If you are a D, you are a person who is focused on evidence and policy, ideas for improving society and collaborating to support the public good. For us, the political wrangling, antagonism and conflict are not the point. Demonizing your opponent does not get more healthcare to at-risk communities.

Of course, there is the other side of the "sort of" where you hit the nail on the head. The R's have won. While the D's are busy trying to make the country better, the R's are trying to dominate and enslave. Our very nature is to figure out a system to make that impossible, not engage in combat to destroy our fellow citizens' political project.

How many times have you said, or listened to people say how astonished that people vote against their self interest. For us, for me, it continues to be literally inconceivable but the reality is that some people are artists and some are gang members. Some people think violence and domination are good, necessary, valuable aspects of life. Their self interest is satisfied when others are diminished.

Of course, Democrats do not know how to fight. Only assholes know how to fight and they are not, generally speaking, assholes. There will eventually be a cohort of young, violent people who try to resist the new Amerikan hegemony to inhibit the abuse of women and immigrants and gender fluid folk. They might succeed to some extent in those goals but they will also contribute to the Republican project of making domination and brutality the norm.

Ghandi would have said that you cannot defeat your enemy by becoming him. Today that sounds like weak tea but, he's the only person who ever forced a global empire to its knees. Personally, I long for violence but I doubt that I am wise.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2149067 2024-10-30T16:36:09Z 2024-10-30T16:36:10Z I want to debate abortion…
Me: Fetuses are neither babies or any other sort of human. Consequently, it is perfectly fine to abort them.
Butthead: But God says…
Me: Not my god. You’re owned. Next: It is perfectly fine to kill any person whenever it helps out society.
Butthead: WHAT WHAT WHAT. Is not!!
Me: Death penalty. Self-defense. War. Stand your ground.
Butthead: But those people deserve it?
Me: I’m pretty sure they disagree.
Butthead: But God!!!
Me: Not my god. You’re owned. Next, there is no reason to restrict medical care for women except to enslave them.
Butthead: When another person is involved…
Me: Self-defense. That ‘other person’ is going to ruin her life. If a person is going to only chop off your arm, you are allowed to kill him. Same with fetuses.
Butthead: But life is precious.
Me: Not when it’s an arm chopper. Only when it’s a woman’s life. You’re owned.
Butthead: But God!!

Me: You’re too stupid. I’m not talking to you anymore.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2146193 2024-10-18T16:12:50Z 2024-10-18T20:26:58Z Hallucination Control: Quality Assurance in AI Chat In today's version of the 'TQ is obsessed with AI' show, I have been worried about hallucinations and accuracy in my peregrinations through the intellectual landscape with AI as my guide.

To that end, I have spent some time engineering a quality assurance prompt. Then I went back to some of my favorite conversations and applied it with terrific results, results that confirmed that careful conversation with AI produces excellent experiences. It might be my insightful prompting, but very little hallucination in my experiences.

Here's what to do: After you have elicited all the information your AI wants to give you, give the following prompt. It will not only give you information to solidify your understanding and retention of the new information, it will let you know what parts are reliable and, where you continue to be interested, give you non-AI avenues for further exploration.

PROMPT:

In a step by step process, first write a bullet point summary of the top level point or points made in this text. Then, make a list of every fact and conclusion presented in it. For each, add an assertion about whether it is actual fact or is an error AND whether the fact or conclusion properly supports that point. Where possible, include a citation and/or URL. Then discuss any possible errors or misleading conclusions from the text. Finally, make a conclusion whether the text is accurate and should be relied upon. End with a judgement: Accurate or Misleading.


You can see an example of the result at the end (that means scroll to the bottom!) of this conversation.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2143291 2024-10-05T13:56:02Z 2024-10-05T13:56:02Z Emergent Universe: Randomness as the Foundation of Reality


Randomness is the only true reality, from which physical laws, the universe, and everything within it emerge, is a radical yet compelling framework for understanding existence. The essence of reality is not order or deterministic rules, but a seething sea of chaotic possibilities, bubbling up from the quantum foam. It is from this primordial randomness that the intricate tapestry of the universe, along with the laws that govern it, accidentally coalesces. This idea is articulated through modern physics, exploring how it is supported while addressing the challenges and contradictions it faces.

The Quantum Foam: A Foundation of Randomness

In physics, the concept of quantum foam describes the structure of spacetime at the smallest possible scales, on the order of the Planck length. At this scale, spacetime is not smooth or continuous, but rather turbulent and frothy, dominated by incessant quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are inherently random, and their effects could be anything—including creating a Big Bang, perhaps with different values for the fundamental physical constants. Virtual particles—ephemeral pairs of matter and antimatter—flicker in and out of existence due to these fluctuations. They are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which dictates that certain pairs of properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision.

This principle implies that on the smallest scales, the universe is fundamentally random. There is no way to predict exactly when and where these fluctuations will occur, or what forms they will take. Randomness is the most fundamental property of reality, partly because it represents the highest entropy state. Everything else, including physical laws, is an emergent consequence of this chaotic foundation.

Physical Laws as Emergent Properties of Randomness

In classical physics, physical laws are seen as fundamental truths that govern the behavior of matter and energy. These laws are not fundamental at all. Instead, they might be the statistical regularities that emerge from the chaotic fluctuations of the quantum foam. This idea is analogous to flipping coins: while each individual flip is random, certain patterns—such as a thousand heads in a row after a trillion flips—become apparent when considering a large enough sample. These patterns are not imposed from the outside; they are intrinsic to the process of flipping.

The laws of physics emerge from the random interactions of quantum fields. In this view, every particle, every force, and every interaction is a manifestation of randomness, stabilized over immense scales of space and time. The constants of nature, such as the speed of light or the strength of the fundamental forces, could be seen as "fixed points" that have arisen purely by chance. In other words, the universe as we know it is the outcome of an incredibly improbable, yet inevitable, arrangement of random fluctuations—like seeing a hundred heads in a row after a trillion coin flips.

The Birth of the Universe from Randomness

Randomness underlies the universe, aligning with certain cosmological models. The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal suggests that the universe could have spontaneously arisen from a quantum fluctuation in a state where time and space had no boundaries. If the quantum foam is a primordial sea of potentialities, then the Big Bang might be just one of countless bubbles of order emerging from it. This bubble expanded, inflated, and cooled, giving rise to spacetime, matter, and energy as we perceive them.

The inflationary model of the early universe provides further support for this view. During inflation, tiny quantum fluctuations were exponentially stretched to macroscopic scales, seeding the formation of galaxies and large-scale structures. These fluctuations were random, yet they laid the groundwork for all subsequent cosmic evolution. In this context, the vast and structured universe we observe today can be understood as the fossilized imprint of primordial randomness, amplified and sculpted by subsequent physical processes.

Statistical Regularities and the Appearance of Order

If randomness is truly fundamental, the question arises of how the universe exhibits such regularity and predictability. The answer lies in the concept of statistical mechanics, which shows that macroscopic order can emerge from microscopic chaos. In thermodynamics, for example, the behavior of gases is described by laws like the ideal gas law, even though individual gas molecules move randomly. These macroscopic laws are not imposed from above; they are statistical regularities that arise naturally from the random motions of countless particles.

In a similar vein, the laws of physics might be viewed as large-scale statistical patterns that emerge from the underlying randomness of quantum fluctuations. Over time and across vast expanses of space, certain stable configurations and relationships dominate, giving the appearance of fixed, deterministic laws. But these laws are merely effective descriptions—emergent properties that capture the collective behavior of innumerable random events.

