1. FrayVader - May 19, 1998 - 9:33 PM PDT
Herb Stein believes that the scenario painted by Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World" was seriously off the mark. He presents his case in Braver New World in Slate.
Others think Huxley was quite accurate in his predictions. Look at the world today: test tube babies, cloning, popular drugs such as Prozac and Viagra, information controlled by the media, mega-mergergers of mammoth corporations. Is this what Huxley was trying to tell us about, or is Stein right?
2. CharlieL - May 19, 1998 - 9:40 PM PDT
Are mega-mergergers the latest big sandwiches from Burger King?
3. Raskolnikov - May 19, 1998 - 10:35 PM PDT
Stein's standard is too high. Brave New World is on the mark in so many areas, I'll forgive Huxley for some major inaccuracies elsewhere.
4. KurtMondaugen - May 19, 1998 - 11:09 PM PDT
FWIW, in my record collection sits Laura (wife of Aldous) Huxley's "Recipes for Living and Loving" LP on Columbia Records, w/ liner notes by Christopher Isherwood (of all people) and Aldous Huxley. The record is, well, pretty obnoxious...featuring spoken word "Rainbow Walks" and an encounter with your given "Favorite Flower"...Laura recommends "Dancing naked with music, jumping into the Other's place, cultivating today the neurosis of tomorrow, attending your own funeral, and (my favorite) bubble freedom". To which Aldous claims, "These recipes work! I have tried some of them on myself and have found them remarkably effective". All in all, this thing is an exercise in silliness, as I've always thought Huxley's work to be (of course, I've never actually read any of it, I'm just going on his lava-lamp reputation). If anyone wants a dubbed copy of Laura Huxley's "Recipes for Living and Loving", send me postage through FrayVader. Upon hearing it, you just might find that Stein is legitimately making much ado about nothing much really in particular, per se.
5. joezan - May 20, 1998 - 12:42 AM PDT
Kurt:
Do ya think Huxley's mom called him 'Al'?
6. CharlieL - May 20, 1998 - 5:36 AM PDT
I think she called him "Doozy." It fits.
7. bubbaette - May 20, 1998 - 6:10 AM PDT
Is Prozac our Soma?
8. AdamSelene - May 20, 1998 - 6:23 AM PDT
Stein confuses mechanism with result. Huxley's mechanisms were way off, but not his anticipated results. It's not government controlling the media, it's simple economic incentives. We're not controlled to keep us fat, happy, and un-pregnant, we're controlled to keep us productive and consumptive. And no need to close all the safety valves - let the malcontents have their way. It keeps everyone else feeling free while they increase their work hours - and consumption - every year.
Also, Stein gives advertising way to little credit for our buying patterns. No, tv doesn't make us buy cars. It makes us buy Beemers.
9. AdamSelene - May 20, 1998 - 6:45 AM PDT
One other point - Al had it right in the trend towards mega-corporations. Just look at the huge increase in anti-trust breakups. Diversification notwithstanding, with modern production techniques it's just as easy, if not easier, for a single company to provide individualized products for the masses as it is for a bunch of Mom & Pop startups. And let's not forget economy of scale and network coordination. How many different cars can you buy from GM? And when you add in alternate engine and option configurations... not to mention colors and fabrics.
However, one aspect of mega-corporations Huxley predicted - robotic-behaving workers - was way off. Intrepreneurial spirit, anyone?
10. Raskolnikov - May 20, 1998 - 8:11 AM PDT
Also, I do plan on naming my kid after Henry Ford, so Huxley was dead on there too.
11. Sasquatch - May 20, 1998 - 8:20 AM PDT
Robotic behavior by humans was not "way off". Entrepreneurs are a very rare breed in The United States Of America today. While the fact is the most common employer is the "small business", those businesses are seldom more than small versions of corporations started by the disgruntled or the humans who possess little to no business sense. A human who owns a business does not necessarily have the entrepreneurial spirit. Of those humans who work for corporations, the work is becoming increasing more mundane and "robotic" except perhaps for developers or other high skill jobs as has always been the case.
One other point, Mr. Stein is woefully incorrect with the "So, if we say that we are free, how can we prove that we have not been programmed to say that by a Master who is manipulating us into thinking that? … There is, however, an answer to that. … As long as Brave New World is shown on television we will know we are not in it." statements. Depending on television to tell humans that all is right is precisely the warning of the book. Obviously, the "masters" will change the system of control than what was in a piece of fiction. Thus, no guarantees for humans can ever be offered. Humans must be ever aware of the impending doom that may await around the next corner that humankind may decide to take.
12. AdamSelene - May 20, 1998 - 8:29 AM PDT
Sasque,
Having worked in all kinds of enviroments, from steel mills to the defense industry to custom software consulting, I have to disagree that workers are becoming more robotic. Perhaps you're using a different yardstick than I am, but I know of few jobs where the workers don't have a little (or a lot) more control over how they do their jobs.
Of course, since the plural of anecdotes is not data (to quote, I think it was Slackjaw), I may be wrong.
As to "perceived" freedom vs the real kind... it all depends on how you define it. If freedom is defined (as I do) as simply non-coercion, then there is no difference betwee advertiser-media control and government-media control.
