Sophie's World mentioned, as did my AP Psychology textbook, the study of parapsychology. Which is a fancy word for a field of 'science' that investigates paranormal phenomena.
If my title didn't give you a hint, I consider it to be a bullshit field. Either Sophie's World or my Psych book1 mentioned James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, in which all someone has to do to win one million dollars is provide the slightest proof of the smallest feat of the paranormal. It's been running since the 60's2, and of the hundreds of people to try, no one has ever won.
The basic idea is for people to stop going "HOLY SHIT! THAT GUY CAN TALK TO GHOSTS!," and to instead go "Neat trick. Now do it when science is watching." Most applicants do well in the first stage, where they can pull whatever tricks they want, but then proceed to fail once they have to follow guidelines and rules3.
My main reason for thinking parapsychology is a crock is the lack of evidence for psychic mumbo jumbo, and the sheer number of hoaxes. I think the whole of idea of believing in ghosts or psychics or remote viewings or Santa without proof is just stupid. We have sense organs and a brain to process information with, why not use it4?
---
1 I don't know, or care which one it was. One of them did it, and so now it is part of this blog.
2 I think. The idea for it might have started in the 60's while the Million Dollar challenge developed later. It's late and I don't care about such fine details.
3 Even better, the applicants get to help design the tests they'll be doing. Their failures are completely in their own hands.
4 Kierkegaard and his leap of faith can suck it...
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Sophie's World 7: He said there's a storm coming in.
Finally finished Sophie's World (good timing, given this is the last blog I have to do on the topic). I enjoyed that the story really started moving. I disliked that the author thought he needed absurdist teenage sex and car crashes to reach the climax1. I also disliked Alberto's explanation of why escaped2 fictional characters could pass through things: as beings of pure soul, they are more solid that everything else.
Being more solid doesn't reduce the solidity of other objects. The metaphor he used, about being able to walk through mist because we're more solid than it, is bullshit. We don't go through mist because we're more solid, we go through mist because it isn't solid.
Hell, with the exception of somethings being denser than others3, I don't think one solid can be more solid than another solid. There are thick liquids, which can be difficult to get through, but that doesn't make them solid. It makes them thick liquids (BTW, mist is a very not thick liquid, so we pass through it without noticing resistance).
Also, what was the deal with Sophie just barely interacting them Hilde? Did Major not notice being smacked in the face with a wrench because he was padded by rabbit fur? Or is Hilde just insane, and thinks Sophie exists, and imagined that a bug biting her was Sophie?
And how did Sophie and Alberto get the boat lose? They said the rope didn't budge, no matter how hard they tried, but evidently, it eventually budged enough for tight knots to come undone AND for the boat to have a little push-off speed. Jostein Gaarder needs to learn consistency.
---
1 Freud could have a field day with that...
2 Seeing as how what seems to be every fictional character ever lives somewhere in the world, why did Alberto and Sophie have to work so hard to "escape?"
3 The writer, maybe?
Being more solid doesn't reduce the solidity of other objects. The metaphor he used, about being able to walk through mist because we're more solid than it, is bullshit. We don't go through mist because we're more solid, we go through mist because it isn't solid.
Hell, with the exception of somethings being denser than others3, I don't think one solid can be more solid than another solid. There are thick liquids, which can be difficult to get through, but that doesn't make them solid. It makes them thick liquids (BTW, mist is a very not thick liquid, so we pass through it without noticing resistance).
Also, what was the deal with Sophie just barely interacting them Hilde? Did Major not notice being smacked in the face with a wrench because he was padded by rabbit fur? Or is Hilde just insane, and thinks Sophie exists, and imagined that a bug biting her was Sophie?
And how did Sophie and Alberto get the boat lose? They said the rope didn't budge, no matter how hard they tried, but evidently, it eventually budged enough for tight knots to come undone AND for the boat to have a little push-off speed. Jostein Gaarder needs to learn consistency.
---
1 Freud could have a field day with that...
2 Seeing as how what seems to be every fictional character ever lives somewhere in the world, why did Alberto and Sophie have to work so hard to "escape?"
3 The writer, maybe?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Real World Connection 6: Freud
THIS IS LATE!
My bitching about Pandora acting up has been rewarded. I not only got a good song, on a station where it made sense, but the song will help me throw together this blog post. The song is Rebellion (Lies) by Arcade Fire, and it reminded me of Freud's stuff about dreams1.
