Rabble Rabble Rabble

So I've been having a hard time landing on topics to write about lately. At least partly because, like the German baby, I don't have much to say when things are acceptable. I mean yeah the world is on fire and the idea of justice is more of a novel hypothetical then a social imperative; but my shit is going pretty alright. Which is kind of an interesting phenomena, I care that bad things are going on in the world, and I'm still all about fixing those problems, it just isn't something I feel the need to get all frothy about anymore.

I don't see the point in getting outraged because outrage is a worthless commodity these days. We all know about, if not acknowledge, the big problems that we face as a species. There is no point in spreading awareness. I would rather enjoy the opportunity to help people where I can than stress out about all the people being predictably disappointing. And since so much of what I do is either pop culture (which I'm way behind on) or social ills you can see how I might have hit a dry spot. I'm going to try to do more YKWFA in the coming months as I exercise my developing giveafuck gland. Meanwhile Brian is still holding strong as ever and Weekly Cinemeh is on the docket for the foreseeable  future.

A Lot of People Watch American Idol, That Doesn't Make It Good.

Being the type of person I am I like to listen to people discuss a lot of topics. I believe that there is a lot of uncertainty in our world so I try to give multiple sides of an argument at least some credit. I am a firm believer in evolution, but I still listen to the reasons that creationists have problems with it. hearing dissenting opinions is a good thing because it forces you to justify why you believe what you believe.

Evidence is the key here. Statements alone don't hold a lot of sway for me. You can say that creationism is laughed out of academic circles before being examined, and that might be true, but unless I see evidence of this, I don't know if you are bullshitting or not.

My point is that evidence is the best way to make an argument. This makes the common practice of appealing to the popularity of an idea so fucked up. Instead of offering evidence people will say some number of people can't be wrong about something because so many people believe it (this is known as the bandwagon fallacy by the way). Its used a lot in commercials for restaurants or other subjective products, which might be the only place such rhetoric belongs. It is also used as evidence for moral or scientific beliefs, which is where I get frustrated.

A lot of people smoke crack, that doesn't mean its a good thing, it just means that a lot of people have a reason for smoking that crack rock. Dave Foley (one of my favorite comedic actors/comedians) makes this point rather well in his stand up act. The only thing that gives any sort of credence to religion is that a lot of people believe in it. If only one person believed in something like that they would seem crazy.

I am not saying that you should immediately assume that if a lot of people believe in some thing that they are all wrong, just don't except that alone as proof. If a lot of people believe something and all provide studies and evidence of why their beliefs are justified, and especially when its the job of the group of people you are talking about to know about the subject, then they would have a very strong argument (kinda like this).

You Pass Butter

I binge watched Rick and Morty this weekend. Its goddamn amazing. I fucking love science fiction, and better yet if it doesn't fuck around on the philosophical bits. Rick and Morty comfortably rolls from questions of the futility of existence to the meaning and value of the self in an infinite multiverse, which it handles insanely fucking well.

Rick is raw pragmatism draped over an unmitigated id. He invents technology that allows him to travel between realities and he happily uses it to get space drugs. He shows an insight and forethought that is simultaneously brilliant and dismissive. Meanwhile Morty is intuitive and empathetic, if a little dumb. He acts as both a plot driver and a humanizing influence on Rick.

I know I'm being a little english lit, but this cartoon doesn't fuck around. It's worth deconstructing. That said it handles all of this shit with relentless humor and a brutal simplicity that I can't praise enough. Seriously, watch this fucking show.

His Superpower is Punching!

So a friend recently convinced me to watch the new Daredevil series. It should be stated that I've largely avoided the comic/TV bullshit. I dig the new Constantine but I didn't really go for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D or Arrow or any of that kind of thing. I just don't have any faith in the people who make TV happen and I fucking love comic books, so I tend to ignore TV adaptations. Daredevil is the reason I lack that faith. Not because its bad, but because its made by Netflix.

They don't have to worry about the same standards and practices fuckery that TV producers do. People on Daredevil speak like real people because believe it or not profanity plays an enormous role in human communication. I love this. We've discussed profanity here before, and it holds a dear place in both mine and Brian's lexicon. So a show about people in fucked up situations that allows them to discuss them in those terms is always more enjoyable than you'd expect.