13. Blaise - May 20, 1998 - 8:34 AM PDT
I assign Brave New World Revisited to my philosophy students. I've asked them to examine their own interests and whether it fits the Brave New World image. I think it does. Consider Huxley's observation that the "young people, the voters of tomorrow, have no faith in democratic institutions, see no objection to the censorship of unpopular ideas, do not belive that government of the people by the people is possible and would be perfectly content, if they can continue to live in the style to which the boom has accustomed them, to be ruled, from above by an oligarchy of assorted experts. That so many of the well-fed young television-watchers in the world's most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising."
How many of my students have registered to vote? 5 out of 40. And 8 out of 35 in the second class.
The thing is they are not apathetic for political reasons. It's not as if they did their homework and have chosen not to vote as a means of protest. They simply don't care. And they are too lazy to care. Huxley writes of them, "The cry of Give me television and hamburgers, but don't bother me with the responsibilities of liberty," rings true from what I've observed.
14. DocBrown - May 20, 1998 - 8:36 AM PDT
I think Stein is way off in his interpretation of Huxley's message. Brave New World did not describe a dictatorship. It provided a world with a small, passive, benevolent government that honestly tried to serve its people the best way it could.
Stein's makes a leap when he says that the people in the Brave New World were not free. Can someone explain how the characters in the book are less free than you and I are?
When they took soma it was always voluntary, like when you or I indulge in alcohol or cigarettes. In fact a prescription from a doctor is a much more authorative order for mind altering medication than anything in Brave New World (except the soma gas used to prevent riots).
The citizens in Brave New World lived without crime or war, and they could travel unrestricted anywhere in the world. No one had to be homeless or poor.
15. AdamSelene - May 20, 1998 - 8:38 AM PDT
Blaise,
How tragic. Without the responsibilities of liberty, liberty itself is impossible. I keep having to reevaluate my estimate of the America's expected lifespan as the leader of the free world. This datum lowered it again by about 10%.
16. AdamSelene - May 20, 1998 - 8:40 AM PDT
Doc,
Then you are in disagreement with Huxley himself. He certainly didn't intend BNW to be a paradise, but a nice, safe playground with no meaning and with no growing up allowed. Sound inviting?
17. Raskolnikov - May 20, 1998 - 8:52 AM PDT
Well, complaints about the apathy of young people are as old Confucious. Remember that Huxley's "give me hamburgers" crowd went on to be the Vietnam War protest generation.
18. DocBrown - May 20, 1998 - 8:53 AM PDT
Stein does make a good point about information technology. Thanks to computers and robotics, there is no need for the stratified society Huxley presented. With intelligent machines to do the work, it would be possible to build a Brave New World populated by 100% Alpha double plusses.
Given that change in the scenario, Stein's argument that the Brave New World's citizens were prevented from higher aspirations loses its usefulness. The anti-intellectualism among the Alpha double plusses was to help keep them satisfied with their work. If machines free them from work they can seek satisfaction through recreation, intellectualism, or any other benevolent means they choose.
What would be so bad about that?
In Brave New World, everyone was happy for a simple reason. They had been taught from birth what things should make them happy, and society provided those things in abundance. Seems like a win-win deal for everyone.
Because the human brain is a cause-and-effect machine, we take pleasure from the things that we learn are pleasureable. I learned to love sports cars from watching Speed Racer cartoons as a kid, but that doesn't make the pleasure any less real.
What is wrong with taking pleasure in things that are abundant?
19. DocBrown - May 20, 1998 - 9:03 AM PDT
AdamSelene, I do not consider Brave New World to be a paradise, but in many ways I prefer it to our present society! If you remove the stratified elitism and anti-intellectualism Brave New World still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than the chaos we have.
The place I disagree most deeply with Huxley is on his intention of the book as a cautionary tale. I am quite convinced that certain aspects of Brave New World (mental conditioning of the citizens, planned population control, etc.) are *unavoidable* if the human race is to survive beyond the next few centuries.
20. Blaise - May 20, 1998 - 9:57 AM PDT
Adam: I know, and what I find interesting is that my foreign students (first generation) don't take their liberties for granted.
#17 Raskolnikov: yes, but it took a war to get them to think and examine and question which is exactly Huxley's point. They don't "think and question" unless they're compelled to do so; and this holds true as far as their studies in college are concerned. It seems to me that one would expect College students to be more actively involved and interested in politics, given the fact that they're being introduced to the history of revolutionary/philosophical ideas. But College is merely a factory for this generation, a means to an end and the "end," the goal is to score a job at Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, or any Corporation that pays well enough to provide them with the Brave New World lifestyle. Funding for the Arts and Liberal Studies are at an all time low.
Complacent happiness is precisely what defines the American Dream and it turns on the wheels of capitalism. Let's face it: if people didn't believe in the Big Lie that the materialistic life is worth living and is what defines the Happy Life, no one would know what to do with themselves--and certainly anarchy would follow. So it's a good thing that the masses don't know that it's a lie--that they fully believe the materialistic life is the happy life. But does it have anything to do with the meaning of freedom? No, of course not. And even if men were given all the political and social freedoms they could possibly conceive, they would still be enslaved. As Doris Lessing put it, "The Prisons We Choose To Live Inside."
