Joel's Marbles

[Nov 23, 2008] Abolish the Federal Reserve (End the Fed)
End the Fed.  Support HR 2755.  Write your public officials.
[Feb 24, 2007] On the reality of the soul

Consider that each person has a sense of 'I'—the sense of self, the part of me that is aware of myself, that looks out through my eyes, that feels my feelings, experiences my experiences, thinks my thoughts, remembers my memories, chooses my choices. If this 'I' is really the transcendent thing it seems to be, then this 'I' too has a claim of being above matter and energy. Thus if naturalism is true, then the transcendent 'I' must also be merely an illusion. However, if I do not really exist, then just who is it that is being deceived into thinking that I do exist? This is strong evidence that naturalism is false. For, as Descartes pointed out (cogito ergo sum), the very fact that I am able to ask these questions implies that I do truly exist.

However, for the sake of argument, suppose that naturalism is true. Then 'I' am just an illusory product of the motion of atoms and electrons in my brain. Now suppose there were scientists who possessed the technology to make an exact replica of my body. It takes a three-dimensional 'snapshot' of the positions and states of all the atoms and electrons in my brain1, and make a replica using identical atoms of the same elements. This new body would be alive and posses all of my memories and personality. He, however, would have a different 'I' than I do. After the time of his creation, I would not see through his eyes, feel his feelings, etc. If he goes into a different room, I have no mental connection with him. He would not be I. He would have his own 'I'. To further see that this is true, we can go on to suppose that they can take the snapshot, but then create the replica from it on a later date, say one year later. He would have my memories, but only up to the point that the snapshot was taken. He would have no experiences from the prior year. I may very well have gained new mental skills during that time. It is absurd to conclude that we would both be experiencing both of our existences.

Now, suppose I were to die before he does. My death has no psychic connection to him. It would have no impact on him whatsoever, if no one ever told him that I existed, and that he was only a replica. My sense of 'I' in no way would be transferred into his body. He would continue to possess his own sense of 'I', and I would cease to be. The situation does not change if I were to die before the scientists create the replica. I would still cease to be, and he would have his own sense of 'I'. In addition, there is no reason that the time frame would matter either. We can keep reducing the hypothetical time between taking the snapshot and my death, and between my death and the creation of the replica. Even if the whole process takes only a nanosecond, the state of my 'I' and the replica's 'I' is the same. Therefore, even if the process of taking the snapshot were to involve the disassembling of all of my atoms, and constructing a replica one nanosecond later, I would still be destroyed. Thus Star Trek's transporter device would not really be transportation. It would be the termination of me on one end, and the creation of a replica, who has his own, separate sense of 'I', who steps out on the other end.

Now, adding to the idea that they can disassemble me and create a replica in one nanosecond, have the scientists create the replica in the same place that I was standing, one nanosecond ago. I see no reason why this would have any impact on the two 'I's as described so far, since the physical location of the construction of the replica is irrelevant. Although, to outside observers, it would appear that nothing happened (the process was too fast for the human eye to see it), the sense of 'I' has changed. I would no longer exist, and the replica's 'I' and his atoms would have taken my place. But really, this is exactly the same as replacing each of the atoms in my body with an identical atom of the same element. But two atoms of the same element are identical in essence. At one point in time they have different 'accidental' properties—they occupy different space, they could be in different energy states—but they are essentially identical. But this leads us to a contradiction. How can replacing each of my atoms with an identical atom change the nature of 'I', if it is merely the product of the motion of atoms? How could it possibly not be the same 'I' after the replacement? Nevertheless, we have just seen that logically it must be a different 'I'. Remember that all of this was based on the supposition that naturalism is true. Therefore, this contradiction shows that the original supposition of naturalism is false.

In fact, in this article, we have seen two disproofs of naturalism. First, the fact that I am able to think about the issue implies that 'I' do in fact exist, even though naturalism implies that I really do not. Furthermore, even if you suppose this was not a problem, we are still lead to a contradiction arising from substituting all the atoms in my body with identical ones. Therefore the 'I' must really be the transcendent thing it seems and not be dependent solely on matter and energy. We can rightly call it a soul. I am not saying necessarily that the soul is something completely separate and independent of body in this world, as if it something imprisoned in the body, or as if to imply that matter is bad. However, we have seen, at the very least, that the soul transcends the physical universe.
----
1Or at least a snapshot of the quantum probability density fields, to the best extent, limited only by the Hisenberg uncertainty principle. Or perhaps, one day, scientists will be able to take a perfect snapshot by means of something like quantum entanglement, or some other technology that we haven't even dreamed of yet.