Addressing the Challenges and Contradictions

While this hypothesis is consistent with many aspects of modern physics, it also encounters significant challenges. The universe, as we know it, began as a singularity, where the fundamental physical laws were set at the moment of instantiation. These laws remain consistent across the universe due to underlying self-organizing principles. The concept of self-organized criticality explains how systems naturally evolve toward critical states, where minor fluctuations can lead to large-scale order. This self-organizing behavior accounts for the larger, consistent observations we make, making the universality of physical laws an inevitable outcome.

Another challenge is the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing physical phenomena. Despite reality being fundamentally random, mathematics, a construct of human thought, precisely captures the workings of the universe due to its intrinsic connection to emergent patterns. One possible explanation is that mathematical structures are not just human inventions but are intrinsic to the patterns that emerge from randomness. Mathematics might be the language that best expresses these emergent patterns, allowing us to model and predict their behavior.

Most importantly, the idea that randomness is the only reality lacks falsifiability, a key criterion for scientific theories. Since randomness can produce any possible outcome given enough time, no observation or experiment could definitively prove or disprove it. This renders the hypothesis more of a metaphysical or quasi-religious idea rather than a scientific one. It is a framework for interpreting reality rather than a theory that can be tested and refined through empirical inquiry.

Reconciling Randomness and Determinism

Despite these challenges, randomness as the foundation of reality has profound implications. It suggests that determinism, as we perceive it, is an illusion that arises from the averaging out of countless random events. This perspective reconciles the apparent contradiction between the indeterminism of quantum mechanics and the determinism of classical physics. At the quantum level, randomness reigns supreme, but at larger scales, the cumulative effect of countless random events gives rise to stable, deterministic laws.

A Philosophical Perspective Grounded in Physics

Randomness as the only true reality, from which physical laws and the universe itself emerge, offers a radical reinterpretation of existence. It is an attempt to explain how order and structure can arise from the most fundamental chaos. While this idea is consistent with many concepts in modern physics—such as quantum fluctuations, the inflationary model, and statistical mechanics—it faces a significant challenge in terms of scientific validation.

Ultimately, this is not a falsifiable scientific theory but a philosophical framework that invites reconsideration of the nature of reality. It satisfies the principle of the least hypothesis by reducing all of existence to a single underlying property: randomness. Yet, it also acknowledges that this randomness gives rise to emergent properties that we interpret as physical laws, structure, and meaning. In this sense, it is a quasi-religious idea, not in the sense of invoking supernatural entities, but in offering a fundamental, unprovable claim about the nature of existence.

By embracing randomness as the foundation of reality, we are left with a vision of the universe where every pattern, every law, and every conscious being is the product of a grand cosmic lottery—a rare alignment of chaotic fluctuations that, through sheer chance, have resulted in the world as we perceive it. This perspective challenges us to find meaning not in deterministic laws or divine order, but in the beautiful improbability of our own existence.


Note: This essay started as an experiment with the new ChatGPT Canvas interface. It is also the first thing I've co-written with GPT that I do not feel needs a primary attribution as an AI product. The Canvas interface allowed me to very closely guide the construction of the work. While GPT wrote the actual words, I spent an hour in dialog to elucidate the facts and develop the argument. Another hour closely editing and rewriting with the Canvas interface. I feel comfortable in calling this essay my own with GPT relegated to the role of some combination of a word processor with super powers and an insanely knowledgeable friend.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2140918 2024-09-25T15:00:28Z 2024-09-25T15:00:28Z re: Olivia Nuzzi and RFK (yuck)

Dear Everybody,


The Olivia Nuzzi RFK sex cult is only a big deal in the smallest sense of the word. Her continuing to report on RFK while banging him is BAD, full stop. Also, who cares? She came clean and has been removed from her post. Add an asterisk to her previous reportage and call the job done.


That leaves two other questions.


First, should she get the death penalty? The answer is, Jesus people, have you never been young and stupid? She was all flushed up with those awesome dead bear orgasms in hotels on her expense account and wanted to level up to whale's head mind blown frenzy. She did a bad thing in which no lives were lost, no old ladies we bilked of their life savings and the republic was not destroyed. I think a year or two of management side-eye, along with all her friends looking at her and thinking "ew" is adequate penance.


The second is, should we still be talking about this? The answer is, Don't you have doors to knock on? Campaign phone banks to attend? Donations to give? Isn't there an interesting new way you could be spending your time making sure your local election staff is going to let Democrats vote? To still prioritize this after, what's it been, a week is stalker obsessive, imho.


Look people. The story should be known (spoiler, we do know fer christs sakes) and Nuzzi should be sanctioned (she has). But this is inside-baseball level of 'who cares'. The only reason to still be talking about it would be if she was a right-wing scumbag and we could use this as a cynical excuse to ruin her life. 


As it is, she is a Democrat who screwed up. A young woman who let her, uh, enthusiasms get ahold of her judgement. Sure, it was RFK but, tell me that none of your sexual escapades involved assholes or that you never carried a guilty secret longer than you should have.


I would prefer not to hear about it anymore if you don't mind. It's not that I think it's "no big". It's just not, "keep harping on it forever big".  I would be much happier if everyone spent their anti-Nuzzi energy on pro-Kamala things.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2137814 2024-09-12T16:58:21Z 2024-09-12T16:58:21Z Harris Trump Idea Analysis

My brother spent a happy hour with GPT and the debate transcript trying to find out what they actually said. He concludes, "I felt like trump fell back to “millions of criminals” ten times. In my mind trump mad five erroneous points with heavy weighting on insanity, and Harris made 8-10 points, most of which were reasonable."

(One point below is edited because it was opposite of what was said.)

Enjoy...

GPT: Here is a more detailed and neutral list of every idea or assertion made by each candidate, grouped by candidate and including the number of times each assertion was made:


Vice President Kamala Harris:


1. The economy is focused on helping the middle class and working families (2 times).

2. The administration has extended a $6,000 child tax credit to help young families with expenses (1 time).

3. Small businesses will receive a $50,000 tax deduction under her administration (1 time).

4. Trump’s economic policies favor billionaires and large corporations (3 times).

5. Trump’s economic policies would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars (2 times).

6. Economists and experts support her economic plan while criticizing Trump’s (2 times).

7. Trump left the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression (1 time).

8. Trump left the worst public health crisis in a century (1 time).

9. Trump’s administration left the worst attack on democracy since the Civil War (1 time).

10. Project 2025 is a dangerous plan that Trump will implement if elected (2 times).

11. The administration needs to focus on uniting the country rather than dividing it (2 times).

12. Trump’s tariffs have resulted in trade deficits and didn’t benefit the U.S. economy (2 times).

13. Housing affordability is a major issue that her policies address (1 time).

14. Survivors of rape and incest should have the right to decide about their bodies (2 times).

15. Trump’s abortion policies make it criminal for doctors and nurses to provide care (2 times).

16. She will reinstate the protections of Roe v. Wade if Congress passes a bill (2 times).

17. Women should not be denied medical care for miscarriages due to fear of prosecution (1 time).

18. Trump’s administration thanked President Xi of China during COVID (1 time).

19. The current administration is prosecuting criminal organizations at the border (1 time).

20. Trump called for the killing of an immigration bill that would have provided resources to combat fentanyl (2 times).

21. People leave Trump’s rallies early because they are exhausted and bored (1 time).

22. Republican leaders have endorsed her, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and others (1 time).

23. Trump has contempt for the Constitution and is unfit for office, according to his former staff (2 times).

24. Trump incited the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol (2 times).

25. Trump praised the Proud Boys and extremists in Charlottesville (2 times).

26. The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose (2 times).

27. Trump changed his positions on abortion multiple times (1 time).

28. She has met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine five times to support Ukraine (1 time).

29. The Biden administration has brought together 50 countries to support Ukraine (1 time).

30. The Biden administration’s support has enabled Ukraine to remain independent (1 time).

31. Putin would be in Kyiv if Trump were president (1 time).

32. The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine to prevent Russia from moving further into Europe (2 times).

