On Vacation

Back soon.

Please see local listings for regularly scheduled blog posts starting next season, starting approximately September 1st.

Until then, please enjoy the following worthwhile articles and past posts.

Regresare pronto.

Por favor mantenga un ojo en sus listas locales para los articulos del blog que reiniciaran aproximadamente en el primero de septiembre.

Hasta entonces, por favor de leer los artículos siguientes.

| No Comments

Buzz?

A friend of mine has a child who shall hitherforth remain nameless. This nameless child and I recently had a conversation over dinner (he’s 1, I’m 22, so I felt we were equals). During this conversation, his mother (Alethea B.) presented him with a drawing of Sheriff Woody from the movie Toy Story.

To show his appreciation for the icon, as well as his general approval for the movie and cartoons in general, this child responded with:

Buzz?

I tried to correct him various times, explaining patiently that Buzz was a spaceman and Woody was a cowboy (see attached photo).

Woody: Cowboy, not Spaceman

Obviously, this cowboy he was staring at was not a spaceman and therefore not Buzz (If Buzz, then Spaceman; Not Spaceman; Therefore, Not Buzz). As a general response to my argument and to put forth his own counterargument, he responded:

Buzz?

I knew I was lost. When correcting him didn’t work, and he insisted on his answer, I simply changed the question accordingly in hopes I could trick him into a true statement. Let’s watch:

• Child: Buzz?
  Pixel: No, it’s Woody.
• Child: Buzz?
  Pixel: Woody.
• Child: Buzz?
  Pixel: Woo-Dee.
• Child: … buzz?
  Pixel: Okay then. How’s this: what sound does a bee make?
• Child: …
  Pixel: What sound does a doorbell make?
• Child: …
  Pixel: Who was the second man on the moon?
• Child: …
  Pixel: Synonym for ‘hot topic’ or ‘chatter’
• Child: …
  Pixel: Many military men sport a BLANK cut.
• Child: …
  Pixel: There’s something seriously wrong with this kid.
• Child: Buzz?

| 1 Comment

Sorry, no choice

T-Rob:

Foreknowledge in itself does not entail determinism. Foreknowledge AND omnipotence does. God interfered the instant he created everything.

My response:

I agree with this point insofar as we assume that the set of God includes all knowledge and ability to bring about your desires, then we can only naturally conclude that God has no free will.

For instance, if you know for certain that actions A, B, and C are going to have effects D, E, and F. To wit:

• A) Kill a muggle.
  B) Pick your nose.
  C) Save the cheerleader.
• D) Get lots of money.
  E) Die.
  F) Save the world.

Ordinarily, one would say that out of A, B and C, A is immoral, B is amoral and C is moral. However, once the results are known, then your action is not merely limited to A, B and C, but becomes AD, BE and CF. Judging an action on its own merit is only justifiable with ignorance of the future. (In this case, the obvious moral action is A.

Think about it like this:

The more you know, the more constricted your actions become. A completely ignorant person is just as free to go to work naked as he is to kill himself or save the planet. Once he accepts certain things, be them values, beliefs or knowledge, his freedoms become constrained by common sense and rationality. Then, the more he knows, the less rational some alternatives become. Naturally, an omniscient person would only ever have one possible course of events to enact. If you know everything, you would have absolutely no choice on what to do, because choice implies ignorance.

So, God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, would be the exact opposite of a completely ignorant person. Instead of being free in any sense, his knowledge of right and wrong (or advantageous and detrimental) would force him to only choose the actions that would lead directly to the best possible result.

He’s too smart and powerful to have any choices available. If you know everything, you would have absolutely no choice on what to do, because choice implies ignorance.

And, as free will can only rationally be defined as choice of action or fate, then a lack of ignorance/total knowledge by definition forbids free will.

There’s truly no intellectually honest way out of that metaphysical conundrum.

It’s like saying an unstoppable force meets an unmovable wall: it can’t happen, neither exists.

Free will doesn’t exist. Only the illusion of it.

Immanuel Kant figured it out 200 years ago, but his conclusion was a stupid one. He said he was “clearing away the pretensions of reason to make room for faith”

He was like a proto-Intelligent Designer, although his verbose, abstruse philosopher disguise was very good… I just wish we could say the same thing about his philosophy.

