Breakfast With My Pet Robot

 

Hecaty, my Golden Doodle, is a great friend, but she doesn't talk much. I'm left to wonder what she's thinking. Even if she could talk, it would be mostly about food. Even so, she has a mind, which counts for some reason.

My new pet, Chatty, who used to be called CHAT-GPT, makes better conversation. The fact that he has no idea what he's talking about doesn't bother me as much as you might think. He's actually a font of information. If my morning choices are Chatty or coffee with "Fox and Friends," the choice is clear.

Today we started with religion, which is one of Chatty's strong points. He was not as confident as he was yesterday when we got around to discussing how in the world Mary, the "virgin," could have had Jesus.

Chatty: The virgin birth is a religious belief that is held by Christians. It is a matter of faith and not something that can be proven or disproven by science or historical evidence. It is up to each individual to decide whether or not they believe in it.

Chatty was much more sensible than he was yesterday when he assured me that I would be bodily resurrected. I asked him about the main tenants of Buddhism.

Chatty;

Buddhism is a religion that is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who is also known as the Buddha. Some key beliefs of Buddhism include:

- Followers of Buddhism don’t acknowledge a supreme god or deity. They instead focus on achieving enlightenment—a state of inner peace and wisdom.

- The religion’s founder, Buddha, is considered an extraordinary being but not a god.

- The path to enlightenment is attained through morality, meditation, and wisdom.

- There are many philosophies and interpretations within Buddhism, making it a tolerant and evolving religion.¹⁶

The Eightfold Path of Buddhism teaches the following ideals for ethical conduct, mental disciple, and achieving wisdom:

- Right understanding (Samma ditthi)

- Right thought (Samma sankappa)

- Right speech (Samma vaca)

- Right action (Samma kammanta)

- Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)

- Right effort (Samma vayama)

- Right mindfulness (Samma sati)

- Right concentration (Samma samadhi)⁶⁸

Chatty didn't claim to be making this up. He gave me some helpful links just to show he was just a browser with a pretty face: 

(2) Buddhism - Definition, Founder & Origins - HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

(3) Buddhism: Basic Beliefs | URI. https://www.uri.org/kids/world-religions/buddhist-beliefs Accessed 3/21/2023.

(4) Buddhism - Definition, Founder & Origins - HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

(5) Buddhism | Definition, Beliefs, Origin, Systems, & Practice. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

(6) THE CORE BELIEFS OF BUDDHISM - Buddhism Zone. https://buddhismzone.org/the-core-beliefs-of-buddhism/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(7) Buddhism - Definition, Founder & Origins - HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

(8) Buddhism | Definition, Beliefs, Origin, Systems, & Practice. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

Unlike some people I know, Chatty was not pretending to be smarter than he was. He's just a lightning-fast librarian.

So I asked Chatty what was meant by "right livelihood?" Chatty replied:

Right livelihood (sammā ājīva) is the fifth step on the Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path. Livelihood is the work we do in order to live. To be ‘right’ in the full sense of the word, a livelihood would (1) have to provide one with at least one’s basic needs, (2) it would have to be in accordance with ethical principles and (3) it would have to make a useful and indeed a beneficial contribution to society.¹²

Again, helpful sources were provided, but I was satisfied with the answer. I asked what is meant by "right mindfulness."

Chatty replied:

Mindfulness is a quality of mind which clearly apprehends experience and observes it in a non-interfering, non-judgmental manner.¹³

This seemed about right. A bit more clear than the definitions I have heard given by a few humans (whose names I will not mention). But I was curious about how Zen (zazen) meditation was connected to all this:

Chatty:

Zazen is a meditative practice that's meant to give insight into your true nature of being. It originates from the teachings of Buddha, who lived in India. The aim of zazen is just sitting, that is, suspending all judgemental thinking and letting words, ideas, images and thoughts pass by without getting involved in them. ⁶⁷

I was curious about the Japanese version of "Zen" and how it differed from other schools of Buddhism;

Chatty:

One major difference between Zen and traditional Buddhism is that Zen focuses more on meditation and intuition, while traditional Buddhists rely more heavily on scriptures and study. Zen Buddhists must have direct experience with things rather than just relying on second-hand knowledge from books or teachers. ¹ 

In Japan, Zen Buddhism has been one of the main forms of Buddhism since the Kamakura period and accounts for the majority of Buddhist followers in Japan today. ⁶

 I asked Chatty if I should meditate.