The other big thing about Daredevil for me is the violence. It ought to come as no surprise that I appreciate me some physical aggression, and the clarity and relative honesty of the violence in this show is beautiful. Sure we've still got a guy in a kinda silly outfit throwing down with Russian mobsters and not getting shot repeatedly and dropped in a hole, but that doesn't actually reduce the brutality of the combat.

Now this might sound like an ad spot for this one show, but its not. I like some things about Daredevil. Some of it is ridiculous, of course it is, its a comic book adaptation. But the things I like about it stem from a lack of censorship. They don't have to sugar coat things to placate shitty people.  I'm a geek; I love stories, the exploration of ideas, and the building of narrative worlds. When Constantine leaves out the details of what happened in Newcastle we lose a big part of that story and the motivations of the characters. I really don't have an issue with adapting comics or books to the screen but when we have to hobble them to make them suitable to irresponsible parents and ego-maniacal busybodies we've failed to respect what makes a story great.

The Rules

I've been thinking a lot lately about practical morality. I know normally I'm more an ethics guy, and I stand by my prioritizing ethics over morality. But the rules people live by are important and I think we can all benefit from discussing them. So here are mine, this list can and probably will grow as shit happens and points are inevitably made. Feel free to comment with your list or rules you find important that you think I missed. (Disclaimer: These rules are discussed in a metaphorical tone, Kinda Whatevs does not condone or support the doing of harm (no matter how appropriate) to people (no matter how deserving). Neither Kinda Whatevs or its representatives espouse the breaking of laws or the destructive flouting of social conventions.)

1. Confirm Your Kill: This rule is just as true of violence as it is of chores. If you start something, don't just finish it, make fucking sure its done. Any number of problems is prevented by just making sure that the task you set out to do really is a done deal. This particular rule grows from the old "anything worth doing is worth doing well" maxim, only focused more directly on the solving of problems.

2. Be a Person: I've always found it vitally important to define personhood. Even more so for the individual than for society. A civilization has to on some level acquiesce to the least possible definition of personhood but I feel like one should hold themselves to a higher standard than the bare minimum of what society can call a person. In that vein, I think everyone should at some point sit down and define for themselves what it means to be a person, not just a human. You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce this definition on others, but you should absolutely ensure that you live up to it... and probably avoid people who fall short of your definition to avoid the inevitable preventable conflict.

3. Don't Be That Guy: We all know That Guy. Sex, gender, creed, color, there is no category of human designation that is immune to That Guy. That Guy can come from anywhere, be anyone, but they are always a dick, they're Machiavellian, they're shitty, they lack loyalty, compassion and any sense of comradery. Fuck That Guy, its not even enough to not be That Guy, you should do everything you can to not seem like That Guy just to avoid confusion, at least partially because of Rule 4.

4. Kill That Guy: You probably don't have to actually kill this fucker, but definitely cut them out of your life. Nothing good ever comes from dealing with That Guy. Ever. Avoid whenever possible and do whatever you can be comfortable with to keep them out of your shit.

5. We Kill Monsters: Evil prevails because the Good fail to act or whatever. If you see someone being hurt and you do nothing then you are culpable. Not as fully as the one doing harm, but if you can do something and you don't then fuck you, you fail at society. Once again, you don't have to hurt anybody, but we have a responsibility as members of a society to help each other, that is the entire reason behind civilization.

The Ship Of Theseus

I have brought up thought experiments before, and I would like to share another one with you, dear reader. The "Ship of Theseus" is a thought experiment that I love thinking about. As with most thought experiments it doesn't really have a final or absolute solution, but it is a great way of examining the concept of Identity, and how it ties in with the physical self.

I like using a more modern version of this experiment, but really anything made up of smaller parts works, but for now I will explain it in the way I learned it from the Philosophy and Sci-Fi class I took in school. The Millennium Falcon is a rather large spaceship. If you take away one part and replace it, is the ship still the Millennium Falcon? What about if you replace a second part? What about if you replace every part of the ship? Is it still the same ship? At what point would this ship cease to be the Millennium Falcon, if it ever would? Hell, you can get more fancy with it if you want. What if I slowly replace all the parts in the Millennium Falcon over time, but take the original parts and put them together in another location. Which one is the Millennium Falcon?