21. ChristiPeters - May 20, 1998 - 10:56 AM PDT
Hmmm... Apathetic voters. I've seen them come in all varieties. I, too noticed a difference in the college students I was part of when I went to college the first time in 1971 and the students I was with when I went to college again in 1989. However, neither set was a homogenous crowd. I was intrigued by what I perceived as disinterest in gov't and the "power of the vote" among my fellow students my latest time in school. So I asked questions. Some young (and older) people said things which could be condensed as "no matter who is elected, the greatest influence on them after the election is not a broad constituency of voters at home, but the lobbiest with the most money and who makes the most noise at the capitol." The response or plan of action to that judgement varied. Some said "so I'm not going to bother to vote", but some said "so I'm going to contribute to the PAC that is pushing MY agenda", or even "so I'm going to start my own PAC". Others were unhappy with the candidates presented by the main political parties "I don't like any of those crooks!" Again, the reaction to this perception varied from, "since there is no one I can in good conscience vote FOR, I'm not voting at all", to "so I'm joining party X", to once I'm thru school, "I'm forming my own independent party". There were a lot of other reasons to vote or not vote, but those seemed to be the most "popular". Personally, in my entire adult voting life, there has never been a presidental candidate I felt like voting FOR. However, I've always voted - choosing the bad candidate that I felt was less bad than the other guy.
22. ChristiPeters - May 20, 1998 - 11:00 AM PDT
Hmmm ... Happiness. I think it's over-rated, but I don't critisize any one for wanting to be happy or finding happiness in things. Whatever floats your boat. Well, almost whatever - if what floats your baot sinks mine, then I'll object. I don't think the problem is wanting happiness, but failing to take responsibility for that want. The problem is thinking it is someone else's job to provide that happiness to you. So, if you're not happy, it is society's fault, or gov't's fault, or your mother's fault, or ... well, you get the point. (I hope)
23. DocBrown - May 20, 1998 - 11:14 AM PDT
Blaise said:
>But College is merely a factory for this generation,
> a means to an end and the "end," the goal is to
> score a job at Hewlett Packard, Microsoft,
> or any Corporation that pays well enough to
> provide them with the Brave New World lifestyle.
> Funding for the Arts and Liberal Studies
> are at an all time low.
Good. All the people who score the big jobs at Microsoft can study liberal arts, paying their own way, after they retire. We will never be in danger of running out of artists because people enjoy producing arts.
> Let's face it: if people didn't believe in the Big Lie
> that the materialistic life is worth living and is
> what defines the Happy Life, no one would know what
> to do with themselves--and certainly anarchy would
> follow.
I am confused. It seems pretty obvious that you are attacking materialism when you call it the Big Lie. But if the alternative is anarchy, wouldn't you rather have the Biggest Lie I can possibly make up?
Could you please explain how material happiness is a Big Lie? As I said above: just because I have been conditioned to enjoy something doesn't make the pleasure I derive from it any less real.
24. ChristiPeters - May 20, 1998 - 11:53 AM PDT
I think the only people who think materialism is a "Big Lie" have never suffered serious want. Believe me, once you have spent significant amounts of time in constant fear because you do not have a home and therefore no doors to lock to keep the baddies away and have been hungry long enough that that it no longer hurts, but it's hard to get up because there's not enough energy to do so without falling down again ... well, materialism looks pretty good! It is a lot easier to be happy when your basic needs are not only met, but when you have a little comfort room. (Yes, I AM speaking from personal experience and I'm now materialistic as he** because I'm terrified of going there again.)
25. joezan - May 20, 1998 - 2:34 PM PDT
I believe the reason young people seem so apathetic is, "What in the world is there to get so excited about?"
In the post-modern world, what is there to take a stand for?
What is "right", when nothing is "wrong"?
26. Blaise - May 20, 1998 - 4:08 PM PDT
Christi:
Yes, I have heard all the same explanations and excuses. The one that seems to dominate among this group of students is "Why should I bother voting when it won't make a bit of difference." I have argued in response that there are candidates and politicians who stand for certain policies. For example, we know where the Republicans stand on protecting the environment, whereas, the Democrats at least try to make an attempt to establish regulations that prevent industies from polluting the air and water. We know, for example, that the Clinton administration has cleaned up over 300 toxic dump sites and that there are quite a number of rivers and lakes that have been "cleaned up," from toxic chemicals since Clinton has taken office. That is only one example that proves that voting can and does make a difference.
On materialism: Sure, I'm not opposed to having the pleasures of materialism. Lord knows what I'd do without my dishwasher, but when I open the dishwasher and turn it on or when I get inside my truck, I don't say, Now *here's* the meaning of life! My soul is transformed by these things! The truth is these things are temporary pleasures or conveniences, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of life or happiness. ie Happiness as in: philosophical or spiritual fulfillment. Capitalism functions on promoting the Lie that the Golden Cow is our God and our religion.