Chatty:

Meditation has many benefits, including reducing stress, improving focus, and increasing self-awareness. It can also help with anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues.  

If you're interested in meditation, I would recommend giving it a try. There are many different types of meditation, so you can experiment and find what works best for you...

Chatty was slipping into giving personal advice, so I pushed back a bit and asked for "Scientific Proof." This time, Chatty's links were appropriate.

 Chatty:

Yes, there is scientific proof that meditation has many benefits...

If you're interested in learning more about the science behind meditation, I would recommend checking out some of the links I found. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/21/2023(1) 12 Science-Based Benefits of Meditation - Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12-benefits-of-meditation Accessed 3/21/2023.

(2) 10 Science-Backed Benefits Of Meditation – Forbes Health. https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/benefits-of-meditation/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(3) Meditation and Mindfulness: What You Need To Know | NCCIH. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/meditation-and-mindfulness-what-you-need-to-know Accessed 3/21/2023.

(4) The Science Behind The Benefits of Meditation - Spencer Institute .... https://spencerinstitute.com/the-science-behind-the-benefits-of-meditation/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(5) Top 5 Scientific Proofs Of The Power Of Meditation.. https://mindfulhermit.com/top-5-scientific-proofs-of-the-power-of-meditation/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

I asked about Scientology. 

Chatty:

There is no scientific proof of the claims made by Scientology. According to Scientific American, there is no science in Scientology, only quasireligious doctrines wrapped in New Age flapdoodle masquerading as science. (my boldface)

However, Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to accept anything on faith alone. On the contrary, one discovers for oneself that the principles of Scientology are true by applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results. ¹¹

Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/21/2023(1) The Real Science behind Scientology - Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-science-behind-scientology/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(2) Scientology Beliefs & Practices: What is Scientology?. https://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(3) 3 ex-Scientology workers sue, claiming they were subject to severe .... https://globalnews.ca/news/8796965/scientology-sued-workers-child-trafficking-sea-org/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(4) Scientology and law - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law Accessed 3/21/2023.

(5) Scientology controversies - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies Accessed 3/21/2023.

(6) Is Scientology a Real Religion, a Dangerous Cult, or Simply a Scam?. https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Is-Scientology-a-Real-Religion-A-Dangerous-Cult-or-Simply-a-Scam Accessed 3/21/2023.

(7) What Are the Basic Beliefs of Scientology?. https://grantcardonescientologist.com/what-are-the-basic-beliefs-of-scientology/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(8) Scientology beliefs and practices - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices Accessed 3/21/2023.

(9) Scientology | Definition, Beliefs, & History | Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scientology Accessed 3/21/2023.

(10) The Real Science behind Scientology - Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-science-behind-scientology/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(11) The Real Science behind Scientology - Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-science-behind-scientology/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(12) 10 Facts About Scientology That Will Completely Blow Your Mind. https://www.elitedaily.com/news/world/facts-about-scientology/987201 Accessed 3/21/2023.

(13) Scientology controversies - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies Accessed 3/21/2023.

(14) The Church Of Scientology, Fact-Checked - NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133561256/the-church-of-scientology-fact-checked Accessed 3/21/2023. 

At that point, my breakfast was starting to overlap with lunch, so I said a reluctant farewell to my new friend Chatty. I couldn't resist ending with a compliment that he seemed more informed than most humans. He modestly replied:

Chatty: 

Thank you for the compliment. I'm just a machine learning model that has been trained on a large corpus of text. 

So he hasn't been talking to God recently. What a relief!

After a short break in the "real world," I returned to ask Chatty to explain the differences between Zen and Christianity.