The first thing that reminded me of Freud were the lyrics:
I was then reminded of how in Sophie's World, as an example of Victorian Era repressed sexuality, Alberto mentioned that parents would yell at kids who touched themselves. What reminded me was these lyircs:
As mentioned in the previous post, I'm kinda burnt on the whole blog deal, so I'm gonna end this before it turns into one of my rambling rambly things.
---
1 I'll admit, the Freud chapter in Sophie's World primed me to pay attention to stuff about dreams. I'll even admit that some of the lyrics of the song remind me of an example in Sophie's World. I won't however admit that this is a Sophie's World blog post.
My bitching about Pandora acting up has been rewarded. I not only got a good song, on a station where it made sense, but the song will help me throw together this blog post. The song is Rebellion (Lies) by Arcade Fire, and it reminded me of Freud's stuff about dreams1.
The first thing that reminded me of Freud were the lyrics:
"people say that your dreams are the only things that save ya. come on baby in our dreams, we can live our misbehaviour."This is reminded me of Freud because he said our dreams are when our suppressed thoughts spill out, and that repressing these thoughts is a bad thing, because instead of dealing with our problems, we bury them and let them fester. So dreaming about suppressed ideas is the first step in dealing with them.
I was then reminded of how in Sophie's World, as an example of Victorian Era repressed sexuality, Alberto mentioned that parents would yell at kids who touched themselves. What reminded me was these lyircs:
"people try and hide the night underneath the covers.Although the example Alberto gave ended with the parents making the kid sleep with their hands outside the covers, I was still reminded of how people not only face their problems in their dreams, but can also feel guilty about what they dream, and that they'll try to hide the dreams away.
people try and hide the light underneath the covers.
come on hide your lovers underneath the covers"
As mentioned in the previous post, I'm kinda burnt on the whole blog deal, so I'm gonna end this before it turns into one of my rambling rambly things.
---
1 I'll admit, the Freud chapter in Sophie's World primed me to pay attention to stuff about dreams. I'll even admit that some of the lyrics of the song remind me of an example in Sophie's World. I won't however admit that this is a Sophie's World blog post.
Sophie's World 6: *Insert Pun Later*
THIS IS LATE!
Okay. I think I found something in this book I understand. There is a coffee shop, and names I've actually heard of. And Sophie's World is in it1! There was also a giant goose. Who said it could travel through time.
Okay, it stopped making sense again. Now I'm mad at Jostein Gaarder again. This book started off like it was going to be really interesting. But, it just hasn't. I'm only reading it to keep up in class. Just like The Time Machine. I taught Ender's Game was pretty good. Jurassic Park was meh2.
I'm getting kind of burnt out on blogs, mostly because Sophie's World is providing less and less write about. Also the effort of writing as ridiculously as in my first post isn't worth the time. ALSO3 not helping the matter is the trimester almost being over. The fact that my grade can't shift very much now (and that I have a good grade) reduces the desire to work.
If Sophie's World doesn't have a badass conclusion, I'ma rage. Or, more likely, I'll be unimpressed, and go do work for another class (like AP Comp Sci, which, unlike Sophie's World, has an excuse to suck).
---
1 And we're at 3 layers. Philosoception.
2 The last 3 books I mentioned were read for SciFi. Just thought I should clear that up.
3 Sure is a lot of repetition in this post...
Okay. I think I found something in this book I understand. There is a coffee shop, and names I've actually heard of. And Sophie's World is in it1! There was also a giant goose. Who said it could travel through time.
Okay, it stopped making sense again. Now I'm mad at Jostein Gaarder again. This book started off like it was going to be really interesting. But, it just hasn't. I'm only reading it to keep up in class. Just like The Time Machine. I taught Ender's Game was pretty good. Jurassic Park was meh2.
I'm getting kind of burnt out on blogs, mostly because Sophie's World is providing less and less write about. Also the effort of writing as ridiculously as in my first post isn't worth the time. ALSO3 not helping the matter is the trimester almost being over. The fact that my grade can't shift very much now (and that I have a good grade) reduces the desire to work.
If Sophie's World doesn't have a badass conclusion, I'ma rage. Or, more likely, I'll be unimpressed, and go do work for another class (like AP Comp Sci, which, unlike Sophie's World, has an excuse to suck).