This forces the experimenter to examine where Identity lies. Does Identity lie in the parts themselves? After all that is what the Millennium Falcon is, a collection of parts. But replacing bits of it, surely, wouldn't make it a different entity, would it? Does the identity of the ship lie in one part? If I replace everything but, say, the ships computer, would it be the same ship? Is the "soul" or "spirit" of the thing where the identity lies?

Like I said a few before, there is no real way to answer this. There are responses on both sides (yea or nay), but both leave something to be desired. I have not explained most of the answers because I think It would be fun to see how people, just hearing the basic experiment, would respond. Please leave a comment on how you would answer the main problem of this experiment.

Its Not Stupid, Its Advanced.

I talked about transhumanism a while back with regard to some of the common issues/misconceptions about the community. One of these issues involves the fact that some people will not want to be synthetically (or biologically) improved, resulting in a class system where the unmodified are the natural second class citizens. I touched on this issue in my last post and intentionally limited myself to discussing the lack of malice towards the unmodified. This is not that post.

I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.

Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.

When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.

You will Laugh and You Will Play and You Will Like it

There is a side effect of nihilism that bugs the hell out of me. I've mentioned my love for nihilism before but it needs to be known that its not a relationship composed solely of orgasms and cupcakes. The problem lies with the fact that existential prioritization is often difficult to maintain without some universal source of value. Since this issue tends to be such a bug fucker too me I have determined a solution. Happiness. In a universe without intrinsic values, happiness ought to be the clearest priority. It seems obvious but the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain is something that a lot of people have a problem with.

Its important to note that I'm not talking about utilitarianism, I'm not going into ethics. I'm not concerned, in this instance, with optimizing groups. I'm also not speaking from a objectivist perspective. Mostly because I'm an adult and I understand that I exist within a system and that other people are actually people. I am speaking to the social-subjective, the self within the system. In a nihilistic world, prioritizing your own happiness is the rational option. The primary arguments against this idea tends to land either on the point that some people find happiness in hurting others or as a misplaced attack on objectivism.

My response to the objectivist association bears an unfortunate similarity to the new age adage "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". My little philosophic solution does come with the caveat that you didn't fail the bit of kindergarten where they teach you that hurting other people is fucked up. Subjective joy isn't a resource limited in the subjective joy of others, and if it is for you... just work your shit out man. There might not be any intrinsic value to life, but being an  anti-social dickhead is a shit way to go about it. This is not a belief shared by objectivism.

In response to the other argument, i.e. some people take pleasure in hurting others, against this maxim my answer is two prong. Yes, and so what. Some people are fucked up. There are consequences in place for people being fucked up. There are people in the world who take joy in being the people who stop fucked up shit. Don't limit everyone's options because a few people can't handle their shit.

But, I digress. If there is not essential meaning to your life then there is no reason to not be happy. Any pain is then either unavoidable or optional. If pain is either unavoidable or optional and your happiness doesn't violate some eternal mandate then seeking to feel good while avoiding feeling bad is just common sense. There isn't really anything else to say about it, its fucking simple, and the fact that it isn't a more apparent solution kinda boggles me.

The Importance of Being Earnest

Mythology is a weird thing. It is, at its core, the primary method of instilling values in a society. In some cases, its certainly true that mythology can be taken entirely too seriously, as in the case of biblical literalists. Don't get me wrong, I've no particular interest in the existence, much less characteristics, of anyone's respective deity, but if you feel the need to push science to acquiesce to the demands of your mythology you're a fucking asshole. That's not really the topic of interest today though. My interest lies in the habit of misrepresenting mythology.

First, lets establish the difference between mythology and fiction. Mythology is concerned with highlighting the ideal path of action in the more mired and nuanced situations in life. It does this typically by writing that nuance large and hyperbolising factors within that situation. Fiction is only really concerned with entertainment and provide escapism. That's it. Now you might have noticed that that somewhat broadens the standard perceptions of mythology into things that are typically described as fiction. That is intentional.

