Feed on
Posts
Comments

Wise words

Feb 21st, 2010 by paulosalem

“It’s silly to try to escape other people’s faults. They are inescapable. Just try to escape your own.”

- Marcus Aurelius

A useful thought in more situations than one.

Posted in Philosophy, Psychology | No Comments »

A note on the importance of reason

Nov 15th, 2009 by paulosalem

It is easy to forget why reason matters when ignoring it has merely irrelevant consequences. Hence, it is enlightening, thought tragic, to realize just how dangerous it may still be. It seems that in Africa albinos are hunted down and killed for their body parts, which are believed by some to have magic properties. Yes, magic properties.  If it was for organs transplants or unethical scientific studies, it would still be wicked, but at least it would make some sense. Now, magic potions? Just how retarded this is?

Nevertheless, similar principles pervade our own world, so proud of its civilized manners. For instance, the horoscopes that are in every newspaper are inoffensive, but the principle that makes them possible is not. It is only by ignorance and a willingness to believe in non-sense that such things can exist. Insanity is a virulent disease. The fact that the strain which dominates the western world is somewhat weakened, somewhat dormant, should not distract us from its inherently destructive nature.

Posted in Epistemology, Logic, Mythology, Philosophy, Religion | No Comments »

Man’s greatest work of art

Aug 6th, 2009 by paulosalem

A desperate man reaches for his camera. He imagines that it is of utmost importance to register that perfectly ordinary moment. And like him, hundreds of others, more or less in the same fashion and at the same time, pursue the very same pointless art. These same men will eventually return to their homes, and show to their friends just how cultivated and cosmopolitan they are. They will beg for attention, proud of their tasteless work. But the climax is surely reserved for those pictures in which they themselves figure, as the great kings of past ages, only a little less relevant, and a bit more frivolous.

Alas, if it is true that a man’s greatest work of art is himself, I’m afraid mankind is somewhat like a souvenir store, filled with kitsch and clichés. But like in any trip, life itself only shows its secrets for those who take time and really try to see throught it. And as time goes by, we may well learn which shots are worth our attention.

Posted in Art, Life in Paris | 2 Comments »

The birth of insanity

Jun 20th, 2009 by paulosalem

It is hard for us, modern men, to understand just how all religions and mystic systems came into being. We can understand, maybe, how a given set of dogmas manages to pass from one generation to another. But what about the first followers, the ones who were there and were responsible for all the mess? “How could those people,” we ask, “believe in such a non-sense if they were there to see that it was non-sense?” The belief that those who were there, in the beginning, could not be fooled is often used as a justification for the foundations of religions.

If this initial basis is accepted, the rest is easy. Once the first generation dies, the original miracles and words become indisputable matters of fact (e.g., with whom would you quarrel about Paul’s “revelations” if not with Paul himself?), and are thus crystallized forever. One can never disprove that this or that saint did not really have a revelation; one cannot submit him or her to a psychiatric examination (that would be interesting); one can only guess how things really happened.

But the funny thing about these sacred people is that, despite what previous prophets have said, it often happens that new, more enlightened, prophets come to instruct mankind! Christianism and Islam are both results of this process. However, these are already old events; too old to be seen for what they really are. Thankfully, a new prophet appeared a few years ago in Brazil, my home country. No, it is not me. His name is “Inri Cristo”, and he claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus himself! The new messiah has a church, followers, has written sacred texts and, apparently, has also performed miracles. You can check him out in his website, where plenty of English translations can be found (he came for all mankind, not just us Brazilians).

I’m not sure how well known he is outside Brazil. But trust me, the guy is worth your attention. For he holds all the basic qualities for a messiah, and hence is a very interesting subject of study. Of course, chances are he is not really anything of what he claims, and quite more resonable explanations can be found. Yet, to study such a person and the movements around him now may well shed some light into just how all other belief systems came about. Moreover, Inri Cristo has the added quality of being extremely open about his positions, and in Brazil he is almost a pop star, often appearing in television shows (the unbelievers also like him, for he is such a curious, entertaining and even nice person). I’m inclined to believe that he really means what he says.

