I have just attended a debate between Professors Brad Hooker and David Oderberg at Reading University. The topic of debate was whether or not banker’s pay, high pay in particular, was morally justifiable. I would just like to make a commentary on one proposition which Brad Hooker made that I felt was a little frivolous, in retrospect. Obviously, he is a Professor of Philosophy and I am a mere undergraduate and so I am a little anxious as to make frivolity calls in his direction. Nevertheless, the statement has unsettled me for most of the day and sadly he had to teach a class directly after the debate and so I couldn’t question him personally. That being said, like the internet whore that I am, I would like to blog it!

During the Q & A period of the debate the topic of risk taking came up and Brad Hooker made the proposition that the taking of a risk is not morally unjust. This can be said to be true in the case of a stand alone risk made by an individual where only that individual is implicated by the risk itself. However, I belief he forgot to factor in, as is the case with bankers, that where the risk has a probability for negative implications on surplus individuals it can be said to be morally unjust.

For instance, if I decided to take the risk to jump down a flight of stairs and the probability of a negative impact on my state of personal well being was the only factor to consider, then clearly there is no moral question whatsoever. The decision to do that is mine and mine alone. There is no risk of me hurting any other individual and the only issue in question is my sanity. However, if I gathered together a group of ten individuals and had each one of them pay me ten pounds to jump down the flight of stairs, adding the stipulation that I would divide the money equally between the ones that manage to survive the fall without a scratch, whilst the remaining injured parties would recieve nill and feeding all of the individuals “valid” reasons why the should in fact take the plunge, I think there is questionable morality in taking the said risk.

With that little banking analogy, I would like to close by saying that the debate was unexpectedly engaging. As the first debate of term I was expecting a little more of a simplistic topic, but the current issue of the financial climate was a great way to get things started.

That is all.

Filed under: Like Woah... Interesting..., Philosophical Thought, Reasoning, What Mark\'s Up to by Mark Brewer
2 Comments »

Yesterday afternoon, when I sat down upon my sofa-chair to learn the six-stringed guitar, little did I know what a pleasurable experience it would be. My steep learning curve has not only impressed me, but also God who informs me that it took him roughly six days to reach this level and he had to have a little sit down for the seventh. Slackers, eh?

I seem to have found that slipping between stonking tech metal and hybrid jazz a piece of proverbial piss.

Filed under: Scary Shiz-am!, Techno-mumbo-jumbo, What Mark\'s Up to by Mark Brewer
1 Comment »

Since leading world powers seem to find the idea that we might need to spend a little money on the desalination of water repugnant to their very rectum, I’ve decided to direct you to an article that might help you do it yourself.

Desalination is the process by which you can extract excess salt from sea water and use it for drinking. I think that it’s more than obvious that this might be a requirement at some point within the next fifteen to twenty years, what with all of the environmental problems we seem to have a penchant and overall autoerotic tendency for causing. Even if you don’t feel that it’s necessary to solve the world’s quickly increasing fresh-water crisis, it’s still a fun and easy experiment to whet your hydro-oxygenated dreams with.

THIS LINK here will direct you to an excellent instructional guide on how to extract salt from sea water for both scientifically experimental and survival purposes. Have fun now.

For more information on the advantages of water desalination over more conventional sourcing methods, please view this PDF document that was put together by some official, sack scratching source: CLICK

Filed under: Like Woah... Interesting..., Reasoning, Scary Shiz-am!, Science, Techno-mumbo-jumbo, What Mark\'s Up to by Mark Brewer
No Comments »

Religious apologist: If there is no God, then where do morals come from?

I: Morals are a tool which evolved to facilitate altruism. We’d all be dead by now if people couldn’t behave nicely towards one another.

That is all.

Filed under: Philosophical Thought, Reasoning, The Mind and Suggestibility by Mark Brewer
No Comments »

As Michio Kaku eloquently states, even the most sophisticated computational systems on Earth possess the actual intelligence of a, “…retarded cockroach.”

Research into artificial intelligence has, thus far, yielded poor results. There has been some progress in the field in the last twenty or so years, but no technological leaps that have allowed physicists to predict a time when robots will be as intelligent as humans. This is mainly due to the computer’s inabillity to learn and function in the same way that the human brain does. There is no CPU in the human brain.

