Nice guys don't finish last...We just make sure everyone gets there.
pnrj
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit pnrj's Xanga Site!

Name: Patrick
Country: United States
State: Michigan
Metro: Ann Arbor
Gender: Male


Interests: Friendship, love, writing, psychology, physics, philosophy, ethics, science, photography, art, gaming, technology, computing
Expertise: My skills are primarily in writing, science, and mathematics, though I have a knack for Latin, I'm pretty good at painting and photography, and I'm not atrocious at drawing, singing, or composing. Not much of an athlete, nor do I care to be, though I do try to stay fit and eat right. I'm still working on that whole relationship business. Love is hard to find.
Occupation: Student, Researcher, Author
Industry: Literature, Science, Education


Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website


Member Since: 5/3/2005
True

SubscriptionsSites I Read

Blogrings
Huron Peoples
previous - random - next

Community Clique
previous - random - next

I can spell and form coherent sentences!
previous - random - next

I Dunk and Drink My Coffee at The Chit Chat Cafe
previous - random - next


Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site


Monday, November 09, 2009

Virulent Senioritis

This has not been a good semester for me. I suffered H1N1 influenza, I experienced a relapse in my depression and migraines; I have been getting mediocre grades (Bs and Cs instead of As); I've done basically nothing on my honors thesis after being completely discouraged by a lack of support from professors.

It could just be luck: The infection and subsequent recovery triggered my depression, which triggered my migraines; the combination of the three and the resulting loss of attendance and focus has damaged my academic success. I have ambitious research plans that are difficult to achieve, and I reasonably expected better support in my research than I actually received; thereby I became discouraged.

But it could also be subconscious or semi-conscious intentions on my part. I stand before a crossroads in my life, with many options laid out before me. I could go on to graduate school; I could join the Peace Corps; I could seek a teaching fellowship; I could combine these things through Peace Corps Master's International; I could take a year off to finish my book; and there are thousands of other options I might sometimes be tempted to consider but would generally consider less viable.

And in the face of all these options, I am afraid, or anxious,or some similar aversive emotion. I fear that I will make the wrong choice, or that I won't be given the opportunity I deserve. I feel as a tiny kayak on a fast and forking river, trying desperately to choose my course as I am swept ahead. I feel that I need time to consider these options, time to reflect upon my true goals and aspirations, time to plan my future. And yet I am not being given this time; the hours and days and months carry me relentlessly closer to graduation.

"Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans" said John Lennon, and a month later he'd been murdered. I am continually reminded of this thought, because it is so troubling to me. I don't want my life to be so random, so far beyond my control.

I want time to think about what I want to do in my life; I want time to develop deeper theories of the Hard Problem; I want time to write my books. I want to shunt a log across the river so that I can plan my course.

I'm not sure this is a reasonable desire; life goes on regardless of what we want. Yet at the same time, I see so many people around me with no plans, no dreams, simply carried forth into lives in which they will ultimately be unhappy and unfulfilled. Worse, even if they are happy, they are unlikely to achieve great good in the world; some might be satisfied with helping only those near to them, but I feel a deep drive to achieve something great, something lasting. In order to do that I need to seriously reflect upon the best path for myself.

Perhaps I should take the next semester off? That's the closest I can see to shunting the river. I could spend the winter of 2010 reflecting, then come back in 2010-2011 to finish my degree. This feels unappealing to me... I think this is primarily because it seems "weak" or like "surrender". I feel as if I am giving in to my anxiety—or even to my depression. I am "losing" some sort of "battle".

Alternatively, with significant effort I could psych myself back to full potential, finish my degree in time. This latter plan raises additional questions: Should I cancel my honors thesis? What should I do after graduation—and shouldn't I be applying to these things now?

Increasingly I'm thinking time off is warranted. I'd need to make sure that I use the time—that it isn't just wasted—but I think I could do that. The sense of "weakness" or "surrender" increasingly seems a poor reason for choosing a particular direction in my life. Indeed, I feel a sense of relief simply from proposing the option: Even if I ultimately decide not to do so, I have found a way to shunt the river. Will my parents be disappointed? Will others think less of me? Possibly—though not necessarily. And even if I make the wrong choice, there will be time to change that decision—many people change careers well into middle age. I could stay on this path now and change later.

Yet this is my life, and my life's direction that I am trying to decide. I want to do it right the first time. My autonomy here is not negotiable. In the absence of some foolish fantasy of divine destiny, autonomy in planning our lives is essential to fulfillment. Achieving what I want means knowing what I want and planning appropriately. I should not sacrifice that autonomy for the sake of some mild and transient disapproval.


Tuesday, November 03, 2009

CFI hosted a speaker tonight.

First, it proved that the local chapter of the Center For Inquiry has odd taste in events---why a political scientist to dissect New Atheism, and a miniscule promotion campaign that only attracted CFI members and a few from the SSA?

