jackson's knowledge argument

Sometimes I feel these philosophers need to take some neuroscience classes.  This Jackson guy has this argument about a neuroscientists in a black and white room who learns everything there is to know about red and who then leaves the room and sees something red.  He says she learns something, so she doesn't know everything there is to know even though she knows everything physical.  Well of course she doesn't know everything physical, or at least she hasn't experienced it, because she hasn't had the activation of her red photoreceptors.  So maybe she *knows* everything physical about red, but she hasn't experienced everything physical about it.  So you could say that what the learns is still physical, which doesn't really serve Jackson's original argument that seeing red provides something beyond the physical.

The real question is this- if she's in a black and white room, but I stimulate her retinal ganglia such that they emit a signal identical to that elicited by the color red, and then I take her out of the room and she actually *sees* red- is there a difference to her?

I'm inclined to say no, judging from other experiments of stimulating parts of the brain producing believable sensations, but who knows.  I am a dualist at heart.

I'm still alive!

I'm still alive!  I was braindead for a while during the first two years of medical school, but now I've moved from the MD to the PhD and started thinking again.  I feel so much better!

Just some quick sketches of thoughts.  I've been listening to some lectures about philosophy of mind again.  All of the terminology is vaguely familiar since I actually took a whole course on this in college, but since repressed the memory of it or something.

Anyway, one problem people have with the mind is that you can't explain it physically, and if you could, you couldn't explain the causality.  But here's why I don't think it's a problem.

Imagine any question about the world around you, which most people say is pretty objective.  Say, why do leaves change color in the fall (I may be off on the details since it's been a long time since I knew this).
A. because they are normally green due to green chlorphyll which is regulated by light, but with less light there's less green chlorophyll and the other pigmented chemicals dominate.
Q. Why does that make them change colors?
A. Because chlorophyll absorbs other wavelengths of light but not green, and other pigments have different light absorption profiles.
Q. Why do other pigments have different light absorption profiles?
A. Because they have different electron profiles, which can change energies and cause light absorption
Q. Why do they have different electron profiles?
A. Because they are made of different elements
Q. Why are they made of different elements?
A. Because their atoms have differently sized nuclei
Q. Why do their atoms have differently sized nuclei?

Now we are at a very basic level of physics/math which becomes very self referential.  Why do falling objects follow mathematical equations?  Because of calculus.  Calculus=math, and it was invented using mathematical proofs.  It's a loop at that level.

So ultimately, everything in the world, even normal questions about the physical world around us, are resolved in self-reference and some form of "that's just the way it is."  All premises are inexplicable.  At this point, I think there's no room for an argument against God.  If nothing else can explain our essential universe, why not God?  At this point you could ask, well what explains God?  Though.  However, it seems to me that there's not really any conflict between mind and brain and science and religion, because ultimately the answer to every rabbit hole is "just because," which makes causality rather irrelevant.

"The End of Poverty"

I just finished this book by Jeffrey Sachs. This book, along with the globalization book I just read and "Inside Job" (a documentary on the banking crisis which I just watched) have me pretty convinced that the liberlization of the economy which commenced with Reagan pretty much ruined the world. Never did like that guy.

Sachs says that with a few measures, we could end world poverty by 2025. Extreme poverty anyway, meaning people living on less than $1/day. I think he's a bit optimistic of the government. His plan requires the US, for instance, to up its foreign aid from like $2/person/year in Africa to $70/person/year from the rich world (whose GNP is largely composed of American dollars). Right now the US gives .15% or something in aid, and they need to increase it to .7 I think (sorry if that number's off, I'm going by memory here as I already turned in the library book).

Aid for third-world countries crashed after Reagan decided that the whole world, no matter their circumstances, could be made magically better if they only cut loose their economies and joined the global market. Easy to say for the UK. Not so easy to say for like Sudan.

His plan also requires a "differential diagnosis," or a economic development plan that is tailored to the unique factors that create poverty in every country, every village even. He calls for creating sustainable villages rather than sustaining villages with aid (ex. training doctors rather than providing perishable medical supplies).

I really enjoyed the book, and I learned a lot about the unique economies of countries like China, India, Poland, etc., but it's frustrating to read a book about reforms that I don't really have control over. Sachs' plan may well work, but it has to be enacted on a policy level, and I just don't have much control over national policy or foreign debt cancellation.