DocBrown: As I just said, I think that people need to re-evaluate the question. Capitalism/Materialism provides our society with an "object of life," but what the masses haven't come to realize is that "materialistic lifestyle," is the very thing that keeps them enslaved to the system. I suppose if we had to operate under any one political & economic "ism" that capitalism is better than many of the other options, but excess is our doom and it is what keeps the masses out of trouble but it is also
27. Blaise - May 20, 1998 - 4:08 PM PDT
I suppose if we had to operate under any one political & economic "ism" that capitalism is better than many of the other options, but excess is our doom and it is what keeps the masses out of trouble but it is also what keeps them enslaved. Slate has a review on this subject: an economist's recommendation: that if we wish to enhance the quality of our lives, then we ought to try to live more simply: "all things in moderation."
28. Raskolnikov - May 20, 1998 - 6:53 PM PDT
My rallying cry has always been "All things in moderation, including moderation". You mustn't overdo it.
29. Blaise - May 20, 1998 - 8:19 PM PDT
ha -- I got on a writing spree today, Raskolnikov.
30. DocBrown - May 21, 1998 - 7:48 AM PDT
Blaise said:
> . . . what the masses haven't come
> to realize is that "materialistic
> lifestyle," is the very thing that
> keeps them enslaved to the system.
Could you explain how this works? You might want to include your definition of the word "enslave."
> The truth is these things are temporary
> pleasures or conveniences, but they have
> nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning
> of life or happiness. ie Happiness as in:
> philosophical or spiritual fulfillment.
What the heck is "spiritual fulfillment" and how do I obtain it? The truth is that LIFE ITSELF is a temporary convenience. Humans know how to acquire material possessions and we are very good at it. If I am going to devote myself to some goal, I want to be sure that goal is attainable. I know for certain that I can acquire material goodies, but I am not so sure of "spiritual fulfillment."
31. Blaise - May 21, 1998 - 8:40 AM PDT
DocBrown:
*Could you explain how this works? You might want to include your definition of the word "enslave."*
enslaved=in debt=more work=more stress=less time for living life.
*What the heck is "spiritual fulfillment" and how do I obtain it?*
Well, DocBrown, I don't quite know yet, but I'm working on it. I believe it has something to do with the search for meaning and the search for the eternal.
*The truth is that LIFE ITSELF is a temporary convenience.*
I disagree. When I am working on a poem, or listening to Bach, or when I simply step out into the morning air and feel the cold sun through the leaves, I do not think of these temporal moments as a "convenience." Such ordinary moments are often overlooked by the average materialistic guy or girl, but for me, they are fulfilling. Certainly, complete and lasting fulfillment cannot be attained in the world of time and space, but if we stop chasing the illusions and slow down a bit, we are given a chance to experience the familiar in an unfamiliar way, or as Wordsworth put it, "Spots of time."
*Humans know how to acquire material possessions and we are very good at it. If I am going to devote myself to some goal, I want to be sure that goal is attainable. I know for certain that I can acquire material goodies, but I am not so sure of "spiritual fulfillment."*
Materialism may be the obtainable goal, but has it made men better? Has it made men more content? I suspect that the so-called comforts and conveniences of modern life are often of superficial value, and the price we pay for them is high. Perhaps the rich and the most materialistic kind of people suffer the most from a great emptiness, anxiety, and nothingness. The idea that materialism can fulfill the void in people's lives has led to the makings of an empty and dehumanized *brave new* world.
32. ChristiPeters - May 21, 1998 - 9:46 AM PDT
Blaise - I'm sure you HAVE heard all the same "excuses", but did you totally skip the part of my post saying that some of these people ARE deciding to do things to try and change the world, they're just doing or planning on doing things other than voting? Myself, I disagree with them to the extent that I would vote AND do the things they are talking about if I shared their views. I disagree with their methods, but don't judge them as apathetic individuals because of that. I really object to the judgemental characterization of a generation as uncaring because they are not expressing their concerns the way YOU would. There have been and will continue to be apathetic individuals and activist individuals in every generation.
On materialism, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I tend to agree that senselessly devoting yourself to ever bigger or ever more things to the extent that it consumes your life is usually a bad thing. On the other hand, it's really hard to think about philosophy and spiritual fullfillment if your basic needs are not met. I found that once I had my basic needs of food shelter and clothing met, that a sense of security was also a pretty basic need. I am doing my level best to make sure that if I once again lose not only my job but the the ability to perform that type of job and have to, once again, start all over, that I will have the means to do so without extreme want. OTOH, if I became suddenly wealthy tomorrow (powerball?*g*) I would not want a larger house or fancier car because I have learned how little I need to survive and how important other less tangible things can be.
33. ChristiPeters - May 21, 1998 - 10:06 AM PDT
Bye now! I'm off to take a long weekend vacation. I look forward to continuing this discussion when I get back. :o)
34. FreetoChoose - May 21, 1998 - 10:53 AM PDT
Blaise
"enslaved=in debt=more work=more stress=less time for living life."
You are suggesting that living life is mutually exclusive from working. How sad. I feel sorry for people that feel that way.
35. AdamSelene - May 21, 1998 - 11:35 AM PDT
Good point, FTC.
Reminds me of the bible story about the man Jesus found working on the Sabbath. Sometimes work is work, and sometimes it's something else entirely.