Christians themselves, I suspect, scorn at Inri Cristo. What a self-defeating position! The “new incarnation”, as far as we can see, has very similar attributes and feats as the original one (including miracles). I wonder if his existence has caused some people to review their beliefs. And this leads me to my main point. For some years to come, revelation arguments will hold no water. For every time that someone points out the sainthood of his preferred prophet or messiah, we will always be able to point them to Inri Cristo’s website and ask what is the difference.

The available evidence shows that there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about prophets. Apparently, they don’t even need to be conspirators, manipulators or power seeking liars. It just turns out some men are very naive, others are rather crazy, and history is fundamentally blind.

Posted in Mythology, Religion | 1 Comment »

Whims of the majority

May 20th, 2009 by paulosalem

I wonder just how the dictatorship of the majority is better than that of a minority (or even one). If anything, it is harder to fight off, since it is distributed and looks legitimate. For example, have we gained the right of true free speech in democracy? I hardly think so. We merely exchanged one set of prejudices for another (think about all the things you could say that could put you in jail). But people don’t think that way: it turns out that, to most, free speech is the right to say things that everyone finds acceptable; which of course is not what the concept is about. And, for the love of Apollo, this is the case even in France, the home of Voltaire!

Another example is taxation. One of the reasons for the American Revolution, for instance, was unfair taxation. But unreasonable taxes is often what you get when elected politicians try to extract the most of everyone and then redistribute it. It is not in vain that taxation authorities, such as USA’s IRS, are so feared and hated – they are as violent as any king of the past. And while it might be argued that this is fair, since it is for the general benefit, it must not be forgotten that there will always be a minority who by no means agree with the ends that the money will be put to. Why should they pay for the whims of others? The short answer is: because they have no choice; they are too few to change the laws, and too weak to fight the police. Nevertheless, they may well be right in their logic. I have the feeling that whoever imagines that the majority is always right in important matters has not looked at the world very attentively.

The funny thing is that some sort of traditional aristocracy, in the fashion of Plato’s philosopher kings, could perhaps make a much more “democratic” world. On the other hand, Plato’s Kallipolis’ system seems to be as arbitrary as any other form of government. In any case, I suspect that it is quite irrelevant whether we know the “correct” system to promote freedom, since there would be no guarantee of its implementation. Maybe our kind is destined to the eternal rule of one power or another. Freedom might be reserved for the gods only.

Posted in Life in Paris, Philosophy, Politics | No Comments »

A theological fallacy

May 18th, 2009 by paulosalem

I know, it is almost a tautology to speak of theological fallacies, but I feel this one is special. Most believers are happy enough with whatever they read in their sacred books. So if it is written that up is down and that heavy is actually light, they’ll gladly accept such things for facts and move on with their lives. But there are those who cannot possibly accept that their faith be based solely on sacred texts; they want reason to be also a part of their belief system. These people, sometimes wrongfully called philosophers, make great efforts to try to prove that the existence of their God actually follows from self-evident truths. That is to say, to prove that God is actually somehow a logical truth, a metaphysical necessity.

What amazes me is not the fact that they try to do such demonstrations. It is somewhat silly, sure, but it is at least understandable (i.e., it is reasonable to try to look for justifications for one’s beliefs).  But  the real problem is that their “proofs”, even if correct, wouldn’t help them at all. And the reason is that all such proofs are based on general qualities of “god”, which do not imply their particular God. So, for instance, assume one has proved that an “infinite” and “perfect” being exists. Fine, but how exactly can you deduce from such a result that Jesus was born from a virgin woman and he happens to be God himself? Or how can the knowledge that the universe “must have a creator” lead you to conclude that you cannot eat porc? The fallacy, hence, is in deducing a particular entity from a very, very general specification. Using the fallacy, one could as well deduce that a pink unicorn created the universe; one could deduce any kind of creator. You see, the devil is in the details. And the details can hardly come from metaphysical “proofs”,which deal only with remote and ethereal notions.

The universe is surely full of mysteries. It seems to have order, and it is a remarkable fact that we can discover some of it. Therefore, it is an evident fact that powerful forces flow through it. There is no need of metaphysical non-sense to show us that the universe is a wonderful thing. But the truth behind the wonders of nature, where they came from, and for which reasons, may well be beyond our understanding capabilities. And surely it is even worse when one tries to ignore the little logic and understanding that we do have in order to justify one’s earthly prejudices.