[Feb 24, 2007] On the reality of our faculties

In previous writings I have demonstrated that if the physical world is all there is, then many things that we hold to be real must, in fact, be merely illusions, such as consciousness, the ability to reason, morality, meaning, hope, and love. There are many more examples of this. For example, free will is very real to us. I can deliberate with myself over a choice between two options. I can be conflicted. I may seek counsel from someone I trust as being wise. And ultimately I must exercise my will to produce a choice and actualize it. If, however, only the physical world and its laws exist, then my will must also be merely an illusion, for my choices are merely the outcome of atoms in my brain following the physical laws. I had no real free choice, because the physical laws dictated my choice1. But this contradicts what is self-evident. As Descartes said, "it is so manifest that we possess a free will, capable of giving or withholding its assent, that this truth must be reckoned among the first and most common notions which are born with us… [it] is as self-evident and clear as any thing we can ever know."2

Another example is our sense of beauty. If only the physical universe exists, then there is no objective beauty. Things can be neither beautiful nor ugly. They merely are the way they are. Therefore, our sense of beauty, although seeming to be real, must also be an illusion. There is also no reasonable explanation for how our sense of beauty could arise from the physical. Our sense of beauty is not beneficial to survival. The beauty of music, for example, can send our souls to the heights of euphoria. What benefit could this provide to our survival and replication of the species? For another example, most people find tigers to be beautiful in a way that cows are not. But cows are of great benefit to us, in a way that tigers are not. On the contrary, tigers are dangerous to us. However, regardless of how our sense of beauty came to be, naturalism implies that our belief in beauty is merely an illusion.

Thus, we see that, under naturalism, all of our faculties are only illusions—a cosmic trick played on us by our genes and "memes." If, however, someone believes that all of our faculties are illusions, then, in fact, the discussion is over. We cannot discuss, ponder, and seek out the truth of the matter, because doing so requires the use of our faculties, which are only illusions. In fact, the argument is self-defeating, because it implies that one cannot even trust the line of reasoning that led to the belief that our faculties are illusions, because the reasoning to that conclusion requires the use of non-existent faculties. This leaves us with only two possibilities. One possibility is that we can resign ourselves to the belief that none of our faculties exist and therefore we cannot believe in the existence of ourselves or anything else. This is a resignation to futility and nihilism. I utterly reject this option, for at least the following two reasons: (1) we cannot function in such a state, and (2) as I have already stated, this conclusion is self defeating, resulting in an absurdity by undermining its own basis for coming to that conclusion. The only remaining option, therefore, is that we must agree that there is some reality to our faculties. The first step, then, is to determine which of our faculties have any reality at all. We cannot use only reason to determine which of our faculties are real and which are false, because that presupposes that our reason is real. Likewise, intuition alone cannot help here because it presupposes that it is real. It seems, therefore, that the only remaining option is to agree that all of our faculties are, at least to some degree, real. Therefore, there is some reality to each of: our consciousness, ability to reason, moral sense, understanding of meaning, hope, love, sense of beauty, free will, etc. This conclusion contradicts the supposition that the only thing that acts in this world are the physical laws, demonstrating naturalism to be false.
----
1Some may point out that quantum mechanics reveals randomness, and therefore nondeterminism, in nature. This provides no help to free will. First, I don't think it has been proven that this is real randomness. The 'randomness' of quantum mechanics may be the results of some deterministic physical laws of which we do not yet know, and which produce only the appearance of randomness. Furthermore, even real randomness at most demonstrates that any given choice merely could have been otherwise. This is not free will, but only means that a given choice is, in the end, either determined by physical law, or merely random.
2Principles of Philosophy

[Sept 24, 2006] Truth and Lies: Part 2

Darwinism and Intelligent Design (ID) are both attempts to explain a historical event. Inasmuch as this fact is used to discredit ID, it also discredits Darwinism. Many arguments that ID is not scientific stem from this very fact that the object of our study is a historical event. The examination of historical events stands on a different footing than does the examination of physical phenomenon, such as light and gravity. It seems to me that the two main differences is that the historical event

  1. is specific, rather than general, and
  2. is not repeatable.