33. The U.S. must uphold international rules and norms in foreign policy (2 times).

34. Trump negotiated a weak deal with the Taliban and invited them to Camp David (2 times).

35. The administration has ended the U.S. military’s combat involvement in war zones for the first time in this century (1 time).

36. Trump’s deal with the Taliban involved the release of 5,000 terrorists (2 times).

37. Trump’s admiration for dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un weakens the U.S. position internationally (3 times).

38. Trump is wrong and weak on national security and foreign policy (2 times).

39. Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election results threaten democracy (2 times).

40. Military leaders have said Trump is a disgrace and unfit to lead (2 times).

41. The Biden administration has invested in increasing domestic oil production (1 time).

42. She supports diverse energy sources to reduce reliance on foreign oil (1 time).

43. IVF treatments are being denied to couples under Trump’s abortion policies (1 time).

44. Fracking has not been banned under her administration (2 times).

45. The Inflation Reduction Act has opened new leases for fracking (1 time).

46. Trump’s claims about millions of people eating pets are extreme and false (1 time).


Former President Donald Trump:


1. Trump does not have a national sales tax; Harris’s claims about this are false (2 times).

2. Tariffs on foreign countries benefit the U.S. by making other nations pay back their debts (3 times).

3. Trump’s tariffs have brought in billions of dollars, particularly from China (2 times).

4. Inflation under the Biden-Harris administration is the worst in U.S. history (2 times).

5. Trump’s administration had virtually no inflation during his term (2 times).

6. Millions of criminals, including people from prisons and mental institutions, are entering the U.S. under the Biden-Harris administration (3 times).

7. Migrants are taking jobs from African Americans, Hispanics, and union workers (2 times).

8. Some migrants are criminals and are taking over towns violently (2 times).

9. Trump claims migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating people’s pets (2 times).

10. Trump claims that middle-class Americans were hurt by inflation and rising prices under Biden (2 times).

11. Trump built the greatest economy in U.S. history and will do it again (2 times).

12. Harris has no detailed plan for the economy and is copying Biden’s weak policies (2 times).

13. Harris and Biden’s immigration policies are destroying the country (3 times).

14. Trump supports exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (2 times).

15. They are killing babies after they are born.

16. Trump’s policies returned the abortion issue to the states where it belongs (2 times).

17. Harris’s accusations about a national abortion ban are lies (2 times).

18. Trump claims Democrats support abortion in the ninth month and even execution after birth (1 time).

19. Trump’s administration was strong on foreign policy, and Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president (2 times).

20. Trump would end the Ukraine-Russia war in 24 hours through negotiations (3 times).

21. Harris and Biden have weakened the U.S. position internationally, emboldening adversaries (3 times).

22. Iran has gained wealth and influence under the Biden administration and is supporting terrorist groups (2 times).

23. Harris has no plan for handling foreign policy effectively (2 times).

24. Trump denies responsibility for the January 6 Capitol attack, blaming Pelosi and the D.C. mayor for not securing the Capitol (2 times).

25. The election was rigged, and Trump did not lose in 2020 (3 times).

26. Trump’s legal cases are politically motivated, and he will win on appeal (2 times).

27. Trump’s energy policies kept gas prices low, and the Biden administration reversed them (2 times).

28. Fracking and fossil fuels are vital to the economy, and Harris would destroy the industry (2 times).

29. Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban but blames Biden for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal (2 times).

30. Trump claims he fired many top officials for incompetence during his presidency (2 times).

31. Harris is the worst vice president in U.S. history (2 times).

32. Trump claims that Viktor Orban, the Hungarian leader, respects and supports him (1 time).

33. World leaders and adversaries respected Trump but are emboldened under Biden (2 times).

34. Harris and Biden are pushing the country toward World War III with weak foreign policy (2 times).

35. Harris hates Israel and the country would not survive under her leadership (2 times).

36. Trump’s administration ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline while Biden allowed it to continue (2 times).

37. Trump believes the U.S. should prioritize stopping the Ukraine war rather than focusing on who wins (1 time).

38. Trump has strong relationships with both Zelenskyy and Putin and would use those connections to end the war (1 time).

39. Harris’s involvement in negotiations before the Ukraine war was weak and led to the invasion (1 time).

40. Harris’s foreign policy approach would lead to the destruction of Israel and chaos in the Middle East (2 times).

41. Trump claims he was the first president to get NATO countries to pay their fair share (1 time).


This list includes all the assertions and ideas mentioned by each candidate, regardless of whether they represent political positions, and the number of times each assertion was made during the debate.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2137354 2024-09-10T17:39:56Z 2024-09-10T17:44:48Z Debunking Wage Average Meme Panel

Using GPT and IRS data from 2021, I evaluated the accuracy of a meme panel. The bottom line is that the meme panel captures the spirit of income inequality but substantially exaggerates the numbers. 

Here is the real data:



Here is the meme panel. Notice that it deducts counts of individuals, not percentages as above. This makes the meme panel less correct.



And, here is the entire calculation:



Here is the raw data:


It came from THIS PAGE.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2134319 2024-08-28T22:41:54Z 2024-08-28T22:41:55Z Trump's Declared Policies 2024 and Their Consequences (spoiler: Bad)

With help from my favorite AI, I extracted specifics from this article by David French. If the people of America could somehow understand what this monster has planned, he would be run out of town on a rail.

You Want Policies? Trump’s Got Policies.

"Donald Trump’s policy initiatives for a potential second term are rife with unintended adverse consequences — which, in less charitable terms, could be described as deliberate attempts to delude the electorate."

Summary:

1. **Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants**:

   - Economic disruption due to loss of labor in key industries.

     - *Example: Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants could result in a loss of $1.6 trillion from the U.S. economy over 10 years (Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. workers' employment and wages.

     - *Example: For every one million undocumented workers deported, 88,000 U.S. native workers could lose their jobs, leading to a cumulative loss of 263,000 jobs per year (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Reduction in consumer demand, leading to further economic decline.

     - *Example: Businesses in immigrant-heavy communities could see a drop in sales, leading to closures and a decline in local economic activity (East et al., "The Labor Market Effects of Immigration Enforcement").*

   - Social and community disruption, especially in areas with mixed-status families.

     - *Example: Deportations could lead to thousands of U.S. citizen children being placed in foster care as their undocumented parents are removed (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*


2. **Imposition of a 10% Across-the-Board Tariff on All Imported Products**:

   - Increase in consumer prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households.

     - *Example: Tariffs could raise consumer costs by $320 for the bottom income quintile and up to $2,250 for the fourth quintile annually (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Potential for a severe global trade war, leading to further economic downturn.

     - *Example: A global trade war could result in the stock market dropping by 11.5%, wiping out $4.12 trillion in market value (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. export industries due to exchange rate effects.

     - *Example: U.S. income could be 3% lower due to the trade war, reflecting reduced competitiveness of American goods abroad (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Long-term damage to global trade systems and economic efficiency.

     - *Example: The reorganization of global value chains could lead to a costly shift away from efficiency, harming long-term economic growth (Weinstein, Columbia University).*


3. **Making the 2017 Tax Cuts Permanent**:

   - Greater financial benefit to the wealthy, with minimal impact on lower-income groups.