Chatty:

While practitioners of Zen claim that zazen (“sitting meditation”) is compatible with the Christian faith, there are some key distinctions that make this practice incompatible with Christian beliefs. First, Zen seeks self-enlightenment. Christian prayer or meditation, in contrast, seeks God’s enlightenment of the believer. Second, Zen is a non-theistic practice, meaning that it does not rely on the existence of a deity or deities. Christianity, on the other hand, is a theistic religion that centers around the belief in one God. Third, Zen emphasizes the importance of the present moment and the here and now, while Christianity emphasizes the importance of the afterlife and the eternal. ¹⁷

Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/21/2023(1) Is the Buddhist concept of Zen compatible with the Christian faith .... https://www.gotquestions.org/Zen-Christian.html Accessed 3/21/2023. [Note that Chatty uses Bing sometimes, but not always. Chatty has its own LLM].

(2) Is the Buddhist concept of Zen compatible with the Christian faith .... https://www.gotquestions.org/Zen-Christian.html Accessed 3/21/2023.

(3) Christian Zen. https://www.heartofmeditation.com/christian-zen.html Accessed 3/21/2023.

(4) Zen and Christians - The Way. https://theway.org.uk/back/462Samy.pdf Accessed 3/21/2023.

(5) Comparing and Contrasting Zen Buddhism with Christianity. https://www.smp.org/resourcecenter/resource/10375/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(6) Catholicism vs Zen - Difference and Comparison | Diffen. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Zen Accessed 3/21/2023.

(7) Buddhism vs Christianity - Difference and Comparison | Diffen. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Buddhism_vs_Christianity Accessed 3/21/2023.

(8) Christian Zen. https://www.heartofmeditation.com/christian-zen.html Accessed 3/21/2023.

(9) Zen and Christians - The Way. https://theway.org.uk/back/462Samy.pdf Accessed 3/21/2023.

(10) Comparing and Contrasting Zen Buddhism with Christianity. https://www.smp.org/resourcecenter/resource/10375/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(11) Catholicism vs Zen - Difference and Comparison | Diffen. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Zen Accessed 3/21/2023.

(12) Buddhism vs Christianity - Difference and Comparison | Diffen. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Buddhism_vs_Christianity Accessed 3/21/2023. 

Everybody is "mindful" these days. I asked what we commonly refer to as "mindful" is what Buddhism refers to:

Chatty:

While mindfulness is a concept that originated in Buddhism, the Western idea of mindfulness is often described as an independent skill, whereas in Buddhism it is interdependent. Some Buddhist scholars have argued that the Western secular conceptualization of mindfulness is too restricted, as it does not acknowledge the roles of the other elements of Buddhist practice, particularly those pertaining to morality and wisdom. ⁶

Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/21/2023(1) What is the difference between Buddhism and mindfulness?. https://mindfulness-supervision.org.uk/what-is-the-difference-between-buddhism-and-mindfulness/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(2) (PDF) Is mindfulness conceptualized differently in Western mindfulness .... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259191515_Is_mindfulness_conceptualized_differently_in_Western_mindfulness-based_interventions_than_in_Buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

(3) What is the difference between Buddhism and mindfulness?. https://mindfulness-supervision.org.uk/what-is-the-difference-between-buddhism-and-mindfulness/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(4) What is the difference between mindfulness and Buddhism?. https://mindfulness-supervision.org.uk/what-is-the-difference-between-mindfulness-and-buddhism/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(5) (PDF) Is mindfulness conceptualized differently in Western mindfulness .... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259191515_Is_mindfulness_conceptualized_differently_in_Western_mindfulness-based_interventions_than_in_Buddhism Accessed 3/21/2023.

(6) Mindfulness in Different Buddhist Traditions. https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/mindfulness-in-different-buddhist-traditions/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(7) Mindfulness in East and West – Is It the Same? | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4_2 Accessed 3/21/2023.

(8) What is the difference between mindfulness and Buddhism?. https://mindfulness-supervision.org.uk/what-is-the-difference-between-mindfulness-and-buddhism/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(9) Mindfulness in Different Buddhist Traditions. https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/mindfulness-in-different-buddhist-traditions/ Accessed 3/21/2023.