While theories of natural phenomenon reflect general principles or laws governing the behavior of closed systems, the study of the historical event is an attempt to determine what actually occurred, in this specific, unrepeatable case. This does not mean that study of the historical event must be unscientific. As can be clearly seen in the field of crime scene investigation, science can certainly be a useful tool. In this sense study of the historical event is an application of science, but (depending on how we define 'science') we might say that it is not science itself. In the case of a crime investigation, one possibility that one must consider is whether someone or something interfered with the event (e.g., was there a killer, or did the man die as a result of natural causes?). Note also that this must also be considered when reviewing the results from a scientific experiment (a historical event!). Perhaps one of my colleagues is playing a joke on me, or perhaps there is some factor I failed to consider.

Today I read wikipedia's article on "Intelligent Design", which is quite slanted. It offers much more criticism than support. In one section, it argues that ID is not scientific. It states that in order “for a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

Let me take each of these in turn.

Consistent

The article asserts: "Intelligent design is generally only internally consistent and logical within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption.” Darwinism also has it its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: namely that of Naturalism.

Parsimonious

The article asserts: "Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events."

Occam's razor says that if two theories have the same explaining power (in this case, the ability to explain the historical event), then the simpler one (the one with the fewest assumptions and entities) is preferred. Adding an unimaginably improbable web of interconnected random events of ever-increasing complexity to the equation is also not necessary to explain events. In contrast, adding an intelligent agent in such cases is the much more rational explanation. I believe, in our case, that Occam's razor chooses ID over Darwinism. To reiterate this point, in the case of the murder investigation, when the evidence points to there being a killer, “adding the killer to the equation” is not strictly necessary to explain events, but is the most reasonable.

Useful

In explaining a historical event, the usefulness is just that, explaining it. On this ground, ID and Darwinism are perhaps on equal footing. The article does not confront ID on this ground.

Empirically testable & falsifiable

Because the historical event is unrepeatable, a theory about the event it is not testable or falsifiable other than by examining the evidence left behind by the event. We can only extract information from the existing evidence; we cannot produce new evidence. This fact should not influence our conclusion on whether or not there was a killer.

The article states: "That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism." In the murder investigation, this would be outrageous, to insist that we start with a basic premise that there was no killer, and outright reject any theory that includes a killer.

Based upon multiple observations

This is obviously not possible with a historical event.  To the extent that we cannot do this with ID, we cannot do it with Darwinism.

Correctable & dynamic
Provisional

I'm lumping these two together, because they are related. The first is allowing for the possibility of modifications of the theory, while the second is allowing for the possibility of it being incorrect. In the first case, perhaps we hypothesize that the killer used this particular murder weapon. Then the coroner's report later indicates that the stab wound is too deep for our hypothesized weapon, and we have to consider other possible murder weapons, but we still conclude that there is in fact a killer. In the second case, we leave open the possibility that further acquisition and analysis of evidence could lead us to conclude that it was actually an accident or a natural cause, even if that possibility seems remote. I don't deny that these are good positions to hold. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity says that you should accept or reject any statement not because you do or do not want to, but because the evidence seems to you good or bad. To do otherwise would be foolish. ID is not unscientific on this basis. We must let the evidence decide whether someone or something interfered, or whether there were only natural causes. ID does not demand otherwise. On the contrary, ID demands that Darwinists not be so ideological. Textbooks and TV shows almost universally state Darwinism as an unquestioned, unsupported fact. ID merely asks that the evidence be examined with an open mind. The problem may lie with the writers of textbooks and TV shows, and not with scientists, but this should be demonstrated as well.

In summary, regarding the analysis of the historical event of the appearance life in all of its forms, ID is at least as scientific as Darwinism, if not more so. They can both be compared to a murder investigation, where one question at hand is whether there was a killer, and if so, what are his characteristics and identity. C.S. Lewis, in Miracles, argued that science itself relies on the existence of God. The principle of uniformity is that nature always goes on in the same way, according to a fixed set of laws. Naturalists believe in absolute uniformity, but “if Naturalism is true, we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform.” He goes on to say:

"Professor Whitehead points out that centuries of belief in a God who combined the 'personal energy of Jehovah' with 'the rationality of a Greek philosopher' first produced that firm expectation of systematic order which rendered possible the birth of modern science. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it...We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age."