36. TortoiseHop - May 21, 1998 - 12:41 PM PDT
Blaise is right: >>The idea that materialism can fulfill the void in people's lives has led to the makings of an empty and dehumanized *brave new world*.
I believe the modernist view of vacuous materialism has devastated the thinking of writers such as Aldous Huxley, H.G. Wells, Albert Camus and most others. It originated in the 17th century with the rise of scientific thought and reached its peak during the past fifty years.
In Brave New World Huxley was looking at the reductio ad absurdum of “scientific” philosophy and technology. He himself clung to *The Perennial Philosophy,* a mix of Eastern and mystical thought that's been around forever it seems. It offers no particular deity, but affirms the existence of a spiritual realm that transcends material events.
I think the perennial philosophy, plus some form of continuation after death, however dilute, can transform the wasteland of modern life. It means a rejection of scientism, and an embrace of the high promise of spirituality that many people find in the best of real science, quantum mechanics and relativity physics especially. See Roger Penrose's books: The Emperor's new Mind, Shadows of the Mind and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. I suggest this is the direction our thinking needs to take if we are to escape from the Brave New Worlds of scientific materialism.
37. AdamSelene - May 21, 1998 - 12:47 PM PDT
Penrose is a mystic. He's still searching for his humunculus, he's just looking in microtubules and quantum gaps. Once that's gone, he (and his kind) will find something else we don't understand and claim that that's where "we" really exist.
38. TortoiseHop - May 21, 1998 - 1:01 PM PDT
Don't agree that Penrose is a mystic. In my view mysticism asserts the existence of a disconnected supernatural realm that defies all experiment and reason. Penrose's hypotheses are scientific in the best sense: they suggest experiments by which they will stand or fall. It's the thinking of materialist mystics like Daniel Dennett and Marvin Minsky who cling to incoherent and unbelievable models of mind.
39. Blaise - May 21, 1998 - 2:04 PM PDT
TortoiseHop:
Well said and thanks for the recommendations. Unfortunately people impose a sort of New Age association with the word, Mysticism. The fact is--Speculative Mysticism holds a significant place in the history of philosophy. Consider for example, Eckhart, Tauler, Suso, Ruysbroeck, not to mention the Platonic mystics like Plotinus.
Christi: I have no problem with people voting for any principle or anyone they happen to prefer. There are always exceptions, of course. I'm not arguing that *all* College students are disinterested in voting or changing things.
FreeToChoose: Let's face facts: a very small percentage of people hate what they're doing--but they do it in order to _keep up with Jones'._ I feel very grateful to be doing something I love, but most people haven't a moment of silence in the entire 24 hour day. Why do you think the Self-Help books are flying off the shelves these days? I also think that parents set the example for their children: If they illustrate that respect is dependent upon how much one owns or economic status, then they are sadly contributing to the widespread neurosis that is clearly evident in our society. It is also wrong to judge people by what they do. I'm reminded of Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge; the coalminer, for example, who offered the Upanishads to Larry.
40. AdamSelene - May 21, 1998 - 5:44 PM PDT
Tortoise (and Blaise?),
I couldn't disagree more. Dennett attempts to debunk mystical explanations with reductionist sufficiency demonstrations - and to illustrate fallacies in the folk-psychology explanations of consiousness. Penrose attempts to use proofs of computational theory to show that computational models are not sufficient explanations of consiousness. Penrose debunks strawmen *current* models and postulates that therefore *no* materialistic models will work. Dennett debunks mystical models (very thoroughly) and postulates that materialistic models are possible.
Give me the one arguing that something is possible over the one arguing that it is impossible every time.
41. AdamSelene - May 21, 1998 - 5:48 PM PDT
Blaise,
By the way, I thoroughly approve of reading Penrose. Study his arguments, dwell on the implications. He's an excellent proponent of the non-computational view of consiousness - maybe the best one out there. I just disagree with the standard fixed-order model of human reasoning that his arguments are based on.
42. thomasd - May 21, 1998 - 6:01 PM PDT
In his article, Ben Stein asks:
"So, if we say that we are free, how can we prove that we have not been programmed to say that by a Master who is manipulating us into thinking that?"
Speaking for myself, I don't see freedom as a single immutable quantity, but a relative condition that depends on many factors in our environment, some of legal origin and some which relate to status and opportunities that are relevant to any particular individual. What 'Master' is going to take the time or have the ability to dictate all these factors to me? IAC, if one did, I'd tell him or her to go jump.
43. thomasd - May 21, 1998 - 6:10 PM PDT
Oops, that's Herb Stein. Sorry.
44. DocBrown - May 22, 1998 - 6:58 AM PDT
Penrose makes a compelling quantum argument that the human mind *might* never be predictable with any possible technology.
However, this is a far cry from proving that the human brain cannot be simulated. The obstacle is that computers can simulate any cause-and-effect process in the Universe, even processes that have not been discovered yet. In order to prove that the human brain cannot be simulated, one must prove that the brain conducts some operation which is causeless.
Until someone proves that the human brain can never be simulated, we must assume that it is just another cause-and-effect machine like the rest of the Universe.