Posted in Epistemology, Logic, Philosophy, Religion | No Comments »

The joys and perils of conceptual abstractions

Apr 22nd, 2009 by paulosalem

It is a known psychological fact that we don’t look at the world’s details. The reason, it is said, is that if we did considered all possible details of everything we learn and feel, our minds would be overwhelmed by the amount of information. Thus, evolution has equipped us with mechanisms to discard and structure information; that is to say, we are capable of performing abstraction. For instance, when you talk to someone in a crowded space, you neglect almost every stimuli other than the voice of your interlocutor. In a conceptual level this also takes place. Programming languages are a good example of conceptual abstractions that are learned by humans in order to simplify their interaction with machines.

Another fact about such abstractions is that they change over time according to their use. An object that is examined often allows, I think, the development of ever more detailed abstractions to deal with such an object. Conversely, like most other human learning mechanisms, abstractions tend to get simplified if they are not often used. So, for example, take someone that once memorized the position of all the countries of Europe and later did not use this data. With time, such a person may forget the exact position of the countries, but still recall that they are there somewhere. Or he may preserve some sort of incomplete ordering. Some abstraction errors might also arise, such as the assignment of an European country to either Asia or Africa because of a suggestive geographical feature and the degradation of some geographical constraint that would have forbidden the assignment.

The interesting thing, though, is that this dynamics is not the same for every human being. This is a very important observation, because it suggests that there are different ways of using these capabilities, possibly with different results. Take, for instance, Isaac Newton, who managed to abstract much of the physical world in a few highly successful mathematical principles. His contribution was, above all, a new way to see. Whatever were the mechanisms that he used for dealing with conceptual abstractions, they probably were quite different from those of his contemporaries. This reasoning applies to many other scientific and artistic celebrities as well.

But such successes probably don’t come for free. Human beings, after all, are very limited creatures. This is the very reason why we do such abstractions. Hence, it is to be expected that progress in one area will cause problems in another. Or, at the very least, the things that one is concerned with will probably determine which conceptual abstractions will develop, and which will degrade. Among other things, it follows then that exceptional people will probably fail in some arguably trivial matters, for the simple reason that they either are not at all concerned with them or are focusing their attention elsewhere. It is important to understand what such failure means, since it is often surprising and disconcerting to the individual himself.

The basic problem, thus, is how one should go about in order to build a conceptual structure in such a way that it maximizes its explanatory powers for the things that are relevant to its bearer. This must account for all the possible changes that the future may bring, both in the form of new knowledge and in the form of gradual degeneration. Fundamentally, a computational matter.

I have come to think that it is probably a good thing to have very particular conceptual abstractions. It is a sign of a developed personality. On the other hand, the more particular  such abstractions are to an individual, the less he will be able to communicate properly with others. On his side, he will be amazed that they don’t see what to him is obvious. On their side, they will be impressed that he almost entirely ignores a detail that to them is very important. Clearly, this can cause all sorts of social problems.

On the other hand, this is actually good to a very large extent. If taken constructively, I think such confrontations can be useful in order to enrich the views of both sides. And to do so, it seems to me that understanding the whole problem of conceptual abstractions is quite important.

Posted in Computer Science, Epistemology, Psychology | No Comments »

The love for life

Apr 12th, 2009 by paulosalem

The love for life is quite possibly the most troublesome of emotions. First, because it is vain, we are all going to be dead very soon. Second, because it leads to fear of losing it, or of weakening it, before some metaphysically “inevitable” point. We are thus also led to calculate consequences, weight actions, consider the opinion of others. That is to say, to protect it, we actually harm it. Finally, because it is laughable; is this that much important? Look at everyone who came before, great or humble; all reduced to dust, to memory – and one day, not even memory.

It turns out that life is not so precious. To realize this is, perhaps, a first step towards enjoying it in some more appropriate manner. In the manner that nature intends. Not with tears, but with the same good humor that Socrates showed. To remember him. And Cato. And Seneca.