However, a new discovery by the lab at Hewlett-Packard HQ could change all of that.

Allow me to redirect you to the NewScientist website for more information:

CLICK HERE

Filed under: Like Woah... Interesting..., Scary Shiz-am!, Science, Techno-mumbo-jumbo by Mark Brewer
2 Comments »

This is not episode two of MindBoxTV. It’s just a little, intermittent video which I made for my own personal amusement. I suppose that defining it as a juvenile rambling is the best critique that I could hope for. It’s not intended to be a reenactment. As you’ll see, my acting skills leave a little too much to be desired for such an accolade.

It literally is just me being an imbecile.

Filed under: Like Woah... Interesting..., Scary Shiz-am!, What Mark\'s Up to by Mark Brewer
1 Comment »

Hopefully the first episode of many.

Filed under: Like Woah... Interesting..., Reasoning, Scary Shiz-am!, What Mark\'s Up to by Mark Brewer
3 Comments »

A world-wide psychological study by Professor Richard Lynn has revealed that religiosity in humans tends to decrease as intelligence-quotient results increase. Critics of the findings have branded the method, “simplistic”. Personally, I find the fact that the test has been kept simple only lends to its power. The unencumbered experiment yields a distinctly vivid result.

The experiment has shown, in general terms, that there is a clear link between public intelligence and belief in the divine. Whilst this does serve to prove that intelligent folk may simply have too much time to think things over and come to the wrong conclusion, it also gives them all a darned good excuse at the pearly gates!

Imagine:

God: Oh, non believer, why hast thou forsaken me?
Atheist: You made me too intelligent. I could never have believed in you if I’d wanted to.
God: *Little tear*

If you are interested in perusing the scientific findings at your leisure then you may view the graph here:

IQ vs. Religiosity Graph

Filed under: Funny Stuffs, Like Woah... Interesting..., Science, Supernatural? by Mark Brewer
2 Comments »

We all know (or should by now) that the practice of homeopathy is a psuedo-science. However, with indoctrinating mantras such as, “Your homeopath understands,” and defiant slogans like, “Homeopathy worked for me!” the industry still continues to convert people searching for an “alternative” health care programme.  Homeopaths are paid on a private basis to practice a crude form of counseling on their patients. This method of simply sitting, listening for an hour or so and then plugging the customer with a large bill for ineffective “treatments” seems to appeal to certain people more than actual medicine. In fact, it is in stark contrast to scientific medical schemes such as the NHS who have a completely different perogative altogether. Perhaps it is this fact that makes the practice of homeopathy so apparently addictive to customers.

Though if you are concerned with what’s true in life, as I am, rather than simply choosing to subscribe to comforting lies you might find this sort of faux medical treatment slightly disturbing. So if you are a user of homeopathy and looking to break out of your current predicament, I have prepared a list of seven alternatives to their method which don’t make use of blatant falsehoods as fundamental building blocks.

Number 1:  Find yourself a friend
If it’s the aural aspect of homeopathy that appeals to you the most, I would ask if you have simply ever considered the free alternative of talking to a close friend. They tend to listen and give you an opinion back. They’re quite wonderful; one of my better inventions, I must say. However, if you prefer to discuss your innermost fears with complete strangers to alleviate a whole host of emotional pressures and obligations, the next option might be for you.

Number 2: Talk to a hobo
Hobo’s are slightly more expensive than friends. They do require the occasional tip of loose change or a sip of that whiskey from your brown paper bag, but they remain effective nonetheless. They will also give you a rather interesting alternative world view, as with the homeopath, if you book your appointment for the early hours of the morning. Although, if you prefer the more silent approach keep on reading.

Number 3: Talk to an animal e.g. a cat
Cats are wonderfully low-maintainence. They don’t talk much but they’re perfectly able to listen. They’re approximately as effective as a homeopath and I’ve read somewhere that if you share a saucer of milk with them, under the light of a full moon, they’re quite likely to do a little liquid number on your pillowcase (which is a wonderful remedy for earache).

Number 4: Talk to the ‘invisible people’
If you subscribe to homeopathy then the chances are that you can already hear them. Just have a natter back. Go on, it’s dead fun. Give yourself a tickle.