     - *Example: Those in the top 0.1% would receive a $278,240 annual tax cut, while those in the bottom quintile would get only $130 (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Net loss for 80% of the population when combined with the effects of higher consumer prices due to tariffs.

     - *Example: A family in the bottom income quintile could face a net loss of $190 annually after accounting for a $320 increase in costs and a $130 tax cut (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Increased federal budget deficits over the next decade.

     - *Example: Trump’s tax and spending proposals could increase the federal deficit by $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years (Penn Wharton Budget Model).*


4. **Increased White House Influence Over Monetary Policy**:

   - Risk of politically motivated monetary decisions that could harm the economy.

     - *Example: Politically driven monetary policy could lead to inflation, with costs akin to those faced by Argentina, where inflation rates exceeded 50% annually during economic crises (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*

   - Potential for inflation and economic instability, drawing comparisons to historical economic crises in other countries.

     - *Example: The U.S. could experience severe economic instability, potentially resulting in double-digit inflation and high unemployment rates similar to those seen in the 1970s (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*


5. **Cutting Off Federal Funding to Schools with Vaccine or Mask Mandates**:

   - Increased risk of outbreaks of preventable diseases in schools.

     - *Example: Cutting federal funds could lead to a resurgence of diseases like measles, which had a 90% infection rate among unvaccinated individuals exposed during outbreaks (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Potential public health crisis, leading to higher child mortality and disrupted education.

     - *Example: School outbreaks of preventable diseases could result in the deaths of hundreds of children and widespread school closures, disrupting education for millions (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Deepening divisions within communities over public health measures.

     - *Example: Communities could become polarized, with heated conflicts over school health policies leading to social unrest and deteriorating public trust (Skocpol, Harvard University).*




]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2133428 2024-08-25T17:59:17Z 2024-08-25T17:59:18Z We need another two million illegal immigrants each year to keep our society healthy. Someone replied to my appreciation of Kamala with disparaging comments about "millions of illegal aliens". Even at first blush, this is this simply silly. There are only around 500k net illegal immigrants, coming and going, each year. But more importantly, we *want* lots and lots more immigrants and, in my view, the illegal ones are the best kind.

This analysis by the Wharton School (link below) shows why. The problem is that Americans are not reproducing enough to support us in the future. You can read it if you want but the bottom line is the ratio of old people to young people will go bad. Then we will not have enough young people working to keep the entire society operational.

Since immigrants are overwhelmingly young people, Wharton goes on to calculate how many immigrants we need to restore the ratio of young to old to the correct value (they explain how they figure out 'correct'). The report has many details but the bottom line is:

Immigration quotas need to increase by a factor of 3.5. Presently, the quote is around a million people per year. They calculate that we need 3.5 MILLION IMMIGRANTS PER YEAR.

The second part of this story is my opinion alone. Legal immigration favors people who can afford a plane ticket. That is, relatively rich people. In my experience, relatively rich people are lazy and feckless. They do not tend to value hard work, contribution to society and the importance of mutual reliance in community.

On the other hand, people who are willing to risk everything by taking a dangerous and arduous journey that includes a terrifying hike through a desert, show the kind of grit, energy, courage and determination that I think America needs more than anything.

America was built by immigrants but by immigrants that more closely resembled today's illegal kind that the legal ones. To get here in 1900 meant a horrible journey in a disgusting ship. It meant arriving in a place with essentially no services, a ton of discrimination and being absolutely cut off from any support or comfort from home. It took enormous courage to immigrate then as it does for illegal immigrants today.

Those are the kinds of people America needs. Today we have one million rich people and only 500k poor ones coming here. We need another two million illegal immigrants each year to keep our society healthy.

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/3/22/us-demographic-projections-with-and-without-immigration

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2128242 2024-08-03T18:07:12Z 2024-08-03T18:07:12Z The Second Amendment is as Dangerous as the First

Reason Magazine is usually wrong and it is in this case, too. People do not want "fewer rights". I don't even think they want to censor views they do not like. Much like they do not actually want to take your gun away, people see that the first and second amendment are dangerous because they enable terrible new capabilities based on modern technology.. 


Polls consistently say that guns with high capacity for murder should be banned. They don't want guns banned, they want the ability to have and use them make sense.


Nobody yet does a poll that asks if anyone should be able to tell lies to tens of millions of people a hundred times a day for free but, if they did, they would find that protecting this is where people think the first amendment goes too far.


They don't want free speech banned but they do not want society to be destroyed by billionaires able to flood the information space and corporations providing the free ability for any asshole to manipulate millions without any consequences.


High capacity guns. Free internet reach to millions. The second amendment in the lunatic view of the 'originalist' Supreme Court has led the way to an absolutist view on the first amendment that is equally dangerous.


And that doesn't even mention the 'freedom of religion' clause that has been interpreted to mean religious people get to use modern institutions and technology to force religion on the rest of us.


https://reason.com/2024/08/03/more-than-half-of-americans-think-the-first-amendment-provides-too-many-rights/

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2120491 2024-07-01T18:27:30Z 2024-07-02T16:28:06Z In TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, the United States loses In the suit, TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court decided against the United States. The decision (HERE) is a calamity.

Though it does not actually say the president cannot be charged with a crime, it sets a ridiculously high bar for doing so: "The President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"

Since the entire purpose of a law is to 'intrude on the authority and function' of a criminal, it's almost a tautology. If the president does it, it's not a crime.

It's made worse, though, because this bunch of corrupt assholes leaves a loophole. Despite their absolute-sounding language, they say that it might be okay to interfere with a president. And they say that they will decide, based on no expressed principles, when that occurs. Would this court find a prosecution less likely to interfere with the "authority and function" of a Democratic president? Could be.

Actually, the court says that the presumption of immunity does not apply to unofficial acts. I guess that might mean that a president could, after being out of office, be charged with theft if he left a restaurant without paying. Whether that's the case, however, would also be decided by the new king-makers of the court.

And they make clear that it's very unlikely that a president is ever unofficial. They explain that talking to the public is presumed to be official. If a government official is involved, it's official. They make clear that it really would have to be theft in a restaurant and not much more.

For good measure, they also categorically exclude official acts (determined by them) as evidence of a crime. The example in the dissent is, a bribe having been received, the discussion with the government person implementing the purchased activity is official and cannot be brought into evidence.

The dissent reminds us that the Framers were explicitly clear that the president is subject to law. They saw no reason to think that the president should not do his or her job with a clear eye on what is legal or how this could reduce the effectiveness of governance.

The majority says that it is important that a president need never fear pernicious prosecution for fear of political retribution, i.e., what Trump wants to do. The dissent observes the obvious fact that every prosecution has to get past a judge and for a president, there would be grand juries, interlocutory appeals out the ass, trials, appeals, all of the structure of justice that would stand in the way of abuse.

Justice Barrett, who is showing signs of decency, concurs with the decision but disagrees with its main conclusion. She would, instead, create a premise for pretrial appeal (interlocutory judgment) to determine if charges were applicable to the president. She doesn't discuss the majority premise, "must be immune," but she disagrees with the prohibition on using evidence derived from official acts and that makes me think she might be choosing not to rock the boat in a decision where her vote is not dispositive.

Justice Sotomayor is outraged and brings us to the conclusion that I think is correct: "The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.

Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today."

I dissent.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2117819 2024-06-20T16:00:40Z 2024-06-20T16:00:40Z Dangers of Universal Camera Surveillance

I found this excellent analysis of The Dangers of Surveillance. 

The following AI written list of harms that could result from universal camera surveillance matches my understanding from reading the article:


  • Severe chilling effect on behavior and intellectual freedom: People would likely alter their public behavior and activities, knowing they are constantly being watched. This could stifle creativity, free expression, and the development of diverse or unconventional ideas.