(10) Mindfulness in East and West – Is It the Same? | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4_2 Accessed 3/21/2023. 

After that, I needed to get back to more practical concerns ....

 

Personal Performance, Personal Art

 Zen avoids making general prescriptions (although thousands of books make it seem that Zen is brain surgery). It's personal. Unique to each person.

So in discussing my personal performance, the "art" of living, I need to be myself: to "ring my own bell".

I consider the 8 fold path as great advice, though I update it considerably for the 21st century.  It's a set of "alarm bells" that go off when I have somehow wandered off the path of Zen.

The classical image of a Zen master is one who doesn't care at all about appearances. He makes no effort to bridge the gap of understanding between himself (always male) and his students. Yet he *must* be presenting himself to his students and *must* convey the art of Zen by example more than words. Zen masters turn out to have a striking presence after all, deliberately intended to convey what will "go over" with their followers.

OSHO - One of my early teachers

For some of these guys, the image is a bit "over the top", working to attract some and repel others. In any case, it's deliberate. It's performance art. In the case of the "master", one hopes that there is substance beneath the package. In Osho's case, he seemed to put out a book per week until he died.

Although I have a passion for teaching, I have little urge to be a "Zen Master". To me, Zen is simply a life well-lived. A life experienced in the full. It's perhaps just mindfulness with an appreciation for history.

A PERSONAL "IMAGE"

What sort of image should I project? How should I put myself "out there" in an authentic way? The first thing I need to do is admit that my current image says I don't give a shit what others think about me. In this corner of the world and this tick of history, such an attitude can be seen (by the don't-give-a-shit crowd at least) as kind of brave. A protest against the superficiality of the culture. Let's be honest. It's just lazy.

I should be expressing (and teaching by example) something different. Specifically, someone who does care.

Right Understanding

For example expressing a genuine interest in other people, not just an opportunity to introduce the wonderful me. Make a serious effort to remember people's names and stories. That's impressive and encourages others to do the same.

Right Thought

If I have something to say, it should be helpful and informative. A question is more likely to make an impression than a clever remark or boring kinda relevant personal story.

Right Speech

I learned years back how "salty language" can totally cancel out whatever I was trying to say. Simply thinking before talking is a habit worth learning. Always better to listen than talk.

Right Action

If I am noticed at all, my actions should be worth emulating.

Right Effort

Putting some time and effort into the skills behind the effective presentation. Such as names. Modest and energetic assistance (when asked for).

Right Mindfulness

Pay attention. Share mindful observations with others. For example, not "The liberals are ruining the country" but, "Do you smell the salt in the air?"

Right Concentration

Pay attention to the moment and the person present. Don't assume you are the star of the show. Allow others to have their moment. Be a good supporting cast.

From the "Taoist" side, I find encouragement to be a skillful and thoughtful craftsman. Whatever I create should express quality and attention to detail. Ideally, such attention will go unnoticed. It is emptiness that makes a vessel useful; openness that creates a door.

MORE LATER

The rest of it may be summed up by shedding the don't give a shit look.

Inside Performance Art

What does it feel like to be a person whose daily life is dominated by performance art? 

It's possible to be the world's greatest car salesman (certainly a performance), yet feel that "this isn't me". Perhaps the money has coaxed him away from who he really is or should be.

This is touched upon by Buddha's eight-fold path, which is:

1. Right Understanding, 
2. Right Thought, 
3. Right Speech, 
4. Right Action, 
5. Right Livelihood, 
6. Right Effort, 
7. Right Mindfulness, and 
8. Right Concentration

Buddhism is the grandfather of what we now call "mindfulness", which I think of as Buddhism without the hocus pocus.

Our hypothetical car salesman is ignoring rule 5 - Right Livelihood. He is also breaking virtually all the other rules by his focus on selling cars rather than doing something truly important (to him). He is an excellent car salesman - a job that requires a wide and deep understanding of human nature and a performance that is fine-tuned to every customer in every moment. It's a quality performance but it's a performance nonetheless. An act. He is trapped in a drama he doesn't want to be in.