[Aug 20, 2006] Truth and Lies

Yesterday, when browsing at Borders, I came across a book called Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement. It was a collection of "essays by prominent scientists on current thinking about evolution." Each of these essays argues against the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The editor writes that evolutionists are saddened by the ID movement, because they expect more from an enlightened culture—because it shows people are anti-science. I think they couldn't be more wrong. Specifically, I wanted to comment on the fact that I was intrigued that the book included an essay on human consciousness and an essay on morality. From reading C. S. Lewis, I have gathered that the two most convincing things that brought him to faith were the existence of our ability to reason, and the fact that we have a believe of right and wrong built into us. For Lewis, these were very strong evidence of the supernatural. Neither of these things can be of a natural cause. So naturally, I was curious as to what the top evolutionists had to say about consciousness and morality.

The article on consciousness admitted that consciousness as we experience it must either 1) be supernatural or 2) be an illusion. He agreed that consciousness cannot exist within naturalism. Thus to be a good evolutionist and naturalist means that you must come to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion. Nature has merely tricked us into thinking that we are conscious. Similar arguments can be made about our ability to reason, and our free will. Under naturalism, they too must be only illusions.

The essay on morality discussed the fact that ID proponents have argued that teaching evolution as undisputed fact in the classroom destroys morality in our students. The author attempted to argue against this, but failed miserably. He began by admitting that humans have an ingrained belief in right and wrong. One can't get rid of this belief, no matter how hard one might try. The author went on to attempt to argue that religion doesn't make people moral, listing atrocities that have occurred throughout history in the name of religions. First of all, nothing can be an atrocity unless you have a standard of morality by which to determine that it is an atrocity. And the existence of a standard of morality, when followed to its natural conclusion, brings us to the supernatural. Secondly, Christianity, as opposed to other religions, does not teach that religion, per se, makes people moral. The issue he left unaddressed can be summed up in a question like, "Should I blow up 10,000 people simply because I feel like it?" If your answer is no, that leads us to the existence of a moral standard, which leads us to the supernatural. If your answer is anything else (e.g. "yes," or "there is no right and wrong") then this destroys morality, which defeats the author's argument, because he is attempting to say that naturalism does not destroy morality. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that morality to must either be supernatural, or an illusion. If naturalism is true, and morality is an illusion, then the particular arrangement of atoms that make a human is no better or worse than the arrangement of atoms in a rock. They are merely different.Destroying the rock is no better or worse than destroying the person. Is this really what we want to teach our children?

The evolutionists may be saddened by the fact that people are not enlightened enough to see things their way. But the real question at the heart of all this is not that of science vs. religion/superstition. The real question is whether our consciousness, our ability to reason, our free will, and morality are real, or merely an illusion. This is what the ID movement is fighting for. Nature itself is the naturalist's God. But their God is one who deceives us, because if we knew the truth—that morality and our consciousness aren't real—we would be less likely to survive. All of this reminds me of The Silver Chair, in which the witch is holding the children and Puddleglum captive in her underground country, and is deceiving them, trying to charm them into believing that there is no Overworld, no sky, no sun, no such thing as a lion. She says that they are only imagined, and a children's story, and that her underground world is the only world that exists. Then Puddleglum says:

"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks you're real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for the Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

So, again, the battle is not between science and religion. The battle is between 1) a world with no meaning, no hope, and no love, and 2) a world of truth and life and love. You must choice between a God who deceives, and a God of Truth.

[Aug 19, 2006] The Ever-Increasing Irrelevance of the U.N.

The global community really ticks me off. In September 2004, the UN passes a resolution calling for, among other things, the disarmament of Hezbollah. What do they do when Hezbollah does not disarm but continues attacks on Israel? Nothing. Finally this year Israel gets fed up and attacks Hezbollah by themselves. The global community should have gone in on day one to help Israel defeat Hezbollah (not to mention their Iranian and Syrian sponsors). Indeed, they were already shirking their responsibility in disarming Hezbollah in the first place. But instead the rest of the world just sits back and watches, and has intellectual debates about how we should negotiate with terrorists. And has the audacity to demand that Israel stop. Then Israel bends over backwards in accepting this cease-fire agreement. It has been nearly a week and where is the powerful UN force that was to fill the void, disarm Hezbollah and keep the peace? According to a news article today, only 49 French soldiers have shown up. I've heard that the French, who have been boldly demanding to lead this mission, have drastically reduced the force that they want to send in. In addition to this, both the UN force and the Lebanese have stated that they will not even attempt to disarm Hezbollah! Can no one believe UN to ever back up its threats or its promises? Is a UN resolution meaningless?