---
1 And we're at 3 layers. Philosoception.
2 The last 3 books I mentioned were read for SciFi. Just thought I should clear that up.
3 Sure is a lot of repetition in this post...
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Real World Connection 5: Absurdism
I taught the mention of absurdism in Sophie's World was pretty cool. I enjoy absurdism, because it basically tells anyone on the search for meaning in life "suuuuuuuuuuuucks1." Also, I enjoy Monty Python. Monty Python is the bigger reason. I actually only listed the first reason because it gave me an excuse to go suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
Kingdom of Loathing is a pretty funny game. Mostly because everything written in the game is a mockery, parody, or tribute to something. Laughing that the references is actually more fun than playing the game. If someone tried to make a game of the same style, without the references, it would be awful. It's a text-based adventure game, except with stick-figure doodles as headings to any text-blocks. I think KoL can be thought of as the interactive embodiment of TV Tropes.
I should probably mention that I'm using the heading of absurdism to ramble even further off topic than I normally do, going off the logic that for all you know I could be talking about adsurdist/surreal humor, and thus this post is arguably more on topic than anything within the bounds of surreal humor2.
What's truly absurd to me though (because I don't really care about the study of the conflict of searching for something that might not exist, but that gains existence from what you do when you give up the search) is my Pandora stations. On my Classic Punk/New Wave station, I got Ring of Fire (by Johnny Cash). Pandora's reason for this song was that it had folk roots and country influences (I've yet to get Ring of Fire on my Folk Rock station!). And just a few minutes ago, I was getting 90's surf rock, on my Folk Rock station. Insanity!
EDIT: I found an xkcd comic that I guess relates to the actual topic of philosophical absurdism.
---
1 [to be you]
2 This is what happens when I have 60 pages of notes to do in AP Psych...
Kingdom of Loathing is a pretty funny game. Mostly because everything written in the game is a mockery, parody, or tribute to something. Laughing that the references is actually more fun than playing the game. If someone tried to make a game of the same style, without the references, it would be awful. It's a text-based adventure game, except with stick-figure doodles as headings to any text-blocks. I think KoL can be thought of as the interactive embodiment of TV Tropes.
I should probably mention that I'm using the heading of absurdism to ramble even further off topic than I normally do, going off the logic that for all you know I could be talking about adsurdist/surreal humor, and thus this post is arguably more on topic than anything within the bounds of surreal humor2.
What's truly absurd to me though (because I don't really care about the study of the conflict of searching for something that might not exist, but that gains existence from what you do when you give up the search) is my Pandora stations. On my Classic Punk/New Wave station, I got Ring of Fire (by Johnny Cash). Pandora's reason for this song was that it had folk roots and country influences (I've yet to get Ring of Fire on my Folk Rock station!). And just a few minutes ago, I was getting 90's surf rock, on my Folk Rock station. Insanity!
EDIT: I found an xkcd comic that I guess relates to the actual topic of philosophical absurdism.
 |
| http://xkcd.com/220/ |
---
1 [to be you]
2 This is what happens when I have 60 pages of notes to do in AP Psych...
Sophie's World 5: Vaguely Related Pun
So yeah. I don't know what I was supposed to read up to. Or when I'm supposed to have things read by.
But I can say this: the last couple chapters I've read have made no sense. The Alberto/Sophie vs. Albert arc confuses the shit out of me1. The last couple philosophers are too grounded AND too out there to be memorable. I can barely remember their names, and their ideas jumble to me. Yet I somehow felt confident on the last test. Thank god for multiple choice. AP Psych as some explanation about how multiple choice is easier than free response, but I'm not gonna dig that info out until I'm studying for finals.
I also think that Jostein Gaarder writing as Albert writing in random characters is just annoying. As is Alberto constantly saying Albert should be ashamed of himself. I honestly can't tell if it's a sign of Jostein Gaarder being a bad writer, or a sign that he is writing Albert as a bad writer. Regardless, it's bad writing. Repetition and motifs are one thing. Typing the same thing repeated so you don't have to reword anything is stupid2.
I think the part were this story fell apart on me was when it went from a textbook to a book-within-a-book. The textbook-disguised-as-a-novel was kind of boring, but at least it bothered to make sense. It's gone from sensical to spamming fictional characters for the sake of 'why not?'
Now I'm sure that is just some meta example of how philosophy has changed over the years (sciency to absurd). Which also works well, because the book starts with early philosophies of how the world was built, and at the start of the book I had no idea where anything was going or how the story would be shown. Now that I've rambled off some English teacher style depth diving, I suppose I should admit that Jostein Gaarder is really some great writer. After all, I found a way to make something deep; there is no way the depth was my own creation and not innate to the something.