Number 5: Poke pennies up your bottom… Then talk to the tree in your garden
Don’t ask me why. It’s just about as effective as the treatments.

Number 6: Draw a face on a football, call it Wilson and prop it on a stick
What?! It worked for Tom Hanks in Cast Away.

Number 7: Talk to the Flying Spaghetti Monster
He does exist, trust me. I have this really old book that was compiled by forty different authors, around 100 years after all events pertaining to him took place. Since then it’s been revised and retranslated around seventy million times but the essence of the account is still there. It’s just those pesky scientists who keep disproving the historical validity of the accounts in the text that don’t believe. Who cares? They’re going to the simmering furnace in the center of the universe anyway.

Filed under: Funny Stuffs, Like Woah... Interesting..., Science, The Mind and Suggestibility, What Mark\'s Up to by Mark Brewer
2 Comments »

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” – Aristotle

Sadly, the postmodern era has given rise to a dangerous idea. Dangerous in the sense that it is in idea in disguise. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, waiting to pounce. It is, you realise after a few glances, a despicable notion. It is one that can have quite terrifying implications and yet dresses itself as a sweetly innocent and fair concept, drawn up with bows ribbons.  Some might even be blind enough to praise it as a virtue in these modern times. I am speaking, of course, of the idea that everyone’s opinion holds equal merit.

This idea is appealing to the postmodernist and can be preached from that perspective with a kind of justice, but that justice is misplaced. In practicality the idea breaks down instantly. Like most examples of bad thinking, this one derives from a common misconception. People usually make some sort of salient connection between an individual’s opinions and their character value. The perception is that if someone makes commentary on a person’s opinion or beliefs, they are also making a commentary about that person themselves. This is not the case. Opinions are transient and can be altered by many factors, including the acquisition of knowledge. Using the learning process, opinions can gradually be proven fact (or at least, as close to a fact as humanly possible). In fact, if our opinions didn’t change during the course of our lifetime, or even daily lives for that matter, living and progressing in linear time would be made impossible.

Opinions are not facts. Wittgenstein defined facts as states of affairs within the model of reality. Facts are truths about our picture of the world. Facts are that which is. Opinions are can be described as subjective statements made about those facts. There is a great distinction. We as humans also have an odd tendency, due to our powers of imagination, to use opinions as a substitute for facts where knowledge of the said fact is nil. For example, when people encounter a phenomena that they cannot logically explain they tend to dub it a “paranormal” experience. However, terms like “supernatural” and “paranormal”are, in themselves, paradoxes.

Think about it for a second. Words and ideas like “reality” and “nature” are directly describing what is true about existence. Something either does or does not exist in reality. Reality means what truly is. Therefore, to introduce a term like “supernatural” means nothing, because once you have discovered a fact about the natural world then it is obviously part of that reality. Nothing can exist outside of reality because reality is, by definition, everything that exists. The purpose of science is to discover that which is real so that we might have a better understanding of the way in which existence works. If some tangible evidence was discovered tomorrow that ghosts and goblins existed then they would become part of reality and could be explained by scientific means. It would be accepted that they have always been part of reality. However, since we can’t seem to find any real evidence for this kind of phenomena, besides personal and subjective testimony, they remain consigned to the category of “non-existent” and will do so until proven otherwise.

Likewise, if far in the future we were to discover that some higher dimensional space existed outside of our own universe (which, by the way is right on the frontier of contemporary physics) it would then become part of our understanding of reality and would be accepted as a natural part of existence. Until then, theories such as Superstring Theory will remain within the realms of scientific opinion rather than fact. I hardly need to mention that up until incredibly recently in human history, we were ready to believe that the Earth was a flat surface and created laws prohibiting sea captains to sail their crews too far into the horizon under threat of death, for the fear of plumeting off its edge. However, with the benefits of modern science we can now casually verify, in everyday conversation, with incredible conviction and accuracy that the Earth is, along with most other heavenly bodies, a globe.  Not to mention the fact that a select number of us have actually seen the globe from outside of Earth’s atmosphere and photographed it.

This is a perfect example of how learning from a massive convergence of evidence can help to substantiate the truth of our world model. This is the only aim of science. It is not, as “alternative thinkers” would have you believe, to sit in its rocking chair, smoking its pipe blissfully whilst sarcastically making a mockery of every piece of black magic, voodoo hogwash that scuttles across its highly vacuumed Persian rug.