It was nice to believe, though, that the end of poverty is possible. I really am an optimistic person, but I see the way people treat each other, and I'm just not sure. The book made me hopeful. May the IMF quit being idiots and listen more to Jeffrey Sachs.

Resolved: Corporations ought to be held to the same standards as individuals

This was my last resolution in state high school debate in 2007. Back then I knew more about some things and less about others, and fortunately I know a bit more about this topic today, especially after reading: "The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy" by Noreena Hertz.

I'm just going to halfheartedly summarize the book at the moment since I'm not feeling that motivated.

Globalization:
So the US and UK etc used to operate on Keynesian economics, which said government could pull out of a recession and cut debt by putting *more* money into public services (I don't really understand this, but then again, I never understand economics). It advocated publicizing more utilities and a bigger-spending government.

Then Reagan (Thatcher in the UK) came along with his Reaganomics. He deregulated as much as possible (the UK deregulated even more because more stuff was federalized in the first place), cut federal spending, and tried to promote the economy by stimulating the global market. Tax cuts went to the rich and corporations to promote trickle-down economics which were supposed to get the rich guys into entrepreneurial moods so that they would cause their richness to "trickle down" to the lower tiers of society.

Since then, more and more countries, despite their human rights records or their state of government (democratic, authoritarian, communist, etc) have joined the global market. A lot of times governments which are clearly in violation of our western standards (ie China) were pulled into the market simply because of economic interests (like in the Clinton era).

Cons with the current state of the globalized world:
-the trickle-down effect (intended by tax-cuts for the rich) hasn't worked; rich people/corporations have just taken the money and run, getting richer and richer, while those at the bottom of society are getting poorer and poorer, increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.
-aid has been withdrawn from developing countries ever since Reaganomics led to cuts in 1st world government spending
-corporations have just used the laissez faire economy to set up shop wherever is most advantageous, often resulting in tax evasions and rights abuses (sweat shops, etc), as well as out-sourced labor decreasing local jobs
-attempting to attract corporations to boost national economies, third world countries often make wages and working conditions even worse for their citizens; all of this means unskilled workers are fairing the worst from globalization
-first world countries often keep taxes low to try to attract corporations at the cost of other social commodities
-political cases brought to the WTO are often ignored in favor of economic benefit (ex. Massachusetts government tried to ban Burma-made products, but was overturned by the WTO)
-Corporations have much too much interest in the WTO while developing countries have too little
-corporations now control government because of the importance of the global economy; governments are becoming impotent and useless; voter turnout is going down as people have declining faith in the power of elected officials
-Countries support human-rights abusing regimes for trade interests (ie US support of the Taliban, Clinton's agreements with China); democratization is taking a second seat to corporate interests (ex. US-backed government in Iran)
-Candidates for office in democracies (US, UK) require so much money for a campaign that they must enlist corporate help, and corporate contributions have strings; campaign finance laws are slow in coming because the government is controlled by corporate interests
-even if they don't get money from corporations, politicians need corporate endorsement to win office

Role of the consumer in a globalized world:
-Because political activity is becoming so useless and mired in bureaucratic red tape, the citizen's best vote is often in what he buys
-ex. of power of boycott: GMO boycott in UK drove out Monsanto from main supermarkets
-ex. boycott of clothes from sweatshop labor like Wal Mart Kathy Lee Gifford line
-corporations pay attention to consumers because consumer boycotts can cause serious damages in profits and face
-shareholders can invest in ethical funds which only invest in socially conscious corporations
-politicians are often much less effective at causing change in corporate values (this caused the 1980s growth in environmentalism)

Importance of freedom of information:
-for the consumer to make educated/informed decisions on which products to buy, there must be some freedom of information
-this isn't always the case since many news channels are owned by corporations, and sometimes one corporation owns almost all of the news channels so information that could be detrimental to the corporation is never heard (ex. Monsanto is a commercial backer of Fox, so a story on unauthorized Monsanto hormones in Florida milk was undemocratically repressed)
-Although all Fortune 500s have environmental and mostly social audits, sometimes these aren't followed, and they're hard to compare or understand
-A solution to this lack of information is the internet, which allows complete freedom of information, but may lack in accuracy
-Info can also come from NGOs, but we should remember that these NGOs also have an agenda.