Also in today's news article, people are criticizing Israel for a raid on Hezbollah because Hezbollah violated the ceace-fire agreement in not ceasing their millitary operations. First of all, Israel did not violate the cease-fire agreement, because it had already been broken by Hezbollah. Second, how long did the global community really expect Israel to stop defending themselves before the UN force arrives? Why are we helping terrorists? And why are we not taking out the terrorists' sponsors in Iran and Syria?

[Jan 21, 2006] A silly dream

Sometimes in dreams you can suddenly "remember" something that wasn't even true before. Last night I dreamt that I went to a high school basketball game. I walked into the nearly-full gym and suddenly "remembered" that I had been asked to be a referee for the game. Immediately I was wishing I had dressed up a bit more, if I was going to be standing in front of everyone. The other referee seemed to disapprove of me as well. He came over and asked if I had brought the ball. I didn't have a ball, so he snidely instructed me to make myself useful and go find a ball for the game. So, I left to go find one. I finally did, but it took too long, and by the time I got back they had started the game without me. Because they didn't have a ball, they were playing without one. The guy with "the ball" would pretend to dribble down the court and shoot, and the other team would pretend to block it. As I took my place as referee, I realized that it was our duty to determine whether a basket was made, etc. I further realized I didn't have a whistle, and I didn't know any of the hand signals or anything.

After a few moments, I decided that this entire game of basketball being played without an actual ball was really stupid, and I didn't want to have anything to do with it. I was much relieved when the two teams got together at a time-out, and decided the same thing, and called off the game.

[Dec 11, 2005] Socialism

I recently learned of the website www.worldsocialism.org which promotes the idea of socialism. The motivation behind it is that capitalism, while it produces wealth, does not produce wealth to everyone in the world, and that we can do better to help those who are going without food. The main points of their proposition are as follows:

  1. (almost) everything joint-owned by the people
  2. no leaders (complete democracy)
  3. people who help out to produce the world's needs will need to work only a few hours per week.

Point 3 is a debatable point (consider the “mythical man-month,” as well as the fact that all the emergent organization under markets will have to be converted to an (arguably less-efficient) administrative power under socialism). They argue that enough people will work the necessary hours because work itself is a basic need of man. This is a debatable point, but let us give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are correct on this point.

Let's look at point 1: most things are joint-owned by all the people. They said there would be some personal possessions, such as clothing. This only raises questions. How will it be decided when disagreements arise as to what is a personal possession and what is a public possession. How does a public possession transition to become a personal possession? The clothing is made from public resources, and somehow transitions to become a personal property of someone. Who determines this?

Secondly, the idea of all resources being owned jointly (thus producing equality) is preposterous. They claim that there is no scarce resource. What about ocean-front property? Not everyone who wants to will be able to make use of ocean-front property. How do we decide who gets to use it? Not only are there scarce resources, but it is not possible to distribute all resources equally or own all resources jointly. Unequal distribution and ownership of resources is a fact of life. Things like intelligence, ingenuity, innovation, beauty, talent, physical strength, agility, time, health are all very important resources. And they are distributed and owned in unequal measures. This fact should make us question whether equality is a thing to be valued above liberty. Furthermore, if I use public resources to create something, then does it become my personal property? Or is my creation, by default, public property? If public property, how do we resolve disagreements about who gets to make use of this product, and when? They talk about shared resources and needs being met. What about things that aren't exactly needs. Are televisions allowed? If so, would it be required that everyone be provided with a television (of the same model; it wouldn't be fair if one person could have a better television than someone else)? How far does personal property extend? Beyond needs? Beyond clothing and shelter? Only up to a certain standard of quality of clothing and shelter? To luxurious clothing and shelter? To jewelry? Made of silver? Gold? Diamonds? Am I allowed to trade my personal property with another? At what point do we put restrictions on freedom for the sake of equality?

