Saturday, November 14, 2015

Responding to the attacks in Paris 11/13

Class,

As many of you know there has been a series of coordinated in Paris. For the next week or so the media coverage of the events will be pervasive. Here are several objectives to keep in mind.

1. Don't panic. You are safe. Some of you may have friends or family in Europe and they are safe, too. Remember that terrorism works by exploiting the natural human responses to 'terrifying' events, meaning that the psychological effect is the goal, not the physical effect. The purpose is to induce people into acting and thinking irrationally. When you keep your wits about you, you take away their power.

2. Be reflective. We are all experiencing a variety of emotions in response to this. No matter how many world politics courses we've taken, we are all human. Take time to reflect and recognize the emotions acting upon you, the good and the bad, the empathy and the anger. Emotions can influence our decisions and these events are designed to manipulate our emotions. However, by identifying these emotions, we can recover some of our own agency.  

3. Don't believe everything you read or see on TV. This doesn't mean believe nothing. These are the sorts of events that separate the real, hard news organizations from the chaff, the sensationalizing tabloids seeking only to maximize ratings. High quality news organizations will in most cases wait until facts have been double or in some cases triple verified by reliable sources, such as eye-witnesses, emergency personnel, or government officials. While we all hunger for the latest information, we must be patient. As we hunger for the latest details, the less ethical news outlets are more than happy to serve up rumors and unverified information to keep you tuned in. Such rumors are often meant to appeal to our instinctual fears and prejudices. Be patient and the facts will come out.

4. You are students of world politics, not randos off the street. Use your knowledge and skills to analyze the situation coolly and methodically. As the facts become known, consider the attacker's objectives, who the target population is (i.e. whom this event was supposed to terrorize), anticipate reactions and counter-reactions. How do the attackers expect us to respond? Who will we act upon and how will they respond to that? Play this out step-by-step, several steps ahead. As more facts become known, continually adjust your explanations to be consistent with and to incorporate those new facts. Discard explanations that are inconsistent with the facts, retain only those (and there may be more than one) which are. Do not become emotionally attached or invested in your initial ideas; be intellectually flexible.

Good luck.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Nothing is true. Everything is suspect. Even our own feelings.

“Believe in yourself.” What does this really mean? People often use it in reference to some personal or professional objective, which we believe we could accomplish. But could this also be another way of saying ‘trust your feelings’? Perhaps it would be beneficial to think of it this way. This statement, of course, implies that our feelings are somehow suspect, possibly misleading, or otherwise unworthy of trust. I think that if anyone ever explicitly told you this proposition was true you would be incredulous. If, however, this proposition is implicitly suggested we may carelessly heed it. Pause and reflect a moment and ask yourself “have I ever been made to feel like my feelings are invalid?” A romantic partner might have done this. Maybe a parent or an authority figure. I’m suggesting it might go deeper than this. For example, consider the notion presently prevailing in the academy the doctrine of subjectivism. Subjectivism is the idea that there is no absolute, “big tee”, Truth. Everybody’s internal apprehension of truth is equally valid.  At first consideration we might receive this as implying “All of our truths are valid”, yet clearly this is impossible, for there countless cases where two propositions are logically precluded from bother being true at the same time. Elvis cannot be both alive and dead. Either one of these is possible and may be true at different times, but not at once. The only remaining way to reconcile the notion that two individuals beliefs, even if mutually exclusive, with the restriction that they are equally valid is to say that they are both equal in their invalidity;. Elvis is neither dead nor alive. In other words, the only we our truths are equally valid is if they’re equally untrue.  These days we typically apply this principle to our respective Gods, now demoted to mere gods at best. At worst, they’re all banished to the realm of mythology. We often apply them to our political beliefs, ideologies and moral values. Indeed, moral subjectivism is probably inevitable after our Gods are gone. So what about our beliefs concerning our feelings? If consider the proposition I am sad, how can be sure this is the case?  Well someone else may very well believe I am happy. If I feel angry, I should act out on that feeling if justice is to be had. Acting out might include behaviors like yelling or acting aggressively toward someone. But perhaps my anger is invalid? If that’s so then acting out on it would be unjust. In the interest of justice, we then swallow our anger, our sadness, and even our happiness.

Friday, May 29, 2015

The problem of the "pleasure dial"

A common theme in science fiction today is the question of "mind uploading." As neuro- and cognitive scientists reverse-engineer the workings of the brain, the biological organ which produces the mind, we are increasing interested the possibility of replicating nature's technology. Using a sufficiently powerful computer, we might simulate a brain in all of its neural complexity, thus establishing a platform upon which to emulate a mind and even consciousness. In fact, attempts are currently underway to simulate the brains of mice (http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/).

Supposing we attain the technical prowess to emulate a human brain and all its outputs, including mind and consciousness, raises many questions which are both interesting and troubling. This is a favorite variety of question among science fiction authors and philosophers, who have now spilled many electrons before them. For example, if a virtual human is emulated on a computer, would wiping that computer's data constitute murder? This theme was taken up in the recent film Ex Machina. A secondary theme the film delved into was the titillating question of whether a virtual being should be programmed to experience corporeal desires. Aren't our sex drives and appetites essential elements of the human experience? If not for these desires, to what might consciousness be directed? In another recent example out of Hollywood, Transcendence, a young scientist (Johnny Depp) succeeds in "uploading" his entire neural connectome to a computer, thus creating a virtual copy of himself. Shortly thereafter, the scientist is assassinated. Those he left behind must take on the question of whether or not the virtual copy is really him. The digital Depp claims that he is, and by all accounts appears to possess the memories, sentiments, and dreams of the man who died. But how can we be sure?

Technological developments that raise exciting possibilities for the future also tend to attract attention among science fiction authors and philosophers. Certainly the possibility of uploading our minds to a potentially faster, more upgradeable, and longer lived platform than the 3 lb glob of fat between our ears excites us. By uploading, we may transcend the limitations of biological existence, unlocking the possibilities of exponentially increasing intelligence and functional immortality. Living as informational beings, we are unhindered by physical mass. Able to travel at the speed of light, the confines of time and space can no longer hold us. The universe thus opens up to humanity and a truly space-faring civilization becomes possible. I could go on about that one.

With these possibilities, of course, come new fears. One of the problems that worries me is what I call the "pleasure dial." If our senses and appetites are virtual, why can't they be tweaked so that I feel joyful all the time? Or better yet ecstatic? What's to stop an individual from cranking the pleasure dial full blast, achieving a state of ecstasy that never ends? It would be the theoretical maximum of happiness and satisfaction. Bliss unadulterated by any form of want. Why would anyone ever want to leave this state since it is by design perfect? I wouldn't. And nobody else would. So what then would come of humanity? What would inspire us to do new works? I fear we will reach a stable equilibrium, wherein we are all locked away in our own private euphorias. And in such a condition we would persist, unmoving and unchanging, until the power goes out. And when it does, there will be nobody around to fix it. And that is how humanity would end.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Once again, the GOP announces to the world that leaders should not expect the United States to abide by commitments made by the President. According to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, “Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/obama-to-offer-major-blueprint-on-climate-change.html?_r=0