The comedian Dara O’Briain phrased this next paragraph better than I ever could, but I will try all the same. Pedallers of “hollistic”, “homeopathic”, or “nutritionalistic” remedies would screech to the hilltops the value of herbal remedies and their healing properties. Scientists would counter that they spend a great deal of time scouring the world for those herbal and naturally occurring chemical compounds that work and turning them into what we know as medicine. During that process they also spend a great deal of time testing  and double testing things that might work so that there can be no real argument.

It is with these maxims and this frame of thought in place that we must pass judgment on individual’s opinions.  It is, quite frankly, ridiculous that the opinionated belief systems that drive multimillion dollar industries such as homeopathy or psychic-mediumship run unchecked whilst science with its massive convergence of evidence and research remain criticised. People even choose to believe those blatant falsehoods over what is real, substantiated and proven. This is proven and propagated time and time again by media corporations and our government who shout that we must not disagree with our fellow’s opinion or belief system in public discourse. It’s not even enough that we have to respect their belief system any longer. We literally cannot voice an opposing opinion and contend that someone is talking rubbish anymore in the name of political correctness.

Examples of this can be found literally every day on BBC programming. It seems to have opted to produce a “junk-food” style of public debate, centered on equality of opinion, rather than focusing on delivering informative facts to people and allowing them to come to the best possible decision based on them. This in itself feeds bad thinking. If people are allowed into an intellectual discourse, before reviewing any real fact-based material, believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old as creationists do then the whole concept of being informed and intelligent is thrown out of the window.

I simply ask the question of why? I have absolutely no problem with respecting an individual’s privacy, relationships, personal choices or any of the things that make them who they are, but this is different from actually being made to respect the content of their subjective opinion. I don’t even mind respecting the fact that they hold the opinion. It’s the content that should be allowed to be brought into contention.

For instance, I am a Manchester United fan and it happens to be my opinion that they are a good team. The statistical data over the past 20-25 years also swings to support that hypothesis. However, I am constantly criticised by friends and peers who inform me that they are a terrible team to support and that I am a moron of the highest order. I have no problem with that. There is no problem with that whatsoever. They are criticising the content of my subjective opinion. My opinion about Manchester United is not based on a vast array of supporting evidence. I simply like them. When asked why I like them I can’t really come up with any satisfactory argument. Neither could any other fan of sport. Some might support their local team because they were born in the general area, but they have no real ties with the club anymore than they have real ties with the geographical area. All reasoning behind sport-based opinion making is generated by a sense of pride within the individual fans themselves.

So the name-callers are not trying to lie to me, criticise me as a human being or trying to alter my perception of what is true in any way. In reality, Manchester United re no better than a lot of other teams in the Premier League.

This sort of opinion, about football, is clearly not equal to that of a medical practitioner who tells me that, through the convergence of evidence including my personal testimony, objective blood testing and some cardiovascular monitoring, they have concluded I have a viral infection. Nor is the unfounded opinion that a mashed toad will cure my headache equal to the conclusion that each living human has 23 pairs of chromosomes, one pair from each parent, based on genetic evidence. Understanding this principle is essential to formulating opinions that hold merit and real-world application. The opinions of those rancid individuals who remain in denial of the holocaust do not hold equal value to those who believe it did certainly happen based on the massive amount o f evidence which proves that it did.

Everyone has the right to their own subjective opinion and we must completely respect that. That is the purpose behind the concept of opinions. However, as we have seen, this does not make them equally valuable by default in the realms of intellectual discourse and real-world application. Therefore we do not, or should not, be made to respect the content of those opinions or belief systems in the name of a false sense of balance. No individual on this planet is better than anyone else, but that is not to say that their view point is equally valid.

People can be wrong and that is one of the wonders of progression.

So if you come to me with any of this mumbo jumbo… Take a deep breath and then remove the silly dunder-thoughts from your brain-capsule. Then stick them up your toffee-bott.

Filed under: Philosophical Thought, Reasoning, Scary Shiz-am!, Science, The Mind and Suggestibility by Mark Brewer
No Comments »