Philanthropists:
-One way to positively use the massive amounts of money gained as a corporate CEO is to become a philanthropist!
-Lots of CEOs give mass amounts of money; it used to be philanthropy was a local affair, but now it has become much more global
-The problem with this is that these CEOs are exacting a lot of political power, but they are unelected and representing only their own interests. Ex. Ted Turner $1 billion contribution to the UN was for good causes, but what if someone made a similar donation for causes with which the electorate disagreed?

Peace between warring nations:
-Corporations can forge the way for peace between warring nations when politics can't (ex. Jordan and Israel have many joint corporations, also the sons of the most important people in China/Taiwan have business agreements)
-However, lots of business men also fuel war (ex. diamond/oil interests in Africa)

Corporations as a force for good:
-A lot of corporations are now giving back to the communities in which they work (ex. Shell building infrastructure in Nigeria)
-This is because poor communities lead to bad business (civil unrest, instability), and because consumers are happier to buy products from corporations who are "giving back"
-corporations can agree to protocols governments won't agree to (ex. many US corporations have pledged to the Kyoto protocol).
-This social activism can be a problem in schools for instance which are forced, as government funds decline, to accept corporate funds and the strings attached. Often the strings are advertising or distribution of unhealthy products (candy, soft drinks).

The problem with our globalized world:
-Because government is in the pocket of the corporation, there is no one to check the actions of the corporation.
-Consumers offer some check, but not enough, as they are often misinformed or in too few of numbers to cause immediate change in real corporate abuse cases
-Ex. Airline privitization of security, even after September 11; Airlines, as corporations, sought for security with the lowest cost, leading to compromised training hours and security staff performance.
-When the economic bubble bursts, when the recession goes on and on, corporations will always return to their bottom line of profits and making shareholders happy. At this point, they will cease to provide any extra welfare, and the communities relying on this welfare will suffer. It's just not a sustainable solution to privitize welfare responsibilities to corporations.
-Ex. In Japan, social security used to be provided by corporations, but when the economy crashed, the social security was withdrawn, and a ton of people lost their social security (late 1990s)

One solution:
-What do democracies do best? Strike, strike, strike! :-)
-Physical protest (at WTO meetings, summits, etc, at sites of proposed buildings in violation of environmental standards, etc)
-It worked in the past when Theodore Roosevelt ran under the progressive party, and the people managed to achieve the primary, the initiative, the recall, and the referendum
-It worked in the environmental movement starting in the 1980s
-The combo of consumer activism and political protest is very effective

Hertz's solution:
-A new political agenda:
NATIONAL
1. National disenfranchisement of corporations: includes no more funding of election campaigns; need to separate business and politics again
2. No more trickle-down Reaganomics nonsense: No more corporate welfare, better redistributive tax policies and public expenditure policies.
3. Regulate, don't deregulate, corporations at the national level: stronger anti-trust bodies, restrictions on media cross-ownership, federalization of some public goods, full disclosure of information
GLOBAL
1. Rights of the worker: UNDHR-like guarantee of worker rights which all corporations must follow in every nation
2. Access to justice: all workers in the world have recourse against corporate abuses; Northern legislative reforms to ensure corporate responsibility; all workers must have access to a global legal aid fund
3. World Social Organization (WSO): like the WTO's white-knight, regulates the market to ensure protection of human rights, labor standards, and the environment.
4. Push up: increase overseas aid which fell during globalization, remove inequitable trade rules in third-world countries
5. Piggy Bank: global tax authority, maybe linked to the UN, with the authority to levy indirect taxes (ex. on pollution, energy consumption) and direct taxes on multinational corporations which can then be used to protect environmental, labor, and human rights norms. Taxes on alcohol/tobacco corporations could form a global health fund.


OK, I think that's mostly it. That was a bit longer than I intended, but I wanted to get everything down before I forget it all. I don't have a great memory for political things (I studied very hard in American History in high school, and have managed to forget most everything).

As for me, I found myself mostly agreeing with her throughout the book. I thought the book was a bit depressing... it made me a little sad about our human condition. It's like, I know all of the people that make up this world (or most of them) are good and have moral consciences and don't want bad things to happen to other people, but sometimes in our corporate or personal political decisions, we become more like machines and less like caring people.

I like her solution, but perhaps I'm the pessimist here when I say I don't see it ever happening. At least not from looking around me at the USA. The government's way too won over by business to ever doing anything this crazy.