Second, it reprised much about what I despise about criticism of the New Atheists. "You're too angry! You're too strident! Why can't you be nicer?" The speaker even began by accusing the New Atheists of being the "New Dogmatists"---he in fact proceeded to use the word "dogmatic" to describe at least three separate phenomena: first, angry dismissal of obviously false beliefs ("New Dogmatists"), second, strongly held belief without sufficient evidence (the usual definition), and third, violent militancy for ideological causes (Marxist, Islamist, Maoist dogma; what we'd usually call "fanaticism"). The third is obviously terrible, and the whole point of the New Atheists is to point out that the second is almost as bad; but to then place us in the same category, simply because we're a little "aggressive"? This is an inversion of morality that rightly angered me.

But speaking of my anger, Ewan pointed out to me that I may have become too angry in the discussion. My raised voice (though I note I never used profanity, name-calling, or really anything but logical argument delivered with vocal emphasis) may have been off-putting to some, in this case and perhaps in others as well. For all the absurdity of comparing Richard Dawkins to a suicide bomber, there was a kernel of truth in the speaker's argument---namely that perhaps our anger, however justified, might be hurting our ability to persuade. In my own case I know I anger easily when faced with foolishness, and I think this probably describes the "stridence" of Dawkins and Hitchens as well.

It's not that I get angry at those who disagree with me: Propose a competing theory of the Hard Problem, or disagree about the best approach for resolving global warming, or even debate with me about the proper time in gestation to allow abortion, and I will be civil and rational. But try to claim that there is an invisible immortal soul, or that global warming is a myth, or that zygotes deserve full human rights, and yes, I'll raise my voice at you. Some ideas are just wrong, and like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens, I am sick of stupid ideas being respected and considered on equal terms with obvious facts.

On the other hand, it may not be working. Perhaps a calmer approach would be better. Then again, when have calm logical arguments changed history? Maybe outrage is precisely the proper response, both in principle and in practice.

I certainly don't see a lot of evidence to the contrary.



Monday, November 02, 2009

A truly excellent analysis of theology

I couldn't have said it better myself, so read it there: it's the God Conundrum.


Orthogonal versus independent: The linear algebra of truth

Philosophers are quite promiscuous in their usage of the word "orthogonal".For instance: Daniel Dennett writes in Freedom Evolves that free will and determinism are orthogonal. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Moral anti-realism" has a section arguing that subjectivism and relativism are orthogonal. Accommodationists toward religion will often claim that science and religion are orthogonal.

What these philosophers seem to mean is that the concepts are independent, that when one changes it is not logically necessary that the other change as well. This is no doubt correct; but orthogonal is a far stronger notion than this, one which has not at all been demonstrated.

Two vectors are (linearly) independent if they are not parallel or antiparallel; similarly, two concepts are independent if they are not perfectly correlated or anticorrelated. Determinism and free will, subjectivism and relativism, science and religion, are surely independent.

But two vectors are only orthogonal if they are perpendicular, if they share no linear components whatsoever. Similarly, two concepts should only be considered orthogonal if they are completely uncorrelated. This is difficult to find in nature, though it does occur---typically in completely unrelated domains. Belief in free will is basically orthogonal to theoretical claims about dark matter.

Clearly determinism and free will are not completely uncorrelated---in theory and in practice beliefs about determinism are closely connected with beliefs about free will. Similarly, subjectivism and relativism are closely correlated, and belief in science and belief in religion are strongly anticorrelated (hence, 95% of the National Academy of Sciences is atheist or agnostic).

It's not a big deal, I suppose; but I think more consistent usage might alleviate some confusion. When one person says "orthogonal" and another objects that the two concepts aren't completely unrelated, and the first responds that this isn't what he meant... basically the two are talking past each other until both can agree about what "orthogonal" really means.


Wednesday, October 28, 2009

What is emotion?

We all feel them, we all think we know what they are... but what are emotions, really?

Are they cognitive states? Are they physiological reactions? Perceptions? Behaviors? Motivations?

I know when I am angry or I am sad---indeed I know so deeply no one could ever convince me otherwise---but what exactly does that say about me?

It seems to me that emotions are in fact what makes a sentient being; while a car or a rocket ship could be outfitted with sensors that detect outside objects (perception) or detect damage (sensation), we would not say it actually sees or suffers. But if such a vehicle could be made to feel emotions, to actually hurt when it was damaged, it would seem to me much more like a real sentient being. Similarly if I look at an injured squirrel or even an injured fly, the motions it makes suggest to me that it doesn't like this experience, that it is hurting in some emotional way. The empathy I feel for these creatures is not due to their cognitive processing or their perceptual acuity, but due to their display of emotional experience.

Yet if I stop to think about just what "emotional experience" entails, I really can't say. The way I observe it in a squirrel or a fly is in particular behaviors, but these are behaviors that could be easily simulated by a robot or a computer program. In my own brain emotions are accompanied---perhaps even caused---by particular patterns of electrical and chemical activity; but it seems deeply perverse to say that emotion just is a particular chemical, that the essence of anger is C8H11NO3. Indeed it seems obvious to me that other beings---perhaps aliens or AIs---could experience anger without anything remotely like this chemical acting within them; for an ammonia-based lifeform perhaps anger is CO2; for a silicon AI perhaps it is 1011101110101010001011101.

I don't have an answer. But I think we need one. I think emotional experience is central to what it means to be conscious, and without an understanding of emotion I do not think we can have a coherent theory of cognitive science.



Next 5 >>