We have evidence that the human brain is a goal-seeking, pattern recognition machine. There is no evidence of anything beyond that. Therefore the highest possible aspiration for a human is to fulfill his/her own goals. Life has no other purpose.
Huxley, Wells, Camus, and anyone else who wrote against materialism may have been wrong. The ultimate purpose for our existence, and I mean this sincerely, is:
*****************************************
WHOEVER DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS
*****************************************
45. Blaise - May 22, 1998 - 10:24 AM PDT
DocBrown argues: "Until someone proves that the human brain can never be simulated, we must assume that it is just another cause-and-effect machine like the rest of the Universe."
Assume all you like, but just remember that that is all it is: an assumption.
Perhaps you are partly right in claiming that man is a machine. And for the majority of people, the masses do not pay close enough attention to their "inner" lives, and therefore, they remain machines to the day their machine breaks down for good.
The goal of life, in my opinion, is to know one's *essence,* and by that I simply mean "consciousness," the permanent aspect of the self. I believe that man is both an animal and spiritual being. One can move a man either by influencing his animal "mechanical" self or by influencing the his spiritual essence. In the same way one can change the time on a clock either by moving the hands or by moving the main wheel. And just as it is better to change the time by moving the inner, so it is better to move a man -- whether oneself or another person -- by influencing his consciousness.
How does one do this? In order to grasp the full significance of consciousness, one should carefully bring to mind the state of their soul at each period of their life. ie These "periods of reflection," come about when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Moreover, no scientist, no books no matter how speculative and impressive they may be--can prove "consciousness," nor, however, can they disprove it. If one wants to know we are more than a "combination of atoms floating through a blind cosmos," as Russell put it, then one must be willing to work for it. Meditation is one way of proving the existence of the soul, for example. It is an ancient method that enables one to know through experience that we are more than a collection of chemical elements.
One can either choose to liv
46. Blaise - May 22, 1998 - 10:25 AM PDT
One can either choose to live a mechanical existence, pop a Soma tablet, print happy faces out of boredom in order to cheer oneself up--in order to suppress one's conscience or one can choose to grasp the full significance of conscience and live by it.
47. TortoiseHop - May 22, 1998 - 10:49 AM PDT
DocBrown says >> Until someone proves that the human brain can never be simulated, we must assume that it is just another cause-and-effect machine like the rest of the Universe.
The is the view of The Occam's Razor Gang. No we needn't assume the worst. In the absence of conclusive experiment we are entitled to assume whatever pleases us. This is part of the argument made by William James in “The Will to Believe.” You can read an account of it at
http://www.well.com/user/rcl/beliefs.html
This Brave New World problem seems to lead, like most current discussions, to some form of the question “what is the meaning of life?” Seems to me Huxley, and similar intellectuals accepted the materialistic pessimism dominant in their day, but hated it. Hence Huxley's late-life attempt to escape into mysticism.
Official science today refuses to discuss the meaning of life, presumably because the idea entails purposes and teleology. Teleology, the view that the cosmos has some purpose, was one of Aristotle's doctrines. The speculation has been revived recently by the work of Brandon Carter, John Leslie, John Barrow and Frank Tipler.
I partly agree with DocBrown that having the most toys brings the most fun (if he means that). I prefer the formula “The teleology of the universe is directed to the production of beauty.” This puts purpose into the aesthetic realm. It's my view that if kids today were brought up to believe in purposes, and especially personal destinies, their moral sense would be less likely to asphyxiate in the vacuum of nihilism. Schoolroom massacres would decline.
People don't want jobs, they want destinies. That's what the Brave New Worlds of modern fiction and modern statecraft cannot satisfy: The peoples of the world hunger for meaningful personal destinies and profound aesthetic satisfactions.
48. ScottLoar - May 22, 1998 - 2:38 PM PDT
"The peoples of the world hunger for meaningful personal destinies and profound aesthetic satisfactions." No, I would think the peoples of the world are much, much more base as testifies our modern life of plenty and no purpose. Even when educated to intellection and exposed to a higher sensibility and aesthetic appreciation people consistently choose the gross, the immediate satisfaction, as evidenced by modern tastes and culture.
49. behannaj - May 24, 1998 - 12:31 AM PDT
In your intellectual exhortations you (at least the last ten commentators) have neglected to consider the fate of the species and more importantly the impact upon our earth of uncensored megacorporation propaganda that stimulates consumption and more importantly the unlimited use of fosil fuels that is destroying our environment. This also diminishing the quality of life in the overdeveloped countries.
It shall be as a given that the lives of the workers in the as yet underdeveloped countries will be made meaningless as they are exploited by uncontrolled world commerce.
50. FreeToChoose - May 24, 1998 - 4:01 PM PDT
behannaj
nonsense
51. Blaise - May 24, 1998 - 4:04 PM PDT
behannaj:
Have you been watching Monty Python's The Meaning of Life by any chance? It seems as though you've been influenced by the initial scene of that film.