  • Erosion of privacy in public spaces: Universal camera observation would effectively eliminate the concept of privacy in any public area, fundamentally changing the nature of public life and social interactions.

  • Increased potential for abuse of power: With access to comprehensive visual data on citizens' movements and activities, the government would have unprecedented power to track, profile, and potentially manipulate individuals.

  • Risk of selective enforcement and discrimination: The vast amount of visual data could be used to selectively target certain individuals or groups for law enforcement or other government actions.

  • Threat to anonymous speech and association: Universal observation would make it extremely difficult for people to engage in anonymous political or social activities, potentially undermining democratic participation.

  • Creation of a permanent, searchable record of public life: This could be used for retroactive surveillance or investigation, creating a chilling effect even for past actions.

  • Potential for data breaches or misuse: The massive database of visual information could be vulnerable to hacking, leaks, or misuse by government employees.

  • Normalization of surveillance: Ubiquitous government cameras could lead to greater acceptance of surveillance in general, potentially opening the door to even more invasive forms of monitoring.

  • Inhibition of intellectual privacy in public spaces: People might feel less free to read certain materials, have sensitive conversations, or engage in intellectual exploration in public areas.

  • Psychological impact: The constant feeling of being watched could lead to increased stress, anxiety, and self-censorship among the population.

  • ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2106927 2024-04-30T21:13:00Z 2024-05-02T01:16:31Z Never Talk About God in Public, Part 2 You know how I could get in trouble if I were to go up to a woman at work and start talking about how lovely her tits are? That's not because her tits aren't lovely or that I mean anything nasty. It's just that so many men have complimented women on their bodies in ways that are demeaning or threatening that most women are immediately repelled if you say something nice about their tits.

    Also, you are feeling kind of creeped out because I used the word 'tits' three times and, even though it is a perfectly fine contraction of the word 'teats', common usage has made in an uncomfortable word.

    Your Messiah (and pretty much all the religions at one time or another) is like that for a lot of people. So many people have conducted Inquisitions and witch burnings and justified taking away women's reproductive autonomy while talking about their god that it has become creepy. Even when they weren't doing violence, they were telling all of us we were going to hell, a lot.

    So, your public expressions of religion are, like the word tits, are tarred by the brush wielded by your co-religionists.

    But with religion, it has another important facet. Your assertions about the glory of God, as benign as you mean them to be, are also, intrinsically because of the very definition of 'god' an assertion that the God I worship is not real, or right, or allowable.

    You, being you, don't intend that. One reason that I don't really object to your protestations anymore is that I know you are just kind of going on about it without any real intention toward the rest of us. The problem is, just as with my perfectly kind observations about tits, that ship has sailed.

    As you said, I "already got that message from somebody else." It's been said enough that, when you bring it up, you may as well be saying it.

    Further, religious assertions are always as much an assertion that my religious assertions are wrong as they are anything else. Religious kindnesses are creepy and inappropriate because it is talking about a person's intimate feelings. Think about how you felt when I did my rap above talking about the falsity of your God. That's how everyone feels if they are paying attention when someone else proclaims a different religious belief.

    I do not want it banned, any more than I want talking about tits banned. I want it to be formally disallowed. I talk about Debbie's tits all the time, often in lurid terms (she's got great ones!). It's fine. She has given me permission. But, if I talk about some young woman's tits at work, she can sue me, not for the word, for creating a hostile workplace. In a restaurant, not for the word, but for harassment.

    I think talking about religion should be like that. I think that talking about religion should be considered to be as sensitive as talking about the virtues of a woman's body. It is my view that having to listen to religion in the workplace (I had a coworker once, don't get me started) should be grounds for hostile workplace action. I think talking to a person about religion with their active consent, should be actionable as harassment.

    I am completely enthusiastic about your desire to enjoy your religious views. I want you to go to church and, with all the people who have agreed to talk about it, go crazy. I just don't want to hear it and I think society would be much, much, much better off if we took it out of the public conversation.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2106145 2024-04-26T12:29:47Z 2024-05-02T01:29:22Z Never Talk About God in Public It is the nature of gods and belief in them, to assert their 'rightness'. You think your 'god' is *the* god. All the good religions assert that their god is the only one and that failing to adhere to dogma is blasphemy.

    Christians and Moslems think that having beliefs in a different god is a crime, based on the idea that expressing said different beliefs is heresy. This is premised on the idea that me claiming that I have the *only* God is exactly the same as saying that *your* god is not real. Your claim about your god reciprocates.

    Which is to say that you making the claim about the supremacy of "THE awesome G-d" is also a statement that *my* God is false. I think saying that is rude and inappropriate. That it is often couched in the former, sneakier, phrase makes no difference.

    In fact, I claim that it's worse. On the one side, you are attacking and undermining my God. On the other, you are trying to take me away from it, too.

    See it this way. When I say that my God is the opposite of your god and that it is a supernatural fantasy responsible for a huge amount of negative results in the world from the Inquisition to the abuse of gay people, you want to fight me. You think I am using the word 'god' as a cover to attack your belief.

    And you're right. It's my view that talking about one's god is *always* an attack on the beliefs of people who have a different view. Always and intrinsically. That's why I take such a harsh attitude about religiosity in public I find it deeply offensive.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2105614 2024-04-23T12:41:43Z 2024-05-02T01:32:08Z Taylor Gets the Treatment, Again

    And so, Taylor gets the treatment again. Two years after her previous one, she releases a new album, Tortured Poets Department, and, again, the poopy meta analysis begins. Too this. Too little that. So much. So soon. So so so. Couldn't she just be less?

    Here's what I think: Her fans love it. That's all that matters and, if you're not a fan just shut the hell up. The NY Times puts this on the front page. More negative click bait.

    The first time I listened to the album, it felt long. The second time, less so. Then a friend noted four tracks she liked and I listened to them several times. And here's the thing about Taylor Swift, each time I listened to them, I liked them more. I've listened more to others since.

    Previously, I wondered, are any of them going to be caught in my head on repeat like Love Store or Blank Space do? Each time I listened, I noted an interesting little hook. Felt the frisson as I recognized a moment where she had captured another subtle idea in a sweet turn of phrase.

    She will tell you herself that her most important art form is lyric. I think that's fair. I don't think she's ever going to be compared, on a strictly music level with, say, Lennon/McCartney, Irving Berlin or Brian Wilson, people who were innovators in music style and structure, per se. But, listen to the song Fortnight a couple of times and I don't believe anyone who loves music can come away with anything short of delight and a tune stuck in your head, on repeat.

    This article is bullshit. The songs, one by one or in a group, are lovely. Taylor is a force of nature. I consider having discovered her from a fan perspective to be a huge gift to my life. I have another thing to enjoy and she is good.


    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2104927 2024-04-20T12:59:44Z 2024-04-20T12:59:44Z Joanna Newsom James,

    So, I dug into Joanna Newsom and am thrilled. It reminds me of when I discovered Katherine Ryan and was astonished to find this brilliant person who is a big deal just a little bit out of my sight. That I have never, ever heard of Newsom before shows how difficult it is to know what's going on even in a fully connected world.

    I listened to a bunch of her music and then some interviews and then a charming ten minute vid of her husband, Andy Samberg (as you doubtless know) talking about how much he loves her and how cool she is. All made me love her, too. She will now always be on my attention list.

    All that said, it's pretty easy to understand why she isn't extremely popular. Her music is mostly pretty weird. On the first couple of vids I watched, I couldn't understand anything about what she was doing. I couldn't understand the words (I later learned that she is often doing a sort of beat poetry and, once I learned not to interpret in sentences, it worked better for me). Her music is very spiky and unconventional. Also, and this is trivial, her facial contortions as she forms her very strange vocal style is hard to interpret.

