Monthly Archives: April 2014

Rejection Letters-April 24

I hate the automated reply system and so should you. If we’re going to spend the time to organize our works and submit them, an automated response serves no purpose, does it? I read this several times and I’m still not sure that it was read and considered. Regardless of the response, positive or negative, or “automated” it’s important to know that it was in fact read, otherwise it all begins to seem like an “exercise”. Was really looking forward to a response from them. It’s a good magazine though…

 

“We have read your submission, and unfortunately we are not able to use it in The Threepenny Review.  Please do not take this as a comment on the quality of your writing; we receive so many submissions that we are able to accept only a small fraction of them.

Thank you for sending your work to us, and please accept our apologies for the automated message system. We wish we had time to reply to everyone individually.

The Editors”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Flash-fiction “..riddles silent, alone..”April 24

IMAG1153 (640x383)

 

PEER INTO IT STRANGELY

 

We are at a crossroads. Or perhaps it is the edge of a precipice. A point where we cannot go further. We find ourselves here, in this locale, and peer into it strangely.. tired, with guard down, aware of time and space… Where it is time to move forward into a completely new understanding of the world. Leaving behind the  blasé  ‘engaging- in- what- is- wrong’ and f’d beyond recognition..realizing it is just more time spent in the past, in that old thinking. To pass it is to go much more deeply in it, through it, in between its pixels, its illusory space. What is beyond the “noise” is one of these doors looming towards us, piquing the interest, with its ancient riddles silent, and alone- like a nocturnal flower.

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiction

Floating Out In That Summer

There is a quiet lake that I float upon,
(floating out in that summer.)

I can hear the gentle clap of it against the boat, as I and she, rock to and fro beneath the sun, I smell the breeze coming off the dry pines and sage , that silent calling , inviting me to get up off the bow, hoist all the sails and make full speed in almost zero wind back to the shore. In hills that have baked in the day’s sun, there is some path she’d like me to see, pungent and spicy, beneath dry juniper and cedar. Explore her natural semi arid landscapes? Led forth by a little jack rabbit, or kept tabs on by a soaring red tailed hawk. Yes these are agents of nature! saying, “We are one and the same. Your intelligence is a fine thing but look at me soar on a thermal!”
But will it entice me away? I lay happy in the warm sun. Here surrounded in cool tones of the lake.
For now I’m between places , Becalmed.
Stalemated. But satisfied. Will She send a thermal down from those hills to fetch us, I think not, she’s given me the hmmmf!

I hear her heart, rumbling in the beyond,…Here, climbing unimaginably in those great white clouds. How often might we hear such things? The intense sunlight dims slightly, a cold shadow arm reaches out, and what was a clear reflection of mountains yonder, is slightly dulled. A breeze comes, (the canvas gives and crackles), I get up and raise sail. (Whilst behind me, to the West, the breadth of whole lake is dark though I still see far away to the South, those bright sun filled spaces and clouds.)

Twenty minutes. I imagine. In twenty minutes the whole lake will be tossing around in a (white capped) fury.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Defense Hastily

The subconscious tweeker is annoyed

that the rain beating in your face is sweet,

and not the stuff of that cold November sleet

that numbs the face,

not at all.

 

In fact,

it makes you lick your lips, craving more.

 

And so I enter the room. It is not a real room,

but one occupied by rabid dogs, who at the moment are well behaved.

 

Moments can be fleeting.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Determinism’s Central Ideas- Putting Science To The Test

I’ve posted here before on the issue of whether or not determinism theory is actual science. And by determinism we’re referring more to the theoretical kind, known as predeterminism, with its implications that “Free Will”- a set of options, whatever they may be, are not really options, nor are they choices, but are predetermined outcomes of the physical laws. And these are “physical laws”  working cohesively in some way, or if you’d prefer, nature. But this notion does not really apply just to free will per se, in theory it would apply to any system. Realistically, however, most of predeterminism’s traction, naturally comes from its application to the free will debate, that’s where the heat is, as most people do not normally consider if a ball “knows” where it’s going or makes a choice in colliding with a wall, but the idea that we might not decide what we’re doing does make people stop.

Well, a prominent neuroscientist has recently raised the bar. He’s so confident of his scientific position that he’s issued a challenge to the science community to prove him wrong, and if he’s reversed on his position? He will recant and pay out $20,000 cash to the winner. If you merely wrote something close, a good argument, but not enough to change his opinion, the prize would be $2,000. Still not bad haul for a 1000 word essay.

Here is the Moral Landscape Challenge statement from Sam Harris (below)

“Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that  fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.”

The statement above purports to describe a system, “conscious mind” and something about that system having “states” and exhibiting “natural phenomena.” But other than that is highly vague in terms of actually describing something that can be physically understood as a theory. [And by theory we mean really in the scientific sense of something that is not at the whim of someone’s opinion, but has hard structure that is verifiable.] Ultimately, the neuroscientists’ “Moral Landscape Challenge” premise rests on and is essentially a rewording of, the theory of determinism which I responded to before. It gets all of its power from the premise that “natural laws” are dictating actions. (Crucially, the proof of an alternative force or system, proving something outside nature, is not critical in arguing against it!)

But is determinism science? And again, this is regarding the non-free will form or predeterminism, not determinism as applied to falling bodies in gravitational fields. (Though they are used interchangeably, pre-determinism is the version of the theory we’re speaking of since it is the theory which purports to make a prediction, i.e. that all events or states are somehow set in advance.) If we agree that such a theory would probably apply not only on earth, but “cosmically”, it has rather broad implications. And is this question not more broadly applicable to what science is, or isn’t? How is science doing in this case? In my view, it is in a way a litmus test. Consider it this way. Theories don’t just come about by themselves. They are championed by people. Determinism, true or false, is a paradigm, a product of the system and so are the proponents of it. Their positions are the products of curricula purportedly based in determinism.