{joking}
I completely agree with you. And it's one of the reasons I can't accept the Libertarian's position of "no governmental regulations." I support environmental regulations--for the reason that we know quite well that the minute CEOs are given the "hands off," policy, they only think about profits *for themselves* at the expense of the environment and the working classes. If they could take responsibility for protecting the environment on their own, then the Gov. wouldn't have to step in and interfer, but there have been very few businesses, or CEOs who take the environment into consideration.
The Republicans are the CEOs' lapdogs and would be more than happy to allow companies to continue the practice of sweatshops in the global market. The New Corporate Policy is to make profits by *downsizing* (a euphemism for firing hundreds or thousands of people), contracting out work, cutting back benefits, selling out the environment and busting up unions.
Here is where Stein misses the obvious and where Huxley was right on the mark.
52. joezan - May 25, 1998 - 9:05 AM PDT
behannaj;Blaise:
The most disgraceful, irresponsible disregard for our planet's resources and ecological well-being, with the longest lasting effects, was in the countries in the soviet sphere. If you want to sing the praises of the moderating effect of gov't regulation, you would do well to first consider that fact.
It is only since the fall of communism, and the *privatization* of the state industries, that these countries have been able to start cleaning up the mess left by their omnipotent, arrogant former slave masters.
53. norwoodr - May 25, 1998 - 9:46 AM PDT
joezan
Hi! I'm about to go to lunch, but I was just saying on the religion thread that we kept missing each other, so I did want to say Hi.
I'm reading a great book called Zodiac, about the noble art of ecoterrorism. Highly recommended.
www.io.com/~norwoodr
54. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1998 - 10:02 AM PDT
Behannaj
Kudos to Blaise, for ripping apart your thesis far more effectively than I ever could.
55. Blaise - May 25, 1998 - 10:35 AM PDT
freetochoose: thanks, but that was only the beginning, I then went on to support behannaj's assessment of "megacorporate practices," in the next paragraph.
joezan: yes, true, but only because the Soviet Government didn't establish environmental regulations. I think the East is just now beginning to think about Global Warming, but it's still not a big consideration among the people, considering that they're all starving over there.
56. DocBrown - May 26, 1998 - 8:23 AM PDT
I said:
>> Until someone proves that the human
>> brain can never be simulated, we must
>> assume that it is just another
>> cause-and-effect machine like the rest
>> of the Universe.
TortoiseHop answered:
> The is the view of The Occam's Razor Gang.
> No we needn't assume the worst. In the
> absence of conclusive experiment we are
> entitled to assume whatever pleases us.
How can you call this the "worst?"!!! What is bad about being a cause-and-effect machine?
This assumption, and it is a *very* good assumption, leads to tremendous possibilities. It means we are a normal part of the Universe that operates just like everything elase in the Universe. This in turn means we can eventually find all the answers. I find this to be a wonderful possibility!
You can believe in mystical auras and Tarot cards all you want, but that belief won't put money in the bank (unless you start a 1-900-PSYCHIC phone scam). Personally, I plan to use my powers for good.
57. TortoiseHop - May 26, 1998 - 12:54 PM PDT
DocBrown asks >> What is bad about being a cause-and-effect machine?
I presume you mean a machine whose output is entirely determined by its antecedent states. If you believe that, you are denying your own free will. Seems to me the whole horror of Brave New World was that the system successfully imposed machine-like behaviour on the populace. However Huxley's story allowed a few free souls to escape -- to a prison-island.
DocBrown .>>> This assumption, --- [snip] --- means we are a normal part of the Universe that operates just like everything elase in the Universe.
That's okay by me. I reject supernatural forces.
DocBrown >> This in turn means we can eventually find all the answers. I find this to be a wonderful possibility!
I don't see how naturalism can lead us to all the answers. Far from it: most things are not knowable by human intellects, or even by superhuman intellects for that matter. Nobody will ever know everything. There will always be more to discover. That's why we can look upon our lives as spiritual adventures, albeit within the web of non-deterministic causality.
DocBrown >>> You can believe in mystical auras and Tarot cards all you want, but that belief won't put money in the bank ...
I quite agree Tarot cards, astrology and mystical auras produce no profit for their users. If they did, Tarot readers would be as common on Wall Street as stock analysts -- (who don't look like a big improvement on the I Ching anyhow).
Nonetheless I suspect that the quantum entanglement effect, or some such experimental effect, may offer a naturalistic route to so-called weird and spooky phenomena. I also believe these questions are not yet capable of resolution by scientific means. And so within these areas I feel free to follow William James and keep an open mind on it all. That's the optimistic option.
58. DocBrown - May 26, 1998 - 1:49 PM PDT
Tortoise:
> I presume you mean a machine whose
> output is entirely determined by its
> antecedent states. If you believe
> that, you are denying your own free will.
No kidding. Until someone proves the old Catholic theory of "causeless volition" Free Will will remain an illusion. The assumption is that every event in the Universe, including human thoughts, is caused by antecedent states. (I realize some quantum mechanics researchers question this). Causality has been one of the best assumptions ever discovered by mankind. It has allowed us to plan for our future and build our society. I am in no hurry to abandon such a useful tool without tremendous evidence.
> Seems to me the whole horror of
> Brave New World was that the system
> successfully imposed machine-like
> behaviour on the populace.