Some people will be unable to contribute, and some people will refuse to contribute a fair share. Let's suppose a massive system is somehow organized such that the remaining people who are willing and able to contribute do and it's only necessary that each of them put in "a few hours a week" to supply all the needs of the people of the world. Naturally they would be free to spend their leisure time as they choose. Indeed, they weren't required to participate in the need-producing system anyway. I would imagine that people would want to spend their leisure time pursuing such activities as painting, writing, creating music, studying mathematics and sciences, and inventing new ways to make need-producing more efficient. All of these activities require resources that are owned by the people. There will surely be disagreements as to what activites are beneficial or harmless, and which are destructive or wasteful of resources. How will these disagreements be settled, on a case-by-case basis?

What if I am able to, in my leisure time, create a certain product (out of public resources) that others might desire to use. Suppose a large number of people would like to make use of this product. Supposing that these products are, by default, public property after I have created them, not everyone will get an opportunity to benefit from my product. I can only create so many. And I have no motivation to create anything if I myself cannot benefit from my product. Furthermore, individuals would naturally ask me to create more so that they can benefit from this product. Suppose I make an arrangement with individuals that they create some product or provide some service in return? They do something for me in exchange for my service in creating a product. Surely this type of behavior must be prevented, because this creates a market for my service, and markets are antithetical to socialism. Before you know it, people will be rampantly exchanging services. Since most physical things are joint-owned by the people, let's assume that most of these markets are for various services, rather than goods. As demand for certain services increases, the people providing them will start keeping record of what others owe them. Some will start requiring that items of personal property be left as a deposit, to be returned when their half of the agreement is fulfilled. This will lead to exchanges of IOUs and of personal property. This will allow some people to accumulate more IOUs and personal possessions than others. In order to preserve socialism, such behavior must not be allowed. Rules preventing this type of behavior must be established and enforced. Enforced by whom? Enforced how? Enforcing such laws has the effect of stifling creativity, ingenuity, motivation, organization, and production. Surely you do not wish to prevent people from creating useful things, or providing useful services. The alternative is to prevent people from exchanging them, from making agreements that don't involve the entire population. Likely, the only way to succeed at that would be to establish some way of monitoring people's behavior. Who would do the monitoring? Who would punish violators? Who watches the watchers?

All of these difficult questions raised are related to the issue of distribution and ownership. People naturally come to the realization that exchanging with their neighbor benefits both parties. Thus a market economy can only be prevented by force. This seems to indicate that it emerges from human nature. Furthermore, a market economy provides an answer to the questions raised by socialism. It is a scheme for determining the distribution of resources. This idea of socialism provides no solution for determining such a distribution. It leaves all of these questions unanswered. It will necessitate the establishment of rules, restricting the use of resources, to make things fair and equal for everyone. Such rules reduce production, ambition, motivation of the society. Rules that enforce equality for everyone, limit everyone's liberty. This would seem to indicate that socialism and capitalism are not equal ideas where we merely need to select one or the other.

[Dec 11, 2005] The heart of worship

The common usage of the song "The Heart of Worship", written by Matt Redman, bothers me. The first time I ever heard the song (on Sonic Flood's first album - great album by the way) I thought it was a very good song, and I still think so. It is a song of repentance for treating worship of the Living God lightly or treating music itself as an idol. However, when I heard the song first sung in a corporate worship setting, it really surprised me. It seemed quite odd to me for the leaders to be having us corporately sing this song about repenting for something so specific. Not that I'm opposed to such a thing but it seems to me that it would take place only when the leaders discern that the assembly has a habitual problem and needs to be led back on the right path. Then it would seem appropriate for the leader to talk through the matter specifically before leading them in singing the song. It does not seem to be a song that should just be sung every week with no discussion or explanation from the church leaders. It seems as odd to me as if we were to sing together a song about "I'm sorry I knocked over that convenience store". It may or may not be the case that everyone needs to repent (or is at a point where they can repent) of that particular sin. Perhaps something like "I'm sorry for lying this last week" might be more likely to apply to everyone, but still it seems that it should be something that is talked about by the leaders beforehand, and is for the purpose of addressing a particular problem. Furthermore, this song is about not just singing these songs on Sunday morning like we're just singing another song. And yet, it seems to me that this song is often sung just like any other song.

[Jul 30, 2005] chapter one

Okay, I read the first chapter. It's themes are about how people tend to just go on with their lives day in and day out and get upset with anything that interferes with their comfortable expectations. People also can tend to blind themselves to what's really there. That reminds me of the Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) field from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. An SEP field can be erected on, or projected around a bizarre and unbelievable scene so that the unconscious minds of the observers instantly abdicate responsibility for its existence, assert that it's "somebody else's problem", and therefore don't perceive it at all. The SEP field requires much less energy than a normal invisibility field (a single flashlight battery can run it for over a hundred years) due to the natural propensity of humans to see things as Somebody Else's Problem. Likewise, many people are sure that the supernatural cannot be there, and thus they do not see it.