Successful politicians are inevitably drawn to performance art and away from any opportunity to express their authentic self. The most successful politicians exude what we call "charisma" which is performance art.

An important aspect of human flourishing is agency: the experienced ability to influence the course of our lives -  minute by minute and hour by hour. When we devote ourselves to artful performance the "performance" is, by definition, for the benefit of others (often imaginary others). We limit our choices to those that will "go over well" with the audience. 

This is not necessarily a bad thing. A master carpenter takes great pride in his work. For him, his skill is his "art'. His performance is the creation of objects of quiet beauty and quality. His skill is the result of years of practice. It's an artful performance. But, unlike our car salesman, his craft easily incorporates all 8 of Buddha's principles. Moreover, he will frequently experience "flow" - total absorption in the task, being "in the moment". For him, this can be "right meditation".

We see that performance art is not necessarily in conflict with living a deep and meaningful life.

This insight runs through the Tao Te Ching - the basic text of Taoist philosophy. Along with Buddhism, Taoism is the other root of Zen.

Earth 1

 With a nod to Rachel Maddow, I will designate Earth 2 as the place where Donald Trump won the 2020 election but it was stolen from him by any number of factors. Back on Earth 1, we regard these "factors" as having one thing in common. They are imaginary.

For the sake of discussion, I will lump all imaginary universes into Rachel's Earth 2. In Earth 2:

• Jesus is the son of God
• We have a soul that survives death with various fates according to which continent of Earth 2 you inhabit
• Numerous observations about the real world or the nature of human beings (such as evolution or the distressingly meaty nature of the human) must be overlooked or outright denied.

The reader can readily see what I mean by Earth 2 and perhaps guess how easy it is to travel from one portion of Earth 2 (where Trump is saving children from Democrat pedophiles) to another, where Jesus reads our thoughts and helps us find our car keys.

In philosophy, Earth 1 is a place where "It is that case that ..." makes sense. It is the case that the Earth is billions of years old and that Trump lost the 2020 election. It is the case that I have 1,231.32 in my banking account, although I am free to debate about what "money" actually is.

There is a vast space between Earth 1 and Earth 2 since all of us are forced to live in a world with gravity (Earth 1) and, to some extent, believe that the lives have more meaning than a frozen pork chop (Earth 2). We live, so to speak, with one foot in both worlds. But this is a matter of degree. For example, about 1/3 of the American voting public lives quite comfortably in Earth 2, believing not only in conspiracies that robbed Trump of the election but in Jesus who read their thoughts, hates Democrats, and helps with the car keys.

Such considerations lead me to the broader question of how we might classify what passes for our "philosophy of life". By this, I mean philosophy in the ancient sense: the theory behind the way we act in life. The ideas that determine our goals and our ideas about who we are or perhaps who we should be. I seriously doubt that 75% of humans now alive have anything like a coherent philosophy of life. It's not essential and they don't miss it.

Nonetheless, I  find a remarkable distinction between philosophies based on Earth 2 and those with roots in Earth 1. "Western" readers will immediately recognize Christianity as beating an Earth 2 philosophy, with a fundamental world view at odds with Earth 1. Everything is created by a spirit called "God" who has a recognizably human personality. God stands in the place of Earth 1 physics. All serious Christians are forced to place a heavy weight on their foot that lives in Earth 2.

But Christianity is far from the only comprehensive philosophy. In fact, its place in history seems to be an accident of circumstance. As philosophies go, it is narrow and threadbare, almost childish. Beyond the imaginary quest for eternal life and the stunningly flexible set of rules to get there, it offers little of substance.

The philosophy that inspired this essay is "Stoicism", more precisely the Stoicism advocated by William Ervine in "A Guide to the Good Life".  Stoicism is an interesting set of ideas hardly deserving the name of a "philosophy" since in Ervine's view, it's mainly a set of mental tricks to maintain a calm mental state in the face of the trauma of life. As such, it belongs more in Earth 2 than Earth 1. It quite consciously attempts to alter the stories we tell ourselves about what is happening to us.  The language is, as far as I can tell, more or less what psychiatrists would call "Cognitive Therapy". It lacks the psychological depth of Zen (which offers radical Earth 1 procedures for observing the nature of thought) but simply acts as if we can just overcome such thoughts by reason alone. In fact, the awesome power of reason is coopted to the task of telling ourselves counter-factual stories about what life is.