At last, since we are at it, here is another reason why Christians are worse off than us: they fear Hell.

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | No Comments »

Should I consume less water?

Mar 29th, 2009 by paulosalem

I have the impression that people in Europe are very worried about preserving Earth’s natural resources. In practice, this means that I’ll often be exhorted to consume less water and electric energy. And not due to its financial cost, but because of “the children”,  a quasi-rhetoric argument that led me to put some thought on the matter.  Am I endangering the world because of, say, my water consumption? Should I really use less water?

To the first question I don’t have an answer. However, let us suppose the worst, and assume that my water consumption is indeed harmful and will cause the meltdown of civilization in X years. In that case, will the use of less water solve anything? Probably not. For let us assume that I and everyone else cut our water consumption by, say, 50%. Well, this will only delay the disaster by about one generation, after which the number of people on the planet will have raised to a level such that the total water consumption will be as it used to be. It doesn’t take mathematical genius to realize that this is not a scalable solution. It only pushes the problem for the (near!) future. Between such a pointless feel-good attitude and maintaining my high water consumption, I choose the later.  At least I’ll have enjoyed the fruits of civilization before it melts down! Some people are living as if the world had already ended… Saving water is only useful if we can be reasonably sure that in that little time gained, mankind will be able to develop some new technology to solve the problem (e.g., a cheap technique to generate endless amounts of potable water).

As the argument above itself shows, the crucial point has nothing to do with saving water.  The important thing is that human population keeps growing out of control. By simple calculation, it should be obvious that if the population keeps rising as it has been, quite soon we are likely to have all sorts of shortages. This, of course, is the old Malthusian discourse. And the usual response to it is that technology may improve over time so that production capabilities are not overwhelmed. This indeed has been more or less true up to now, but the exponential calculations behind Malthusian arguments should not be dismissed. As any computer scientist may tell you, exponentially growing functions are sure to eventually beat your best hacks around them. I am not, therefore, so quick to dismiss Malthusian positions, although I also believe that our technology will continue improving.

Therefore, it seems to me that the only sensible thing to do about such environmental problems is to promote the stabilization of the world’s population. The inconvenient thing about this solution, though, is that I think it would require a whole different economic philosophy. The idea of “economic growth”, for instance, would be somewhat meaningless in such a stable world.

What would a population-stable world look like? What can be done to achieve it? I think these are the true questions that should be asked if one sincerely believes that the Earth’s resources are endangered. On the other hand, it should also be clear that these are much more dangerous questions. For their answer imply in destabilizing such large-scale entities as the Catholic Church (i.e., for the contraception part of the thing) and pretty much every capitalist corporation in the world (i.e., for the part concerning the nonexistence of economic growth).

Posted in Computer Science, Life in Paris, Politics, Religion, Technology | No Comments »

On good questions

Feb 25th, 2009 by paulosalem

A good question contains in itself the elements of its own answer. Since I first formulated (or read?) this principle it has always felt true, and the more so since I learned about the Cut Elimination Theorem sometime ago. The idea, you see, is that a question which is not well formulated cannot be understood in the first place. The principle establishes that a meaningful  question has a number of essential features, such as a criterion of truth and the elements that somehow lead, or lead not, to such a truth. And it reminds one that even if the question is very relevant, it is not good if it cannot be answered, because it would be a waste of effort to pursue it. Unless, of course, we are not interested in an answer, but only in a general appreciation of the facts surrounding it.

I suppose, then, that to be a good problem solver is somewhat of a primitive state. From the perspective I outlined above, it is at worst a trivial task, and at best a mechanical one. A computer can be programmed to solve a well structured problem; if it fails, it is not because it can’t solve it, but because it lacks the computational resources to do it. But can we even consider what it would mean to conceive a program that creates meaningful problems? In any case, the later is certainly a harder enterprise.

The great thing really is to come up with the right questions. They set the direction of the winds, the minds of other men and, more importantly, our own perspective.  For if we don’t know where we wish to get, it is quite irrelevant whether we run fast. Alas, it is easy to forget this when we are in a hurry to get somewhere.

Posted in Computer Science, Epistemology, Logic, Philosophy | 1 Comment »

Older Posts »