Last Year: Sadly, they probably have fewer friends than Burger King
| No Comments

Grunt Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

And now, a chapter-by-chapter non-verbal reaction to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

1. Dark Lord Ascending
   Whoa!
2. In Memoriam
   Hm. *sigh*
3. The Dursleys Departing
   Aww. :’(
4. The Seven Potters
   !!
5. Fallen Warrior
   Eep!
6. The Ghoul in Pajamas
   Whoa.
7. The Will of Albus Dumbledore
   Huh.
8. The Wedding
   …
9. A Place to Hide
   wtf?
10. Kreacher’s Tale
    
11. The Bribe
    Oi!
12. Magic is Might
    Meep!
13. The Muggle-born Registration Commission
    Ugh!
14. The Thief
    asdf
15. The Goblin’s Revenge
    H’yeeah!
16. Godric’s Hollow
    *asplode!*
17. Bathilda’s Secret
    Sssss…
18. The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore
    Umm…
19. The Silver Doe
    Pshaw! :-/
20. Xenophilius Lovegood
    Hm.
21. The Tale of the Three Brothers
    Wha??
22. The Deathly Hallows
    Whaa–??
23. Malfoy Manor
    Eeep!!
24. The Wandmaker
    NNN-!!!
25. Shell Cottage
    S-wah…
26. Gringotts
    Whee!!
27. The Final Hiding Place
    Hee hee
28. The Missing Mirror
    Shh-yah!
29. The Lost Diadem
    D’oh!
30. The Sacking of Severus Snape
    Huzzah!
31. The Battle of Hogwarts
    HA!!
32. The Elder Wand
    Oh..
33. The Prince’s Tale
    … !
    
34. The Forest Again
    
    
35. King’s Cross
    *whoosh!*
    
36. The Flaw in the Plan
    OMFG
    
37. Epilogue
    Meh.

My information was false. I never actually knew the real ending, but upon looking online elsewhere, the true ending was available if people wanted to look for it. I’m not that kind of person, so I never posted what I thought I knew nor looked for confirmation.

As for this review, it works best in audio format. I hereby copyright the concept of a grunt review, although I may never use it again.

*Grunt*

| No Comments

Laissez-faire Friends

I have a friend that gives me homework. Every time I talk to him, I end up leaving with more to do than before I ran into him. Obviously, I’ve learned to avoid seeing him if at all possible.

I have another friend who would constantly make me feel bad for not speaking to her as often as she wanted. Interestingly, while her complaints would make me talk to her once, they also made talking to her less fun and thus made me wish to avoid her.

I think back to when I first cataloged friendship.

I have a new principle I will apply to my friends from now on. I call it Lassez-faire Friendship.

Lassez-faire is French for “let it be.” In government, lassez-faire means ‘do nothing and let the people figure it out.’ It’s a pessimistic approach to what a good government can do, but an optimistic view of the people and corporations (libertarian, almost).

In friendship, I mean it to be “let it be.” A friend, barring extraneous circumstances, should contact you about as often as you contact them.

• If a friend calls you more than twice as much as you call them, rethink the friendship. You might be in a bad situation, you might be busy, they might just care too much or you might not care enough. Either way, you might want to talk to them about it or get them a hobby or fake your death. I’m going to try that last one soon. It’s always been a life goal of mine and it’s about time I tried it.
• If the reverse is true and you call your friend far more than they call you, then guess what? You’re that friend. Yes, that one. Back off for a bit. See if you can do some other things with other people or by yourself (try that, maybe you need to do that more). You’re still going to stay friends with that person, it’ll just even out to the level of friendship it should be at in the first place.

And if your friendship depends entirely on you, such that you do then you’ve just defeated your own argument. You’re not friends. Friendships develop naturally, trying to keep them afloat artificially simply because you have no one else makes you lame: make more friends. Trying to keep a friendship afloat because you really, really enjoy the other person makes you a groupie, not a friend.

Don’t be a groupie, be a friend.

Last Year: This song can make anything funny
| 1 Comment