Along the same lines is the idea that people too comfortable in their day-in day-out lives have lost much of their imagination. "He hurried to his car and set off for home, hoping he was imagining things, which he had never hoped before, because he didn't approve of imagination." This is one area where children are much better off than grown-ups. I remember when I was little something like a keyring could become a magical ring that would whisk the wearer off to a great and strange country where he would face certain peril and strange sights and would be forced to battle against the forces of evil.

Also, when I was little, I wanted to be a magician when I grew up. I wanted to be like David Copperfield or Harry Blackstone, performing amazing feats to astound those around me. Now, as one who programs video games and graphics on the computer, I believe I have in some sense become a magician. I should perhaps write more about this another time.

[Jul 30, 2005] Harry Potter controversy

So, first of all, all the controversy about the Harry Potter books is due to the witchcraft and wizardry, magic and all that. Now Deuteronomy 18:9-12 says:

9 "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD"

But what about the use of magic in fiction? Tolkien and C. S. Lewis used magic in their fiction. This is perhaps not an easy question to answer. I do think that, if nothing else its use in fiction inspires the imagination, and hopefully reminds us that there is more to this world than meets the eye. Too often many people forget or ignore the supernatural. Eph 6:12:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
[Jul 30, 2005] Harry Potter

So Jeremy really thought I should be reading the Harry Potter books. So he sent me a boxed set with the first 5 books! So I'd better read them. Then I'll be able to give an actual informed opinion about them.

[Jul 30, 2005] topic anyone?

So I need to figure out what this log is about. Perhaps I need a topic or a theme. It certainly needs to be filled with deep thoughts and insights (as you can clearly tell from the preceeding posts). Again, you will have to email me your suggestions.

[Jul 30, 2005] wee-blog anyone?

I get a lot of fan mail wondering why it is that I don't use the term "blog" in my web log. No, actually I just made that up. I haven't yet received any mail from fans of my web log. But it's fun to pretend (more on pretending later). I'll just make up a letter: 

	Dear Joel,
	
		How come you don't use the term "blog" in your web log?	
	
	From
	Suzie Q. 
	Bloonsdale, AZ

Well, Suzie, I don't really know. I guess I just never did like the term "blog." Perhaps it's due to the fact that I knew of LiveJournal long before I had ever heard the term "blog." I just did a little research, and someone wrote that in "April or May of 1999 Peter Merholz coins the term blog after announcing he was going to pronouce web blogs as "wee-blog". This was then shortened to blog." Hmm. That's dumb. I have no idea who Peter Merholz is. LiveJournal was created in March of 1999. Hmm. Important stuff.

I even found an article here that critisizes the use of the term:

Perhaps, most teens (or even aging geeks) don't care whether the jargon they create has lasting linguistic appeal -- indeed, they often want to use terminology that is edgy, offensive or cliquish. But language-lovers and serious users of words should care -- as should those who want the new concepts and tools of technology to be readily accessible to a broad public. There is no good reason to leave a language legacy such as the four-letter word "blog".
[Jul 30, 2005] What's in a name?

All right, I've managed to avoid starting a web log this long, but I've been bugged to start a web log, so here we go. We'll see how long I can keep this up. I'm not promising anything. I may post several times today just to make it look like the web log is interesting and has been around for a while. :P

Anyway, so the first important thing to decide is what the title of my web log should be. This is a very important decision. I was thinking something like 'Joel's Thoughts,' but it needs to be a little more interesting than that, so of course I hit the thesaurus to come up with a more interesting word than thoughts. How about "Joel's Ratiocinations"? I'd never even heard of that word until I saw it in the thesaurus. mmm, that would just leave people scratching their heads, though it is a cool word. Ooo, another good one would be "Joel's Thinkbox," or how about "Joel's Marbles." Perhaps I should let my viewing audience vote, if anyone actually is reading this. The downside of having my web log on my own website is that I don't have it set up to allow people to post comments. Perhaps one day I'll work on adding that functionality. In the meantime, you'll just have to email me to vote, or give me suggestions or comments.