    Fortunately, she came with your recommendation so I kept at it and learned enough to begin to understand what she is doing, to understand the semantics of her style, build enough familiarity that I could start to categorize and feel in ways that build meaning for me. I learned and conclude that she is free, innovative, expressive beyond belief. Her music is unusual but interesting as hell and, often, once I got used to it, lovely. Not only that, she's not talking about the commonplace crap that most are.

    As much as I admire Taylor Swift, she is speaking a truth that resonates with her audience, like her and the audience are matched tuning forks. Her virtue is (partly) the accuracy and cleverness with which she evokes the experiences of a young women in America.

    Joanna, of course, is not part of any kind of resonance system. She seems intensely determined to avoid the road most traveled, less Robert Frost, more Alan Ginsburg, in her lyrics. I'm not musically literate enough to to make a similar comparison for music but it's there. Her tunes are often arhythmic and melodies disjoint and surprising. I think she might be the most creative musician I know about. Hell, the most creative person.

    As I write this, I am listening to her tunes. During that last paragraph, I was especially charmed by the song. It was a little more melodic (which is good for me) and the lyric pronounced a little more clearly (most of her songs I need lyrics on to know what she says) and, as I wrote, I thought, Gotta look at the song title after I finish this paragraph. Amusingly, it was named Emily.

    Anyway, thanks for the reference. Made for a fine Saturday night and great addition to my playlist.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2104088 2024-04-16T14:56:01Z 2024-04-16T14:56:01Z Is This TMI?

    I consider my main goal to be lowering the bar to match my capability. I try to be satisfied by the things in my life that are good.


    I am old enough so that getting sick as a prelude to dying is part of the planning process. I intend to have perfected my ability to look on the bright side by being able to take full satisfaction about any tiny thing that is good.


    To the extent possible, I hope to avoid allowing negative stuff to influence my self evaluation or sense of happiness.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2101665 2024-04-06T12:49:35Z 2024-04-06T12:49:35Z RANT: Millenials deserve respect and sympathy

    I am an old, male boomer. I want to shout: I think the anti-millennial crap spewed by older people is utter bullshit. It's unfair. It's wrong. It's so horrible I categorize it as on par with full-on racism.

    Millenial people (they are not 'millenials', some mythic creature in your imagination) did, in actual fact, grow up and come of age in a remarkably shitty time. Worse than other bad times, maybe yes, maybe no, but from 9-11 on, American society has not been good. This is compounded by their vicious exploitation by the ruling classes and corporations. You needn't go any farther than the elimination of art and music from public school, to the cost of college education and then the rapacious structure of the student loan industry.

    But another thing that matured in the lives of millennial people is the technology of worker exploitation. The fucking over of young people in the job market is unconscionable. And, as with student loans, it's abetted by the government (though more on one side of the aisle than the other) supporting corporations uber alles.

    Before networked technology, it wasn't practical to manage randomized work schedules that make you work days alternating with working nights. There weren't as many jobs simple enough that firing an experience worker because they are making an extra buck an hour and you can hire a new one for less. It makes your life miserable on purpose.

    We won't talk about climate change, the unwholesomeness of food, or mass shootings every day, or etc, but they count, too. Suffice to say, I agree that things suck today and tell you that they are actual things that have been done, almost maliciously, mostly to young people.

    I also think that much of it could have been avoided. I think the older peoples' condemnation of millennial people is mostly projection. They cannot face the guilt of having wrecked the culture and the planet so they blame the victims.

    I start to say that I also apologize for my age cohort and it's bad behavior but, that doesn't capture my real feeling. I am enraged and ashamed of being part of such a rapacious, short sighted and prejudiced bunch.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2100504 2024-04-01T13:32:14Z 2024-04-01T13:32:15Z Alena Kate Petit ur Trad Wife I ran into this article on my daily tour of Wonkette, one of my favorite link aggregating blogs. It was, as is its wont, characterized cynically. The main character, who is arguably the first woman to have a social media presence as an anachronistic, stay at home mother, ie, trad wife, was said to have "the sads" about the cultural consequences of the people who followed her lead.

    Alena Kate Pettit, trad wife in the New Yorker, sounds nice. She had a rough childhood that formed her. That resulted in the desire for a nice family and a relationship with a man who would reciprocate her commitment by taking care of her and her kids.

    Unless the interviewer is being specifically manipulative (and it's the New Yorker where I'd expect the opposite if anything), Alena is not a conservative monster. She takes her religion like I take mine, lots of songs and bake sales (my inference). Without seeing her online history, I can't prove it but she sure doesn't sound like she's pounding any kind of conservative drumbeat.

    In this article, a skeptical tv interviewer is surprised by Alena's assertion that she would have to talk to her husband about buying a couch. I thought, "WTF? Who would buy furniture without talking to their spouse?"

    I've often disdained the notion of 'head of household' and the supposed submission that entails. In my life, I often joke that I have turned "Happy wife. Happy life." into a religion. I don't go with submission but, if she has a preference, that's what I do in just about everything.

    Reading about Alena, since the article left me feeling friendly toward her, I realized that her acceptance of her husband as the head of the household does not sound so much different, practically speaking, to my concern for my wife's happiness.

    You can safely read the article about Alena. If the article is fair, she is a person who found a way of life that she liked, not a politico determined to push women into the past. As I say, she sounds nice.

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-trad-wife

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2100110 2024-03-30T14:02:48Z 2024-03-30T14:02:48Z Quotation: Bertrand Russell Deconstructs Christianity

    Bertrand Russell says,


    “The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians, consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and third, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism*, and to kindred cults of the Near East.


    The most important Jewish elements in Christianity appear to me to be the following:


    • I. A sacred history, beginning with the creation, leading to a consummation in the future, and justifying the ways of God to man.


    • II. The existence of a small section of mankind whom God specially loves. For Jews, this section was the Chosen People; for


    Christians, the elect.


    • III. A new conception of ‘righteousness’. The virtue of almsgiving, for example, was taken over by Christianity from later Judaism. The importance attached to baptism might be derived from Orphism or from oriental pagan mystery religions, but practical philanthropy, as an element in the Christian conception of virtue, seems to have come from the Jews.


    • IV. The Law. Christians kept part of the Hebrew Law, for instance the decalogue, while they rejected its ceremonial and ritual parts. But in practice they attached to the Creed much the same feelings that the Jews attached to the Law. This involved the doctrine that correct belief is at least as important as virtuous action, a doctrine which is essentially Hellenic. What is Jewish in origin is the exclusiveness of the elect. 


    • V. The Messiah. The Jews believed that the Messiah would bring them temporal prosperity, and victory over their enemies here on earth; moreover, he remained in the future. For Christians, the Messiah was the historical Jesus, who was also identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy; and it was not on earth, but in heaven, that the Messiah was to enable his followers to triumph over their enemies.


    • VI. The Kingdom of Heaven. Other-worldliness is a conception which Jews and Christians, in a sense, share with later Platonism, but it takes, with them, a much more concrete form than with Greek philosophers. The Greek doctrine — which is to be found in much Christian philosophy, but not in popular Christianity — was that the sensible world, in space and time, is an illusion, and that, by intellectual and moral discipline, a man can learn to live in the eternal world, which alone is real. The Jewish and Christian doctrine, on the other hand, conceived the Other World as not metaphysically different from this world, but as in the future, when the virtuous would enjoy everlasting bliss and the wicked would suffer everlasting torment. This belief embodied revenge psychology, and was intelligible to all and sundry, as the doctrines of Greek philosophers were not. 