---
1 Earlier today, I wrote a very angry SciFi blog, and the use of swearing is still appealing.
2 Ironic, since I enjoyed the descriptions of various world leaders in The Illuminatus! Trilogy...
But I can say this: the last couple chapters I've read have made no sense. The Alberto/Sophie vs. Albert arc confuses the shit out of me1. The last couple philosophers are too grounded AND too out there to be memorable. I can barely remember their names, and their ideas jumble to me. Yet I somehow felt confident on the last test. Thank god for multiple choice. AP Psych as some explanation about how multiple choice is easier than free response, but I'm not gonna dig that info out until I'm studying for finals.
I also think that Jostein Gaarder writing as Albert writing in random characters is just annoying. As is Alberto constantly saying Albert should be ashamed of himself. I honestly can't tell if it's a sign of Jostein Gaarder being a bad writer, or a sign that he is writing Albert as a bad writer. Regardless, it's bad writing. Repetition and motifs are one thing. Typing the same thing repeated so you don't have to reword anything is stupid2.
I think the part were this story fell apart on me was when it went from a textbook to a book-within-a-book. The textbook-disguised-as-a-novel was kind of boring, but at least it bothered to make sense. It's gone from sensical to spamming fictional characters for the sake of 'why not?'
Now I'm sure that is just some meta example of how philosophy has changed over the years (sciency to absurd). Which also works well, because the book starts with early philosophies of how the world was built, and at the start of the book I had no idea where anything was going or how the story would be shown. Now that I've rambled off some English teacher style depth diving, I suppose I should admit that Jostein Gaarder is really some great writer. After all, I found a way to make something deep; there is no way the depth was my own creation and not innate to the something.
---
1 Earlier today, I wrote a very angry SciFi blog, and the use of swearing is still appealing.
2 Ironic, since I enjoyed the descriptions of various world leaders in The Illuminatus! Trilogy...
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Blog 52 Response - The Rerambling.
Statement #3 - When we die, our essence or soul leaves our body - this divided the class like the 2nd statement, because some weren't sure whether or not we had a soul and wanted proof. Also, we discussed what was someone's essence? A memory held after the person was gone? His/her impact on others? Are we just renting our skin and bones while we're here (thanks, Switchfoot!)? Some classmates mentioned the impact of ghost-like experiences as well as religion that have helped them through this difficult question. Are we just worm food when we die or is there something more?
I'm choosing this one because of the Switchfoot reference (BTW Geoff, I'm now listening to Switchfoot. Thanks for showing me a new band). The bit about renting our bodies is a good place to start (for my mental ramblings. The ramblings I write here will be filtered, organized, and at least slightly refined):
"But I'm not sentimental
This skin and bones is a rental
And no one makes it out alive"
There was also a part later on that got my attention:
"This body's not my own
This world is not my own"
I don't know if we have a soul that we leave behind (or that leaves us behind) when we die. But I do know that current science shows us that we as we think of ourselves is most likely an interaction of electricity and chemicals in our neural tissue.
I don't think that sort of reaction will continue once we die (dying sorta causes our bodies to stop most chemical reactions), and as a result, I don't see how our mind could carry on after death (at least, not until we can make computers that can handle and process a human brain in real-time. But we're quite far from that. Last I heard, scientists have managed to simulate part of a rat brain, at like, a hundredth the speed found in nature).
But I also think it's possible there is something beyond neuro-electrical firings (science use to tell use the Earth was flat and was the center of the entire Universe. Those ideas were wrong, so why not this one about how thought works?).
There was an idea brought up in Sci-Fi, panpsychism, which raises the question: if our thoughts are just the result of chemical interaction, what's to say that everything (the air, rocks, planets, etc.) don't have stray chemical reactions that cause a basic, proto-thought (basic as in the same result of one or two brain cells triggering, not basic as in "I want food")?
I think that idea is ridiculous (mostly because it is saying that non-sentient things are, in a way thinking), but that implies that I think there is something more to thought than chemical reactions. But as I brought up in class yesterday, the reason people end up different is that, even with the same building blocks, the slight build differences, magnified across thousands of thousands of thousands of cells, add up, making all of us different.
So yeah, I really don't know where I stand on this idea. I think the idea that once someone dies, their spirit stays around, leaving raspy-voiced messages on tape cassettes is crap. But I don't think there is anything to say there can't be a spirit. BUT, I don't think there is anything to say there CAN be a spirit.
I think I'm going to take the easy (well, easier) way out, and go with agnosticism (screw religious debates. The word means "without knowledge"). We'll never know if we have souls; every conclusion on the issue is speculation. The only way to know is to die and see what's there (too bad relaying what you find is a little difficult once you're dead).
I'm also not sure if I want to have an essence once I die. If there isn't some kind of afterlife, I'd just be floating in space (or stuck on Earth) until whatever it is that made my soul died (God knows what would happen then...). That would suck. Eternity would be madness inducing. I'm not saying I want to die, but I don't want to live forever either.
I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this question! If we don't have souls, I'm faced with the knowledge that one of these days, my heart will stop, and play it's final beat (Geoff, I can reference songs too!). If we do have souls, and there is Heaven/Hell/Whatever, I wouldn't be able to not spend the rest of my life trying to avoid the worst option (in which case, I don't think I'd really be living). If we have souls, but there isn't an afterlife, then I have an entirety to look forward to, most of which couldn't be spent on anything but my thoughts (once my body dies, where goes my ability to interact with the physical world?). None of these options sound good. At least with some mystery to it, I can pretend I look forward to the answer...
Side note, 'Where I Belong' became my soundtrack as I wrote most of this.
I'm choosing this one because of the Switchfoot reference (BTW Geoff, I'm now listening to Switchfoot. Thanks for showing me a new band). The bit about renting our bodies is a good place to start (for my mental ramblings. The ramblings I write here will be filtered, organized, and at least slightly refined):
"But I'm not sentimental
This skin and bones is a rental
And no one makes it out alive"
There was also a part later on that got my attention:
"This body's not my own
This world is not my own"
I don't know if we have a soul that we leave behind (or that leaves us behind) when we die. But I do know that current science shows us that we as we think of ourselves is most likely an interaction of electricity and chemicals in our neural tissue.
I don't think that sort of reaction will continue once we die (dying sorta causes our bodies to stop most chemical reactions), and as a result, I don't see how our mind could carry on after death (at least, not until we can make computers that can handle and process a human brain in real-time. But we're quite far from that. Last I heard, scientists have managed to simulate part of a rat brain, at like, a hundredth the speed found in nature).
But I also think it's possible there is something beyond neuro-electrical firings (science use to tell use the Earth was flat and was the center of the entire Universe. Those ideas were wrong, so why not this one about how thought works?).
There was an idea brought up in Sci-Fi, panpsychism, which raises the question: if our thoughts are just the result of chemical interaction, what's to say that everything (the air, rocks, planets, etc.) don't have stray chemical reactions that cause a basic, proto-thought (basic as in the same result of one or two brain cells triggering, not basic as in "I want food")?
I think that idea is ridiculous (mostly because it is saying that non-sentient things are, in a way thinking), but that implies that I think there is something more to thought than chemical reactions. But as I brought up in class yesterday, the reason people end up different is that, even with the same building blocks, the slight build differences, magnified across thousands of thousands of thousands of cells, add up, making all of us different.
So yeah, I really don't know where I stand on this idea. I think the idea that once someone dies, their spirit stays around, leaving raspy-voiced messages on tape cassettes is crap. But I don't think there is anything to say there can't be a spirit. BUT, I don't think there is anything to say there CAN be a spirit.
I think I'm going to take the easy (well, easier) way out, and go with agnosticism (screw religious debates. The word means "without knowledge"). We'll never know if we have souls; every conclusion on the issue is speculation. The only way to know is to die and see what's there (too bad relaying what you find is a little difficult once you're dead).
I'm also not sure if I want to have an essence once I die. If there isn't some kind of afterlife, I'd just be floating in space (or stuck on Earth) until whatever it is that made my soul died (God knows what would happen then...). That would suck. Eternity would be madness inducing. I'm not saying I want to die, but I don't want to live forever either.
I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this question! If we don't have souls, I'm faced with the knowledge that one of these days, my heart will stop, and play it's final beat (Geoff, I can reference songs too!). If we do have souls, and there is Heaven/Hell/Whatever, I wouldn't be able to not spend the rest of my life trying to avoid the worst option (in which case, I don't think I'd really be living). If we have souls, but there isn't an afterlife, then I have an entirety to look forward to, most of which couldn't be spent on anything but my thoughts (once my body dies, where goes my ability to interact with the physical world?). None of these options sound good. At least with some mystery to it, I can pretend I look forward to the answer...
Side note, 'Where I Belong' became my soundtrack as I wrote most of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)