She says in the book something dire like how democracy and the world as we know it will end if something drastic doesn't happen. I'm not *that* pessimistic. Government messes up all the time, and it mostly bounces back, at least ours. I don't think we're all headed to hell in a handbasket.

I did like the XKCD comic from a few days ago that predicted that in 20-whatever Gilette would come out with the 16-blade razor, and of course some schmancy reason about how 16 blades are just vitally better than 15. I mean really, the things are getting ginormous. How big can a razor blade get?

free will

As I fall asleep I occasionally think about trippy things, this being one of them. So I believe in free will but willingly admit that I have no scientific basis for doing so. Everything (Newtonian physics, quantum physics, neuroscience, etc) bodes against it. What I was attempting to think about as I fell asleep (it wasn't working too well because I was so tired so that it kind of turned into a stoned conversation in my head- you know the "woah, dude, wouldn't it be awesome if there's infinite universes and we're just in this one?" "yeah, man, but how do I have a continuity of consciousness then?" "woah, dude, that chick walking down the street has hair like smoke!" "Smoke? You want to light some candles and look at the smoke?" etc. (Forgive my stereotype of people who smoke pot.) So my nighttime musings are kind of like that- one-track, easily distracted.

But I was thinking along a neuroscience track about free will. So it seems that action origination in neuroscience depends on sensory input. You "decide" to walk over to a chair because the image of the chair travels through the visual pathways to many different lobes in your brain and gets mixed up in the limbic system etc etc so finally something nudges your premotor system to act. Arguably it requires no free will at all- it just requires different chemical states in different parts of your brain and different physical makeups of your synapses so they are more or less likely to cause the cell to fire.

Free will, however, can be introduced into that sequence if at some point "the ghost in the machine" influences synaptic firing. I think the easiest way to work free-will into the formula is by thinking about consciousness (yay meta thought). People understand that there's a difference between snapping your eyes open in the morning because of an external stimulus (ie car honking) and opening eyes out of "volition" because one has woken up. The outcome is the same, but one is reflexive and one travels all over the brain. There is no place we can label "consciousness." So what creates it? What makes that difference? And the grandest question of all: when there is no sensory stimulus causing you to wake up, what makes the first neuron fire? Your eyes are closed, you're lying in bed, it's silent, you're not really aware of feeling the bed around you. All that's changed is that rhythmic spontaneous firing of your brain has morphed to a higher frequency. What little old neuron fires to cause a volitional action, and what makes it fire?

That's the part that really trips me and makes me just give up and fall asleep. I can't imagine how the neuron signifying a choice fires in the first place. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing.

freedom of speech occasionally sucks

But I wouldn't take it away. I'm referring to this cnn article.

I'll admit that I am Mormon, but this isn't really religion-specific. Freedom of speech reserves the right for the South Park creators to make fun of Mormonism to the point of slander/libel. It also reserves the right for the persecuted to react and defend themselves, but in this case, the damage done by the musical is probably too great for a church's defense.

Some people who strongly dislike religion may believe that a religion is wacky or ridiculous and thus deserves ridicule; however, I strongly believe that any belief system that does not harm others deserves respect as a credible calculus. This musical is bound to be anything but respectful.

I wouldn't do away with the freedom of speech, but this is just one of those instances when personal discretion has failed and the freedom has extended a bit into the sphere of harming others.

college killed my brain

Sadly the number of posts on this blog has experienced a decline correlated to the amount of time I've been in college. As I reach this point (14 days until graduation), my intellectual curiosity for things I learn in school has reached an all-time low of near-zero. These days, it takes a lot to motivate me to think beyond the rote information that I have to learn. Which is sad because I used to be a really deep-thinking person, mentally extrapolating on everything I learned in school and feeling like I was never given enough information. Now I feel like the information deluge has totally saturated me, and there's no where left to stuff the bits that are still raining down in my last few classes.

My brain was so empty and hopeful in high school; now it is full of half-understood facts and scientist names and very little of the abstract thinking that used to define it.

Sad. I can only pray that it will come back after I graduate between graduation and my MD-PhD program. Because I really miss it, and I'm just not happy with learning when I'm like this which is really tragic to me because i know how exciting learning can be. I usually tend to think more over the summer, so hopefully that will happen when I go home in two weeks.