    To understand the origin of these beliefs, we must take account of certain facts in Jewish history, to which we will now turn our attention ...“


    — Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Two. Catholic Philosophy, Part. I. The Fathers, Ch. I: The Religious Development of the Jews, pp. 307-09


    ━━


    * Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2098463 2024-03-23T18:01:34Z 2024-03-23T18:01:35Z if one could live on the sun where there is nothing but perpetually changing whirlwinds of gas
    “Take, for instance, numbers: when you count, you count “things,” but “things” have been invented by human beings for their own convenience. This is not obvious on the earth's surface because, owing to the low temperature, there is a certain degree of apparent stability. But it would be obvious if one could live on the sun where there is nothing but perpetually changing whirlwinds of gas. If you lived on the sun, you would never have formed the idea of “things,” and you would never have thought of counting because there would be nothing to count. In such an environment, even Hegel's philosophy would seem to be common sense, and what we consider common sense would appear as fantastic metaphysical speculation.

    Such reflections have led me to think of mathematical exactness as a human dream, and not as an attribute of an approximately knowable reality. I used to think that of course there is exact truth about anything, though it may be difficult and perhaps impossible to ascertain it. Suppose, for example, that you have a rod which you know to be about a yard long. In the happy days when I retained my mathematical faith, I should have said that your rod certainly is longer than a yard or shorter than a yard or exactly a yard long. Now I should admit that some rods can be known to be longer than a yard and some can be known to be shorter than a yard, but none can be known to be exactly a yard, and, indeed, the phrase “exactly a yard” has no definite meaning.

    Exactness, in fact, was a Hellenic myth which Plato located in heaven. He was right in thinking that it can find no home on earth. To my mathematical soul, which is attuned by nature to the visions of Pythagoras and Plato, this is a sorrow. I try to console myself with the knowledge that mathematics is still the necessary implement for the manipulation of nature. If you want to make a battleship or a bomb, if you want to develop a kind of wheat which will ripen farther north than any previous variety, it is to mathematics that you must turn. Mathematics, which had seemed like a surgeon's knife, is really more like the battle-ax. But it is only in applications to the real world that mathematics has the crudity of the battle-ax. Within its own sphere, it retains the neat exactness of the surgeon's knife.
    The world of mathematics and logic remains, in its own domain delightful; but it is the domain of imagination. Mathematics must live, with music and poetry, in the region of man-made beauty, not amid the dust and grime of the world below.”

    Bertrand Russell, Portraits From Memory And Other Essays (1950), Essay: V. Beliefs: Discarded and Retained, pp. 40-1

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2097555 2024-03-19T15:00:39Z 2024-03-19T17:23:28Z Neurological Existentialism redux

     Long ago, the failed presidential candidate, Ross Perot, said that he could not understand how anyone felt they could trust someone who didn't believe in God (his, of course) because, without a divine imperative, why would they adhere to any moral code. That pissed me off and I've been thinking about it ever since.

    The essay above is the basic idea of my answer to the question, Where does morality come from if humans are basically just overgrown yeast cells in a universe that doesn't care. Or, more simply, why don't we kill each other with the same zest as great white sharks at a beach.

    The basic premise is that our brains are built to appreciate order and safety. Other things, too, that add up to what the religious types attribute to "God's will" but are instead fundamental aspects of human biology.

    Along the way, I have become interested in philosophy. It turns out that there are a lot of people who have tried to figure out more about what is going on in our culture and the universe. Among those are the two I mention above, Kierkegaard and Sartre (he's the guy that inspired the picture below). They are among the earliest people (along with Hume and Kant a hundred years before from a completely different perspective) to really explore how humans get their morality without assuming 'God made them do it'.

    Neurological Existentialism is an attempt to improve on their answers. On the one hand by explaining how we could be 'good' without God to tell us how. On the other, how we can be fulfilled without God telling us that we are ok.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2097554 2024-03-19T14:59:28Z 2024-03-19T14:59:29Z Neurological Existentialism

    Kierkegaard's exploration of existential challenges rooted in a supernatural God and Sartre's emphasis on radical freedom, while insightful, each possess inherent limitations. Kierkegaard's reliance on supernaturalism may pose difficulties for those without religious faith, while Sartre's oversight of human biology neglects the profound influence of our neurobiology on existential experiences.

    In response to these limitations, Neurological Existentialism emerges as a synthesis—a third way—aimed at reconciling tensions between the supernatural and the natural, and between existential freedom and biological determinism. At its core lies an acknowledgment of the intrinsic interplay between our biological makeup and our existential experiences. Within this framework, innate human tendencies—fear, desire, and the pursuit of order—serve as foundational elements in shaping ethical principles and existential choices.

    By redefining the concept of the "leap of faith" as an exploration and belief in our essence, Neurological Existentialism offers a departure from Kierkegaard's reliance on supernatural belief. Instead of leaping towards a transcendent deity, we are encouraged to delve into the depths of our neurobiological makeup and existential experiences to discover meaning and purpose.

    Similarly, the notion of "radical freedom" is reconceptualized within Neurological Existentialism. Rather than a daunting expanse of boundless choice, radical freedom becomes a liberating recognition that our actions are guided by our neurological characteristics. These characteristics offer both support and constraints, providing a framework for navigating our existential journey with greater understanding and acceptance.

    In embarking on this philosophical endeavor, Neurological Existentialism offers a compelling synthesis—a third way—that integrates scientific inquiry with existential reflection. Through this synthesis, we deepen our comprehension of the complexities of human existence and the pursuit of ethical understanding. This paradigm transcends the limitations of previous philosophical models, fostering a holistic approach to grappling with the intricacies of human nature and experience.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2096464 2024-03-14T14:39:24Z 2024-03-14T14:39:25Z Stop talking about people
    I can barely tolerate the word 'neurotypical'. It's like saying 'snowflake-typical'. Human brains are way, way, way too complicated to have any two be the same. We are all atypical, every one of us. 

    And, of course, it's also true that characterizing a person as being on the autism spectrum barely tells you anything, anyway. Some folk require a lot of help and others barely any. Some have complex social or sensory issues. Others, none or all or something else. Brains are too complicated to categorize.

    For that matter, stop talking about people as categories. We are now aware that even the apparently simple categories, male/female, are overly simplistic. We know that the smart/dumb dichotomy conceals the rich variety of skills people contain. Beautiful/ugly? According to what standard?

    Here's my idea: Don't talk about people at all. Don't say someone is normal, neurotypical, smart, ugly or tall, unless you are actively helping them solve an individual problem that you are qualified for.

    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2090783 2024-02-19T14:21:34Z 2024-02-19T14:21:35Z We Are Being Ruined by Edge Cases

    I figured out what's wrong. Why we hate what woke has become, same with political correctness. I suspect that it applies to the right wing, too, but don't care to think about it. 

    Ready:

    We have become obsessed with accommodating all the edge cases.

    The story mentioned in the picture below, I have not read. But, I will bet that some people reading this immediately think we should figure out a way to deal with it humanely. 

    This is a thing so rare that it makes the front page, though I'm sure the story makes clear that it happens many more times. Also, that many more times adds up to .0001% of drunk driving police actions, the very definition of an edge case.

    So, we add another thing for police to deal with that makes one of the main jobs more difficult.

    I do not have the energy but would bet many bucks that I could construct a story fitting this idea for most of the ills. Either the effect is minuscule, the occasions for its happening are minuscule or the cost-effect ratio is completely out of whack. 

    We are not using correct judgement. Consequently, we have enough rules and accommodations that even die hard liberals are fed up.