I think entirely too often modern mythology is disregarded as just a pretty escape. This feels like a huge mistake to me. Most, if not all, of us were raised on stories where the hero's were earnest and caring; stories of great friendships overcoming implacable forces. Stories strewn with courage and dedication. Now how many people do you know today who you would describe as earnest? Many of us move on from the stories of great heroes doing wonderful things as we were simply setting aside childish things. There's nothing wrong with not caring to keep reading those stories as adults, but I think its tragic that more of us don't hang on to those lessons. I'm not saying we should all be wearing capes and making whoosh noises (though we should, those things are awesome and life is too short to not enjoy them), but I am saying that as cliche as it might sound being honest and good and true is a far more beautiful goal than being rich, we ought to start valuing it more.

Brian In A Vat!

Eshi pointed out a few posts ago that one of our favorite things is philosophy. One of my favorite things to do is thought experiments. A thought experiment is essentially a statement or set of statements that asks the reader/listener to consider certain theories or principals in a hypothetical situation in hopes of discovering more about the consequences of the situation. There are some very famous thought experiments such as the prisoner's dilemma and Schrodinger's Cat.

A lot of science fiction also deals with the principals of certain though experiments. One of my favorites is a variation on the experience machine thought experiment brought up in Philip K Dick's short story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale". The basic premise is that psychologists have a machine that if you were to step into it you would be fed the sensory experience of your choice. This experience would be perfect. Every bit of, say a trip to Tahiti, would be implanted into your brain. It would be as if you were there. Would you enter the machine? The matrix also deals with this issue, or at least in part as a brain in a vat style scenario. Is a simulated experience as valuable as a real experience?

Given this, I would probably argue yes since you could do things that were seemingly impossible for a normal person, like traveling to Mars. That being said I also understand the reasons why you wouldn't want to. Since sensory experience is how humans interact with the world any machine that could replicate that and implant it would be basically the same, save for one thing. Real world impact doesn't happen with that. People wouldn't remember you going to Tahiti/ people in Tahiti wouldn't remember you being there. If you went on vacation and met someone who would become a lifelong friend that would be great. If you did that in the experience machine it couldn't be maintained outside of the machine, unless it somehow linked your experience with other peoples experiences. In the end the answer depends on where you place value. If you want to have had the experience and an impact on the world (no matter how small) real life is the best and only way to accomplish both. If the sensory data is all that matters to you, then the machine could work. Incidentally how cool would it be to use a machine like that to learn kung fu? Or shit, get a degree? I think I want to change my answer! It would be best if you could just use it to amplify the human experience further than what normal time/space restrictions put on you.

As kind of a addendum I also want to talk about a version of this thought experiment that takes it to the matrix level of interaction with the machine. In this version, first proposed by philosopher Robert Nozick, the premise is different in that it was something that would create an entire life for you in which you will only ever have favorable experiences, all of which would feel absolutely real. That sounds great right? Nothing but good things would happen to you for your entire life. Upon examination though, experiencing nothing but pleasure from an experience implanting machine eliminates any value you as a person have since you cannot have any effect on the real world. For all intents and purposes you are a just a lump of flesh in a machine. You also end up putting limits on yourself in that the machine can only be programmed to implant experiences that have already been experienced by man: you couldn't implant memories of things that have never happened to a person before. This means that you could never make/do anything new. This was originally designed to show the folly of hedonism by the way, and I think if you have the standard view of what human endeavor should be (people should try to have some impact on the world), it makes a very good argument.

The reason why I love thought experiments. I only scratched the surface here, there are tons more ways that you can take this, and you should! Thought experiments are great at making you think about what you place value in. For me, in the end, I think real experience eventually trumps anything simulated. For one, you can share it. Humans are naturally social creatures and therefore having other people also enjoy the experience makes it more valuable on a base level (at least it feels that way). Unless you are a solipsist. Then you should get in the machine. This is good for everyone, you get to feel good, and those of us outside of the machine don't have to deal with you.