It’s their choice to take stock in this theory of determinism and to support its aims and conclusions. Not anyone else’s. It’s their choice to claim or to not claim that it is science, and yet take care to not be too specific about ever actually describing a scientific claim such that it can be formally tested. If it’s not possible to prove it, or any other physical theory, that means there isn’t science to back it. It doesn’t imply that it might be true. Evidence against is in some cases, no evidence FOR. That was to some degree, the basis of my “Hypothesis Test” objection which I already submitted to another Determinist on his web site. It is also their choice to reject evidence against their theories and to ignore them. But is this in the best interest of science?

The determinists claim is essentially that you or I do not cause our actions, “we” don’t make our selections, whatever they might be, these choices are somehow made elsewhere. And the supposed experimental examples they provide for the source of this causality are by necessity (of their hypothesis), outside the body. One determinist I challenged on his own web site, claims that neurological studies prove that this is true, because individuals, subjects/patients can be “manipulated” by the researchers to do things against their will. Does this really sound ethical?

Here is  Tuft’s professor Daniel Dennet’s review of Harris’ book “Free Will” which is very long so I’ve quoted a good paragraph that not only sums up the central aspect of debate, it sums up the causality aspect of the science argument, that can be made for and against determinism:

“The first parting of opinion on free will is between compatibilists and incompatibilists. The latter say (with “common sense” and a tradition going back more than two millennia) that free will is incompatible with determinism, the scientific thesis that there are causes for everything that happens. Incompatibilists hold that unless there are “random swerves”[1] that disrupt the iron chains of physical causation, none of our decisions or choices can be truly free. Being caused means not being free—what could be more obvious?  The compatibilists deny this; they have argued, for centuries if not millennia, that once you understand what free will really is (and must be, to sustain our sense of moral responsibility), you will see that free will can live comfortably with determinism—if determinism is what science eventually settles on.”

On close inspection, some of these claims of determinists or non-compatibilists are eye openers. “What? We don’t control ourselves?” There is no “I”?! That is probably why “Free Will” has garnered so much interest as a book. That, and the fact that it is claimed to be an outcome or non-outcome of strict scientific review. But the above paragraph, supposedly a critique of Harris’ thesis, also contains in it some loaded wording. Notice how free will is defined in a moralistic sense- not phyiscally, so it’s getting away from a causal definition of it. Certainly from any experimentally testable definition of it. And if you call a determinist on some of these claims, be prepared for a ready onslaught of counter examples, to your examples, which rapidly turns into a battle of words. And begs the question: How were battles of words ever settled? In philosophy, maybe never. But in science, you are supposed to present a valid model, either theoretical or actual, that can be evaluated independently. The invention of real science was the day when pure argument no longer had as much weight. Recall the story of the youth who listened the philosophers argue about the number of teeth in a horses mouth, and suggested alternatively, that they actually go and find a horse and count them? You have to watch the arguments of the people who flog this theory, they throw the book of argumentive tricks at you. But you can get around those, in theory, by asking for evidence. And science, our fact finding tool, should normally necessitate this evidence.

So what determinists are essentially saying is that the causes of our thoughts are ultimately outside the body, thus we are not truly in control of our choices but are marionettes to certain physical laws, those would be the “iron chains of physical causation” referenced above. The claim that causation of behavior is outside the body is fundamental to the rejection of “free will.” But this claim defies rationality.

Establishing causation, the causative source of something- say a behavior in nature, is a central aspect of science. But aside from saying that there are “laws of physics” or “natural phenomenon”at work,  there aren’t any specifics given in the scientist’s “Moral Landscape Challenge” statement above, for the supposed alternative causes of human behaviors. Sure, environment gives us inputs, it must, but is going down a list of each of these examples going to provide evidence of causation, the rock solid kind that is proof? How do we know which ones are the ones? And there’s something else we’ll notice in the listing of explanations for determinism, they’re all, every single one, in past tense. Why would they be all mentioned in the past tense? It’s good question I’ll leave you for discussion. You can’t seem to get a Determinist to put his money down, Las Vegas style, about a future prediction.

The real irony is that determinism theory is centered around causality, explaining how one thing leads to another, and  yet the causality issue is entirely overlooked. Causality, in the scientific sense of it, is not just about looking back and saying “So, that’s how it happened.” It can’t be. It is about looking forwards. Or ideally, it is looking both forwards and backwards. Since it must be true both in a hypothetical case ( in the past or a thought experiment, or in a real test case). So there are basic problems with the methodology here that Determinists base their papers and books upon, either by choice or possibly the lack thereof, maybe they didn’t have a choice in it? Causality is not established, (nor is mechanism for action) which is yet another basis of any scientific theory. That is the basis of a hypothesis, even ones that haven’t been confirmed. So first and foremost, it is science methodology that is at issue here, not the specifics of any interpretation of any specific outcomes or specific experiments. And I’ll say it again, evidence against, and very strong evidence, sometimes takes the form of no evidence, FOR. The challenge should be to the theorist, to come up with a valid theory that meets the criteria of science, not to issue “challenges” to the public to vote and “prove” it by popular opinion.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lake Blur

A pendulum swings easily, to and fro
Flinging black mud off like memories
The clumps rip across a sheet of water,  near a foot
They stop and then dive downward leaving muddy sinewy trails.
This oasis near the shore is tilted
As a blue sky shoots up sideways
Against the dry hills.
It is interesting, but I could probably float on that board forever.

Corking in the ripples of the lake.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized