Directory of Lost Causes

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1518/thinker-francis-crick

That's two I can think of immediately - the subject of the article and the author.

I should add that if such people don't exist and I'm arguing with myself then so much the better, but since I encounter them almost daily, at least on the internet if not at the supermarket checkout, where I don't stop to ask people's views, I'm making the vague assumption that they do exist, even if not in an ideal form.

Do materialists exist? Christians? Atheists? Logical positivists? I would tend to say that they don't exist. But some people identify themselves according to these concepts, and the concepts are, after all, human. So, if I have an argument it's with the concepts and with identification with those concepts, which often come in packages for no very good reason, etc.

It's interesting to me that I can criticise religion till the cows come home and no one cares, but I'm frequently challenged when I criticise materialism, or what some people call humanism.

But perhaps if you give some examples of the lively debate, I can attempt to say what I think of them, if that would be of interest.

I think about consciousness a great deal, and I don't do so with agreed scientific terminology - often it's non-verbal reflection, even. I can't say that I know what's going on, but I have at least observed that my experience of consciousness doesn't tally with what I am often told is going on. I think my point is that for me, actually, more than the concepts, it's the attitudes that matter. If it's just concepts, then it could all be linguistic miscommunication, but it does concern me that there might be a very real (not conscious, I don't think) movement to get us to see ourselves as less free and less valuable than we might actually be.

Phone... more later...

I'm actually at work now (at 'the office', no less). My mind is currently disintegrating because of work/financial worries. Therefore, I may not be able to give much attention to my blog for a while.

I'll try and get back to all this, though.

Looking from the window of the Windsor and Eton train, at Waterloo Station, platform 15, I saw a stick-thin old man sitting on one of the backless benches. He was struggling (mechanically or spiritedly?)... he was struggling with the clasp of his valise in his lap. Something about his body language made me feel that I knew, somehow, exactly what he was feeling. I thought to myself, "Go on, mate, you're doing all right", as he finally got the clasp into its clippy little yoke (can't think of the proper word) and got stiffly to his feet, and walked away.

Originally posted by anonymous:

I'm not well up on this subject but my "lively debate" comment was based on the two books I have to hand - 'How The Mind Works' by Stephen Pinker and 'The Beginning Of Infinity' by David Deutsch.

Have been meaning to read Pinker for ages (have only read a couple of short articles of his). Deutsch is a name I'm familiar with, but I haven't read his work.

Originally posted by gveranon:

I'm still assimilating all this (and more) and I'm not sure where I stand. My thinking is incoherent because I've been influenced by a lot of different things I've read, and I'm probably too old to suddenly change my mind about anything (so much mental furniture to rearrange).

These links look fascinating. In relation to some of the content of your summaries, the other night, wondering again about this whole consciousness thing, I was struck by the question, "What does it actually mean to explain something?" Can you explain consciousness in the same way that you explain... the rules of cricket, for instance, or the workings of a motor car? Some things do seem to be susceptible to explanation, but perhaps we apply that word sometimes to areas beyond those for which it has any useful application.

I suppose I can illustrate what I'm trying to get at with the help of Douglas Adams and his notorious 'meaning of life = 42'. Supposing that that were the explanation of consciousness (and an explanation as such, would have to be something like 42), no one (surely?) would say, "Ah, of course, it all makes sense now."

Anyway... these are brief musings. I've just been tackling part of that financial problem mentioned. How much money do you think Egg Card (now taken over by Barlcays) charge on a debt of (now) £918 which is being paid back at £23 a month?

Answer: £15 a month.

How is that even legal?

Once this is paid off, I will never own a credit card again.

Anyway... work.

More later, I suppose.

Incidentally, I wonder if I'll ever get an apology (let alone compensation) from the countless doctors who have told me over the years that my depression is due to lack of seratonin:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/23/145525853/when-it-comes-to-depression-serotonin-isnt-the-whole-story?ps=cprs

One critic I talked to said the serotonin story distracted researchers from looking for other causes of depression. But Delgado agrees with Frazer and says the story has some benefits. He points out that years of research have demonstrated that uncertainty itself can be harmful to people — which is why, he says, clear, simple explanations are so very important.

"When you feel that you understand it, a lot of the stress levels dramatically are reduced," he says. "So stress, hormones and a lot of biological factors change."

This makes me angry. The same people would never accept the same argument from a priest - that simple certainties are good for people. It doesn't compensate me, either, for being treated like a simpleton by this kind of scum for years because I didn't believe them.

Originally posted by anonymous:

Hi, Quentin. In regard to this particular debate, you may find the following of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review?newsfeed=true

Thanks. Predictably for the Guardian, the comments section is full of people rubbishing the review with no reference to specifics, but merely because it is respectful of someone suggesting that science might be better if...

Recently I read an article about how seeing Jesus in a piece of toast, or whatever, is a phenonemon arising in the same part of the brain that is used for general pattern recognition... I'll try and find the link if I can. Hardly earth-shattering stuff. Anyway, there was actually a phrase used in this article... I'll find it. I don't want to be accused of misquoting or exaggerating, or making things up. This is it:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wired-for-weird

And this is the quote:

Although we are still in the early stages of learning which features of the brain cause us to form unscientific ideas, one interesting finding suggests a possible unifying theory for belief in ghosts, precognition, telepathy, and the like.

And this is in what I believe is a respected magazine. I come across this kind of ridiculous assumption all the time in these articles, but I'm offering this as an example. There are apparently "features of the brain [that] cause us to form unscientific ideas". So, presumably, if we just remove these unscientific areas or features of the brain, the world will be perfect, since science is perfect?

This kind of thing just sets my teeth on edge.

By the way, my favourite comment from the comment thread there:

"Belief in the paranormal arises from the same brain mechanisms that shape most human thought."

So... thought comes from the same mechanisms that shape thought...

amazing.

I think the reason I hate this kind of stuff so much is that I am surrounded by people who treat science as sacred in a weird way. Even this following comment, with which I broadly agree, seems to parrot the mantra about science being the best intellectual system we've got:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/14356938

Says who? For what purpose? In what way? Why?

I suppose in relation to that particular question, I would agree with Gveranon that the divisions between areas of intellectual endeavour have some meaning, though these divisions are at least partially fluid. At the very least, I wouldn't like to see someone claim that science contains some other area just because the two overlap.

I've also noticed what seems like a trend amongst vocal atheists of making 'tolerance' and 'open-mindedness' into vices, and their opposites into virtues. (Presumably, with some people, this is a tactic they have to take: "Yeah, well, what if I am narrow-minded?... er... Narrow-mindedness is a good thing. Because... because... because open-minded people are stupid." etc.) Pen Jilette joins Dawkins in calling tolerance 'condescending'. Tim Minchin perpetuates a new meme by using it as the title of a song: "If you open your mind your brain will fall out" (or something like that).

Yeah, really culturally enlarging stuff, guys. Thanks for that.

It shouldn't really surprise me that Pen Jilette says he respects fundamentalists more than liberal Christians. There just seem to be people on... well, I'm forced to say 'both sides', because that's the way they want it... people on 'both sides' who want to keep the whole thing to 'both sides'. This includes Stephen Fry, who has repeated the Chesterton quote that the problem of not believing in Christianity is not that you believe nothing, but that you'll believe anything. Fry, like Chesterton, wants to keep it simple: We're playing chess. There's black and white. One side will win. Same for Hitchens, who tried to make out agnostics are really atheists. Same for Dawkins, who says pantheists are sexed-up atheists. Same for Terry Eagleton, who criticised Alain De Botton's book about religion for atheists, concluding that Hitchens gave Christians something they could get their teeth into.

What the hell is wrong with these people? Why do they want to divide the world into theists and atheists and force everyone to choose a side?

(Note: I don't group the above-named people together except inasmuch as they share the attitude that I have described. My attitude towards each of them varies. The world is not black and white.)

EG:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/14357555

And on and on and on.

There's something key about this kind of thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/14359080

It hasn't been explained yet, but I have more faith in scientists being able to answer it than just-so-storytellers, or 'theologians', as they are apt to call themselves.

The 'gap', it seems to me, cuts both ways. On the one side, atheists accuse theists of explaining everything just by saying, "God did it", and they call this blind faith. But their own fundamental faith seems to be that science will eventually explain everything. Do we know that science will explain everything? No. It is faith.

The question here is really about explanation. I don't care about 'God', as I'm not sure what the word means, but it seems to me that if, instead of saying 'God', we just say, 'something very important but unexplainable' then this puts the argument in a slightly different light. I'm not sure this is what theists mean, but to me, anyway, the 'gap' is exactly that: something very important and unexplainable. It's not an attempt to explain things. You can't explain things by saying that they're unexplainable. It's an attempt to say, "There's more to life than going around explaining things."

Whether or not I'm right, I at least see that the faith in science eventually to explain everything leads those who hold this faith to treat people in a shoddy way, as they did me all the years they dismissed my problems as lack of seratonin. After all, that was the scientific explanation.

Anyway, I'm neglecting my work.

Thanks. That sounds like an interesting read.

As usual, I may write more here later.

Sorry about the rather topical lack of gaps in the guest comments at present.

In answer to the question, there are some things I'd probably be keener to have an explanation for than others. If I felt fairly confident that the goblin was real, I'm not sure I'd worry too much about explanations, though. I do understand the point of the question you're asking, and this is something I've wondered about, too. Surely, I'm also trying to understand things - I say to myself - so why is the idea of everything being explained objectionable to me?

I'm not sure yet, except that I feel there are distinctions to be made somewhere. I mean, I feel the same kind of dilemma - theoretical, if you like, but emotionally it feels like a real dilemma - concerning 'the meaning of life'. To have a meaning seems intolerable, since it then robs one of the freedom of interpretation, but not to have a meaning is intolerable in a different way. Also, I've always felt there's something that smacks of cop-out to the assertion that you can "make your own meaning".

I kind of feel like there's something that inevitably resists explanation, though, a kind of inherent stangeness to existence, like an air-bubble in wallpaper, that, when you flatten it out in one place, pops up somewhere else.

Why worry?

I've asked myself that question, too. One answer is that maybe we do shape reality itself in some way, in which case, I'd rather we didn't shape a dreary reality.

By the way, I would say that the reverence for the unexplainable is important in real life, too - not just in fiction. I'm just not sure where to mark a borderline, or how exactly.

Honestly, if I met a real goblin - if I was satisfied it was a real goblin, whether such satisfaction indicates its reality or my insanity or whatever - I think I'd be more taken up with thinking, "This is great! This is weird! Everyone said goblins were imaginary. That means I've finally entered the world of the imagination. Fantastic!!", than with taking blood samples and sending them to the nearest laboratory. I suppose that's just me.

The odd thing is... this kind of denigration has different permutations not just in the idea of secular evolution towards a technological utopia (in which area it's a bit of a paradox), but in almost every other area of human thought I can think of. The one area it doesn't have much currency in, is in what might be called 'politics', which is interesting.

In other words: The Christian idea of original sin = denigration. The Buddhist idea of selflessness = denigration. The materialist idea that humans are merely machines = denigration. Etc.

But when, politically, people treat other people as the above concepts seem to suggest people should be treated - as unworthy, unimportant nobodies - the results are objectionable to everyone except tyrants.

Justin Isis just sent me this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag-yGpGpkOI

I don't speak French, so I don't know what they're saying, but there seems to be some disapproval of Josephine Baker jumping on to the stage midway through. That disapproval (it seems to me) is the "Who do you think you are?!" of the denigration I've described. But who wants to live in a world where everyone goes around saying, "Who do you think you are?" I approve entirely of Josephine Baker jumping onto the stage.