    And it's because we are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We are trying to construct a system that accommodates all the rare edge cases and that is bad.



    ]]>
    TQ White II
    tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/2079037 2024-01-22T14:45:01Z 2024-01-22T14:51:40Z A Tale of Two AIs

    The metaphysical discussion mentioned in my previous post was actually conducted using both Bard and ChatGPT4. Since I am developing a dangerous addiction to playing with AI (it's the only kind of intelligence that will indulge me), I kept going. I added this to the conversation:

    I am interested in these ideas partly because I have a mechanistic view of the universe. In other conversations, I have observed that the idea of an independent wilfull entity that takes interest in people and can do miracles violating the laws of physic (aka, God) is not only untrue but is ridiculous on its face. I think that people are literally no more important than yeast cells in that we are simply bigger bags of protoplasm encrusting the surface of rock that arose as a result of the randomness of the quantum process. I claim that the we evolved to enjoy patterns and that we derive ethics, morality or beauty by observing patterns that reveal the most orderly patterns in our societies.  

    I want an essay explaining this view, not justifying it. I want the essay to explain in an optimistic tone based on awareness of the previous segment where we discussed how living in this universe "liberates us to create a life experience " . I repeat that I do not want to be convincing people who read the essay, I want them merely to understand my view.

    I gave the entire conversation to both Bard and ChatGPT4 and got two crazily different results. I note that the Bard example was its first response. GPT, otoh, wrote an essay that carried a tone of that suggested that we might be saddened by this perspective (reasonable, I suppose since it was trained on an internet full of god-fearing people). I had to engage it in conversation about the upside before I got an essay that was good. Bard got it from the get-go. "A vast canvas splashed with a chaotic mix of colors." You can't beat that. Interestingly, though, it was not very useful in the overall conversation. It kept converging on conventionalities. I did the vast majority of the work (see previous post) with GPT.

    BARD: A Universe of Meaningful Patterns: A Justification for Human-Made Significance

    Imagine a vast canvas splashed with a chaotic mix of colors. To an unseeing eye, it's nothing but random strokes. But enter a human observer, and the magic begins. Patterns emerge, shapes coalesce, and the canvas transforms into a vibrant landscape, a story spun from light and pigment. This, I propose, is the essence of our universe and our place within it: a chaotic backdrop upon which we paint the vibrant tapestry of meaning.

    We, as products of evolution, are hardwired for pattern recognition. Our brains, honed through eons of survival, excel at identifying order amidst the cosmic noise. This inherent tendency isn't merely a quirky evolutionary quirk. It's the foundation of our knowledge, our ethics, and ultimately, our understanding of ourselves.

    Consider the anthropic principle: the universe we observe, with its finely tuned constants and life-supporting laws, appears tailor-made for consciousness. Yet, this "meaningful" design is an illusion. It's not the universe that harbors a cosmic purpose, but our pattern-seeking minds that project it onto the canvas. The vast multitude of unobserved universes, devoid of sentient life, paints a stark picture of cosmic indifference.

    But within this indifference lies a profound freedom. Absent a preordained script, we are the authors of our own meaning. Through our cognitive faculties, we weave narratives from the fabric of existence, finding significance in the intricate dance of particles, the rise and fall of civilizations, the connections forged with fellow beings.

    From the abstract laws of physics to the moral codes that bind societies, our "meaning-making" takes myriad forms. We derive beauty from the rhythmic patterns of music, the symmetry of a snowflake, the harmonious interplay of ecosystems. We find purpose in upholding the patterns of ethical conduct that ensure the smooth functioning of our communities.

    Some contend that this human-centric view diminishes the "realness" of meaning. But is the sunset less magnificent because it exists for our eyes alone? Does the melody lose its sweetness because only our ears can grasp it? Our patterns, though subjective, are no less real or impactful within the framework of our conscious experience.

    Perhaps the ultimate justification for this perspective lies in its potential. By embracing our role as meaning-makers, we unlock a boundless universe of possibilities. We can strive to understand the intricate patterns that govern the cosmos, forging an ever-closer connection with the grand tapestry of existence. We can refine the patterns of our societies, striving for a world where justice, kindness, and cooperation form the leitmotif of our collective narrative.

    So, let us dance in the grand ballroom of the universe, not as unwitting extras on a preordained stage, but as creative artists, each brushstroke adding a unique hue to the ever-evolving canvas of meaning. We are the ones who imbue the universe with significance, not because it's inherently meaningful, but because we are, by our very nature, meaning-making machines. And in that, lies a beauty and a power that transcends the cosmic indifferent.


    ChatGPT4: Embracing the Randomness: A Mechanistic View of the Universe and Human Existence

    In the grand narrative of the cosmos, a mechanistic view offers a distinct and thought-provoking perspective. This viewpoint considers the universe not as a canvas painted with deliberate strokes of cosmic intention but as an expanse shaped by the random processes of quantum fluctuations. It's a universe where meaning, as we understand it, is not an inherent feature but a product of human cognition, a perspective that reshapes our understanding of existence and our role within the cosmic order.

    At the heart of this perspective is the concept of meaning as a human construct. In a universe without observers, events unfold independently of the labels and significances we attribute to them. Stars burn, galaxies form, and particles interact in a void of human interpretation. It is only when consciousness arises, capable of perceiving and interpreting these events, that the concept of 'meaning' emerges. This realization has profound implications. It suggests that the universe in its raw state is devoid of the narratives and values we attach to it, and these emerge solely from our interaction with our surroundings.

    The role of quantum fluctuations in this perspective cannot be overstated. They are the fundamental processes that, through their randomness, generate the tapestry of the universe. Some of these cosmic experiments result in universes teeming with life and consciousness, like ours, while others remain barren. This aligns with the anthropic principle, which acknowledges that our understanding of the universe is inherently biased towards conditions that support our existence. It's a humbling reminder that our presence in the universe is not the result of a grand design but a serendipitous occurrence in the multitude of cosmic possibilities.

    This framework redefines the act of meaning-making as an inherently human endeavor. When we observe the universe, from the microcosm of a shifting grain of sand to the macrocosm of the gravitational constant, we are engaging in a distinctly human process. We are not uncovering an intrinsic truth of the cosmos but creating a narrative that gives structure and understanding to our observations. This process is deeply rooted in the primary function of the human brain: pattern recognition. Our brains are wired to identify patterns, a trait that has been crucial for our survival and evolution. This neurological inclination shapes our entire cognitive experience, influencing how we perceive and interact with the world.

    The link between this cognitive process and our emotional well-being is significant. By engaging in pattern recognition, we are not just processing information; we are also finding satisfaction and a sense of order. This act of making sense of the world is intrinsically tied to our emotional state. It suggests that our pursuit of understanding, our construction of societal norms, and our appreciation of beauty are more than intellectual exercises. They are integral to our experience of fulfillment and contentment.

    In a universe where humans are akin to yeast cells – complex yet unremarkable in the larger cosmic narrative – this mechanistic view might seem to strip us of our special status. However, it does the opposite. It liberates us from the constraints of seeking a predestined purpose and empowers us to define our own paths. Our pursuit of knowledge, our creation of art, and our establishment of ethical frameworks are not validations of a cosmic significance but expressions of our unique human capacity to find order and meaning in randomness.

    This perspective encourages us to view the universe not as a domain awaiting our discovery of its truths but as a playground for our creativity and curiosity. In this vast and indifferent cosmos, our significance comes not from a predetermined role but from our ability as conscious beings to interpret, create, and find joy in our existence. It invites us to embrace the randomness, to find beauty in the chaos, and to celebrate our ability to create meaning in a universe that offers none on its own.

    ]]>
    TQ White II