Unjustified Mysticism

I have a great deal of interest in the subject of consciousness. It is a quality that is vastly important, but poorly understood. Many times I have stayed up late at night watching Youtube videos or reading web article on scientific theory and research into the subject. There will be a post about the subject eventually. But for right now, I'd like to talk about something else.

As I combed the web, it became apparent that pseudoscience had taken a liking to the subject of consciousness. Whereas science adhered to known biological and physical theories and adhered to the scientific method (propose theory, experiment to test theory), pseudoscience completely avoided any know scientific theories and lacks any supporting evidence, instead choosing to discuss the topic from a subjective view. I suppose the lack of understanding and formal theories around consciousness has made it a breeding ground for pseudoscience.

Go do a search for videos on "consciousness" and you will find many, many videos from this point of view. They're the ones with pretty graphics of space or nature rather than someone speaking in front of a classroom. One video in particular caught my eye, though. It's a clip from an episode of ABC's Face-Off of an exchange between Deepak Chopra and Sam Harris.

Deepak Chopra: "I believe that there is a transcendent core consciousness that is comprised of meanings, contexts, relationships, archetypal ideas that recycles itself."

Sam Harris: "So it's in no sense a product of the brain."

Chopra: "It's no sense a product of the brain and our whole endeavor in spiritual discipline is to go actually beyond that personal consciousness, that ego consciousness so we can identify with that transcendent reality which is the source of space, time, energy and anything else that exists."

 

Notice the vocabulary that Chopra uses. "Meanings", "contexts", "relationships". All very personal, subjective ideas. You can't measure them, and that works towards pseudoscience's advantage. You can't disprove that which can't be measured. Chopra then goes on to divorce the concept of consciousness entirely from any know theories of biology or physics and something presents something of an Assimilation Plot. Nowhere does he present a competent explanation for the spiritual consciousness, theories that could be tested. It works to pseudoscience to keep things vague, to keep them untestable.

And the last part of that exchange is perhaps the most interesting. Consciousness “is the source of space, time, energy and anything else that exists”. You can see more of this way of thinking at this article penned by Mr. Chopra: "Every quality in the outside world exists because you create the quality. Your brain is not the creator – it’s the interpreter and deliverer. The real creator is mind. It will likely take more to convince you that you are creating all of reality. We understand."

It is his theory that it is our consciousness that gives rise to reality. He’s not far off, but there’s a big distinction to make: It is our consciousness that gives rise our interpretation of reality. It’s actually pretty easy to test Mr. Chopra’s theory. Have you ever been wrong? Perhaps you sat on a chair expecting it hold your weight, but instead it collapsed. If your consciousness was truly giving rise to the physical universe, this would be impossible. In your mind, the chair would hold your weight, thus the reality created would be such. Even young children understand this. Just because you don’t understand fire, does not mean it will not burn you.

And Deepak Chopra is not the only one espousing this theory. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of The Landmark Forum. They are at worst an opportunistic pyramid scheme and at worse a cult. They too buy into the “reality as a creation of the mind” mythology: "We observe not so much the particulars of the realities we construct, but that it is human to construct such realities, and then forget that we are the ones who constructed them."

I think it’s more telling what they say latter on the page: "We explore choice as a profoundly human ability to create. When choice is understood and known in this way, what had previously seemed simply part of “the way things are” – inevitable or impervious to change – appears in a new light." And that’s really what is at the center of this pseudoscience mess: choice. What better carrot on a stick to those disenfranchised, depressed masses than choice. “You need not live life as a looser; you can choose a different reality.” Perhaps there’s even a little Social Darwinism in that thinking. “Your life is only bad because you are making that reality.”

But that’s not really true. Sure you can change your outlook on life, change your action in the world. It certainly doesn’t hurt to look at things from a new perspective. But no amount of belief will change your physical reality. You can not muster a home out of your consciousness, nor a happy family. Fire will always burn you. Belief alone will not make those things such. Sometime bad things happen for no reason. No one’s consciousness created it. Meaning can’t be found in everything. That is the nature of reality.

Perhaps it is a bit depressing to think in those terms. But you can still affect this world. You have agency as much as anyone else. However that doesn’t excuse pseudoscience from pushing a false hope that helps only swindler.

I think Mr. Harris phrased it best Mr. Chopra in that episode Face-Off:

Chopra: "You are so dismissive of subjective experience, which has given rise to poetry to music to art. I am saying that the whole universe is imbued with subjectivity"

Harris: "There is nothing more important than subjectivity. It's all we could possibly care about. The changes in our conscious experience have some relation to the physical universe."

Chopra: "Absolutely, they give rise to the physical universe."

Harris: "That is a statement of metaphysics that is totally unjustified and could not possibly be justified".

Loss Leaders

I’m a big fan of Valve’s Steam service. It took me a while to come around though. Even today I still keep local copies of all my games in case of a doomsday scenario. It takes a lot of trust to buy into a Digital Distribution service. Will they respect their customers, because it’s not like you can take your library someplace else if they decide to change their Terms of Service for the worse? Will they remain competitive, or will I have to start buying from other services and fragment my library? Will I still be able to access the things I paid for in 10 years?

One of the things that push me over the edge was their amazing sales. Amazing games for just a few dollars. As someone who was unemployed at the time, or even just price conscious, it was too good to pass up. The basic idea is loss leading. Valve, or the publisher, takes a hit on the sale of a game hoping you’ll come back and buy more games from Steam or from that franchise. In the end, gaining a returning customer at the cost of a game that they may have never bought anyway.

