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.

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.

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

On certainty

If it were the common practice to speak only when one is certain, then the only people speaking would be the idiots.

Social media and the suppression of creativity

"The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome ...[I]ndividuals must, therefore, have the feeling that the others won’t object.” - Isaac Asimov

What does this mean for us now that our entire lives are spent in the public eye? Isn't recycling an old idea I expect to be 'liked' a better social strategy than venturing something new, untested, and unsettled as a matter of public good taste?

Some words for my students on Yik Yak, freedom, and personal responsibility

As new things are wont to do, they scare the crap out of old people.

As old people are wont to do with new things they don’t understand, they try to take them away from those who they perceive as less responsible than them.

Personally, I’m glad you have a place like this, where you can feel somewhat secure in your anonymity to say anything you want. In this post-911 world—your world, the only world you have ever known—these sorts of places are becoming worryingly few.

Virtually anything we say or do now is potentially under the eyes of surveillance, which means all is under surveillance. There is no relevant difference here.

I’ve surveyed Yik Yak a bit on my own. In my opinion most of it is trivial, some of it beautiful, and some of it ugly. But this is the nature of speech, is it not?

And who is to judge? Me? Some administrator? Your parents?

Though the knee-jerk reaction of many is to bend these rules, the laws of this land still guarantee adults certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

But children are not afforded these rights.

Let me remind you of something because there are those who will tell you, or at least treat you otherwise---You are not children. You are adults. To be an adult means you make decisions for yourself, the fruit as well as the consequences of which shall be yours alone.

You are adults like the world has never seen—a generation unique to this time, this place, your own histories. Old people will understand you more than you think, but less than they think.

They will look to you as the source of degeneration in the world. But since when have they done any better? You live in the world they made for you. Is it perfect?

In these years of college the world will be rent open for you, its inner-workings exposed for you to inspect. You, as all previous generations, inherit the world’s problems to solve in the way you see best.

Perhaps in their advanced age, your elders now feel that their time to make the world a better place has run short and their work left incomplete. Hence, they fear control slipping away from them to you.

So stubbornly they grip tighter, grab and pull what is yours by rights and is the simple fact of the matter.

You are adults. It’s your world and you own it. Your choices make the world of tomorrow—the good ones and bad ones.

I will not tell you whether or not you are permitted to use Yik Yak or what to do with it, and I will do what little I can to see to it others don’t either.

But ultimately this is your free speech and thus your responsibility to protect it. And they will come for it. The first time somebody uses it for something dastardly, they’ll commandeer all of the airwaves, the copper, and the fiber to make sure everybody sees it—to make people afraid, to convince other old people that they need to protect their children, and to convince you that you must be protected like a child.

So we all make a devil's trade—an ounce of security for a pound of liberty.

And thus, the world of tomorrow is created by our choices, our actions.

I want to explore the Darknet.

I don't know what's there. I have every right to be there.

I won't violate intellectual property rights or view child porn.

But if I don't do anything illegal, they are doing something illegal.

This isn't the Soviet Union and I'm not going to start acting like it.

Because if we all started acting like it was, it mind as well be.

I'm a political scientist, and have both the right and a legitimate reason.

Not that I need a legitimate purpose, because my right is already sufficient.

I'm interested in ISIL propaganda. I'm a scholar. I want to study it.

I'm also afraid of going to the sorts of websites I'd need to go to in order to view it.

Do you know what that means?

That means America is broken.

Freedom is broken.

The first stage is of censorship is self-censorship.

The scary thing, I think, is something that we all know.

In the scope of human civilization, freedom is the anomaly.

The default state of human society over the centuries has been tyranny.

We achieved something rare, hard gained and lost relatively easily.

Should we lose it now, how many tens, hundreds, or even thousands of years will it be before it regained?