Our current system also features machine-like behavior. Every system in the world . . . past, present or future . . . has humans behaving like machines. That's because humans *are* machines.
59. Sasquatch - May 26, 1998 - 7:56 PM PDT
Sasquatch responds to the "Perhaps you're using a different yardstick
than I am, but I know of few jobs where the workers don't have a little (or a lot) more control over how they do their jobs." statement in missive numbered Message #12 by typing humans may have some control and perhaps even more control over ~How~ the job is done but humans have consistently lost less and less control over what job the humans are doing. It appears to Sasquatch that jobs and "careers" are becoming more and more standardized. If doubt is present, just look at how many jobs can be summed up in just a few lines.
60. CalGal - May 26, 1998 - 7:58 PM PDT
Oh, GOD, not the free will discussion again. (sob)
61. 109109 - May 26, 1998 - 8:15 PM PDT
I missed a discussion of "Free Willie"?
62. Sasquatch - May 26, 1998 - 8:17 PM PDT
Sasquatch thought the discussion was "Free Willie Llama".
63. 109109 - May 26, 1998 - 8:20 PM PDT
Sas
Close. I believe it was "Free Llama from Willie" (at the risk of turning Huxley into the Clinton thread).
64. fred1717 - May 26, 1998 - 9:34 PM PDT
Careful, 109, you might lure the antiClintonnuts onto this thread, where I have wandered to avoid them and their long winded quotations from right wing screeds masquerading as original and worthwhile thought.
65. arkymalarky - May 26, 1998 - 9:39 PM PDT
Gee, Fred, I wonder what you mean!
Do you *ever* look in Fraygrant's Corner? I posted something to you over there.
66. DocBrown - May 27, 1998 - 7:59 AM PDT
CalGal said:
> Oh, GOD, not the free will
> discussion again. (sob)
I know it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. Despite my best efforts, Fraygrants occasionally express an opinion that human beings are something other than souless automatons. If I let those silly ideas go unanswered, I wouldn't be me anymore. :-)
67. fred1717 - May 27, 1998 - 2:09 PM PDT
Arky - re #65 - where is it? I looked 200 posts back in Fraygrant's corner, but couldn't find it.
68. arkymalarky - May 27, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT
Fred,
It was no big deal. There's been a bunch of yack and a milennial run since then. It was something to the effect that I didn't want to seem like a smartass, so I was posting there instead of Law and Order, and I made a very witty remark about how my presence in the Fray seemed to still conversation altogether for the moment. But of course you, too, had logged off, unbeknownst to me.;-)
69. DocBrown - May 28, 1998 - 9:26 AM PDT
Sasquatch said:
> It appears to Sasquatch that jobs and
> "careers" are becoming more and more
> standardized. If doubt is present, just
> look at how many jobs can be summed up
> in just a few lines.
Sasquatch makes an important point. Jobs are being standardized, and any recruiter will be much happier to find a client who fits perfectly into a certain mold than someone who can eventually learn to fit into a company. If you can clearly state your job in one or two sentences you have a great advantage.
"Shrink, shrink variation--to reduce the loss."
- W. Edwards Deming.
We learned long ago the superiority of interchangeable parts. In our generation, Human Resources departments are learning the superiority of interchangeable workers. Corporations themselves are becoming more and more standardized. Consider the number of them that are abandoning all their old home-grown systems for functions like resource management, inventory control, and payroll. They are redesigning themselves to fit the mold of a certain computer hardware or software package (SAP, MRP, MRP II, or whatever).
"Work to the optimum. When you depart a little, there is a little loss. Depart further, suffer more loss."
-W. Edwards Deming
There is a best, most efficient way to do everything. The ultimate achievemant would be to have everyone work to the optimum in exactly the same method. Conformity to standards is the source of everything that is good in human achievemants.
70. UnderCoverSquids - May 28, 1998 - 11:00 AM PDT
This is probably better suited for the Movies thread, but:
I saw Gattaca last night, the film about a time when one's genes dictates one's future (well, that sounds a little obvious...) and one man's attempt to fool the "system."
I imgaine a future in which this becomes reality, as in the movie, discrimination will be illegal (like now) but will happen anyway (like now.)
We already have several companies offering bio-mechanical security devices for ATM machines (fingerprint recognition, retina scanning ...) so how far off are we from the devices being used in and about our daily lives? Imagine a world where every citizen is "registered," from birth for new people, retroactively for older people, and a non citizen trying to gain admittance to some public domain, being rejected...
Man, there are lots of ways bio-mechanics/genetics based security and administration management could be helpful, there are others that could be quite scary.
Anyway, we way not be in Huxley's brave new world just yet but we are certainly on our way to some strange shit.
71. RobertDente - June 1, 1998 - 9:30 AM PDT
UCS- We may have reached a point where strange is becoming all to familiar...if you catch my drift...or drift with my catch...
72. UnderCoverSquids - June 2, 1998 - 9:08 AM PDT
Robert,
This morning I read a story in the San Francisco Chronicle about German police capturing and procuring a confession from, a rapist/murderer.
The way they found the criminal was by sampling saliva from over 16,000 people living close to where the crime was committed. One was a genetic match to evidence found at the scene.