David DeMartini Origin’s, EA’s competing DD service, boss was asked in an interview about these sales to which he responded, “We won't be doing that. Obviously they think it's the right thing to do after a certain amount of time. I just think it cheapens your intellectual property.” Take from that what you will considering partiality of the speaker.

Valve’s business development chief, Jason Holtman, responded to the criticism, “If all that were true, nobody would ever pre-purchase a game ever on Steam, ever again. You just wouldn't. You would in the back of your mind be like, okay, in six months to a year, maybe it'll be 50 per cent off on a day or a weekend or during one of our seasonal promotions. Probably true. But our pre-orders are bigger than they used to be. Tonnes of people, right? And our day one sales are bigger than they used to be. Our first week, second week, third week, all those are bigger.”

What’s underestimated in Holtman’s response is the importance of the social side of gaming. If all your friends are playing a game now, you’re more likely to buy it now to be able to discuss it with them or play it with them. Not to mention, if you happen to pick up a multiplayer game several months after launch, your libel to be greeted by many an empty server.

I’ve recently started dabbling in another Digital Distribution service, Amazon MP3. They too have been a major user of the loss leading tactic. It’s not odd to see a $10 album drop to $3 or songs drop from 99 cents to 25 cents. And boy do they give away free credit like there’s no tomorrow.

They too faced scrutiny for their tactics. One unnamed retailer is quoted in a report as saying, “I love it when they have a successful loss leader pricing deal. I can't stop laughing every time I think about how much money they must be losing”.

The problem is that music doesn’t have the same social aspect as gaming. Outside of people who are really into the technical aspects of music, most really don’t discuss it beyond “like” or “dislike”. There’s no real analog to multiplayer in music. So, there’s no pressure to buy music quickly beyond a few special circumstances like social gatherings. At the same time, this means the price of music will generally stay constant over time. What is a 99 cent song now will remain so for the remained of its life, barring sales.

While Amazon certainly has the money to keep their MP3 Digital Distribution service afloat for quite some time, I question how effective their loss leading strategy will be in the long term.

The Scorpion of Baldora Field

I’m not going to do a lot of the typing this post, this time I have a story. It’s a monolog from Night on the Galactic Railroad about the scorpion of Baldora Field:

Our father told us once about the scorpion of Baldora Field. The scorpion killed other bugs and ate them.

Then one day, a weasel found him. The scorpion fled, and fell into a deep well. He was trapped, and knew he'd die.Then, he thought to himself,"How often have l eaten other creatures? And now, the one time that l was the prey, l fled in utter terror. And look what came of that. I'll die in this well, alone."

"Life is filled with uncertainty. Why didn't l accept my fate? If l had freely given my life to the weasel, I would have given himanother day of life.But now my death will help no one. I am useless. Dear Lord, I beg of you, look into my heart and hear my prayer. In my next life, don't let me waste myself.Let me use my body for the truehappiness of everyone in the world."

And then the scorpion burst into flame: a brilliant crimson glow. And by the light of his burning body, he lit up the night forever.

How beautiful!

I always liked the story. “Put the others before yourself” is a very nice motto. Even if it has a subtle communist overtone. The world would probably be a better place if everyone thought that way. But like the story says, when death has you in its clutches, even the courageous falter.

There was a story a few months ago on 60 Minutes about the cost of end of life care to tax payers. It reminded me of this story. It’s easy for most to expect the old and sick to accept their fate and save the tax payers a few dollars, but it’s much harder to accept it when your time comes.

Osama bin Laden: a Postmortem

I’ve stayed away from news posts, although I am still considering some news-round-up posts if I can find the time, and stuck mainly to content rich posts. This post will be no different, although the death of Osama bin Laden is news, there’s a lot going on in the Middle East, and I want to explore that.

I want to start out by saying I was not one of the ones out in the street cheering when Osama was killed. I just have something against celebrating the death of another person. I suppose it has to do with my belief that the world isn’t so black and white as to lump people into extremes. But, if you ask anyone who lost someone during the attacks or in the subsequent war that followed, they weren’t celebrating either. This was a time for reflection.

A lot of people like to cite the Muslim religion as the driving force behind Al Qaeda. That it was a clash of culture that led Osama on his path: “They hate us for our freedom”. While there was religious influence in the group, it was not the driving force. The Middle East is a region in which religion is all pervasive, with many operating theocrats. So, the real goal of Al Qaeda is political.

There is a huge disparity of wealth in many Arab countries; a small ruling elite controlling most of the wealth and resources, leaving the rest in poverty. It was easy for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists when there were so many that are disenfranchised, poverty stricken. Many believed they had no future. It was easy for Al Qaeda to point their finger at ruling elite and the west, who had given their blessing to many of these rulers, and rally support against them.

But, Al Qaeda’s motives were never the problem, it was their modus operandi. Drawing support against a dictator is a noble pursuit, and many in the international community would support it. But when you attack civilian and peace time military, that is inexcusable and will label you as a murderer. And you will have to face the consequences, as Osama bin Laden did.

But, Osama bin Laden’s death was largely ceremonial. Al Qaeda’s support in the Middle East had waned. And it was not just the military operation in the Middle East that had minimized their influence.

In late 2010, a series of nonviolent protest swept across the Middle East. Known as Arab Spring, disenfranchised and impoverished citizens challenged the established dictators. In a few months, several countries had ousted their dictator and undergone revolution. People had found a way for change that didn’t require terrorism. Al Qaeda was left to watch as they became irrelevant.

Many claim that Osama bin Laden’s death was a turning point in the “War on Terror”, but that point came month ago when people chose peace over violence.