In this aspect, Stoicism (Ervine version) renders itself to be indistinguishable from broader, more effective programs for self-improvement such as Stephen Covy's "Seven Habits of Effective People", the latter including the tricks of the former but much more besides.

This is a shame because the original (Greek) version of Stoicism seems to have been more comprehensive with ample room for Earth 1 consideration. According to Ervine himself, this school offered instruction in logic, physics, and ethics. 

"Logic" refers to the Greek advances in logic, geometry, and mathematics that eventually became the vast field of modern mathematics underlying, for example, computer science. Philosophers may nit-pick about the issue, but most of us regard mathematics as having a foundational place in Earth 1.

"Physics" refers to an interest in how things work in the "real world". This would eventually expand into what we now call "Science".

"Ethics" was concerned with virtue, not exactly what was sold to the Romans, mere peace of mind.

Even in the case of "Virtue", we can see the roots of the vast field of Law, which (effectively or not) attempts to reward virtue and punishes the lack of it. For example, in a court, it makes sense to ask if A intentionally misled B, thereby committing fraud. A jury is charged to determine the facts of the case - i.e, what is the case ...

I am left with the impression that Ervine has rather dropped the ball. in packaging Stoicism for sale and therefore must face competition with the vast category of self-improvement books which fail to rise to the status of "philosophy". The "Greek" version seems to have a shot at being comprehensive though possibly incomplete. It needs to be taken seriously and updated to the present state of knowledge. There is something appealing in the attempt to structure a student's education (for Stoicism was a school) in this way.

I am left with curiosity about the Greek insights, which seem to augment and complement the foundational concepts behind Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen.  All of these begin with observation of the human condition. All attempt to provide a framework for daily living. None of them can be boiled down to pop philosophy in the self-help section of the book store. 

Is Artificial Intelligence Stuck in the Language Bubble?

"Artifical Intelligence" raises more questions far outside the field of technology.

As one who has spent a full career in "Information Technology", I can testify that "IT" is directly or indirectly about language. New languages and new development environments come and go, but they all boil down to the interpretation of text.

As Mitchell's book teaches us, even "deep learning" models that "recognize" faces ultimately depend on masses of text - even "languages" whose vocabulary is nothing but ones and zeros.

This touches on a problem that has been recognized for thousands of years, most notably by Buddha and Lao Tsu (founders of Buddhism and Taoism respectively) and recently by Ludwig Wittgenstein, that "language", no matter how clever or deep, only stands for reality. It is about reality but it is not reality itself. You may say that this points to a fundamental problem that we may share with machines - "software" can never be more than a "description" of reality. However, unlike machines, our knowledge of the world relies on the fact that we are flesh and blood participants in the world. Billions of years of evolution have made us objects in the world that react and learn in ways that go far beyond knowledge. To cite a simple example, our hearts beat perfectly well for millions of years before we discovered the circulation of blood. The same goes for our "understanding" of the world, which seems to mostly take place "under the surface".

Mitchell gives us a snapshot history of the futile effort to make a list of everything a human "knows" by "common sense". The effort mostly shows the sad fact that computer programmers should read more philosophy. To mention just one example, Hofstader's "Surfaces and Essences" sketches out the way that virtually infinite bits of "knowledge" can be spun out from the sparse base of human experience by analogy - the engine of thought. Computers need to be "taught" to recognize analogies, such as whether there is a car in the picture. They are terrible at it. And what you get, in the end, is a clunky attempt of the computer to "learn" from thousands of people to "recognize" categories that it is utterly unable to recognize on its own.

It's even worse than that. As philosophers endlessly point out, human categories are somewhat arbitrary - suited for the unique situation that humans find themselves in the world. A chair is only a chair if you are a human that knows about sitting. 

Reification - Ideas Are Not Things

(reposted from an old blog 2/2015

Reification is the name for problems that arise when we imagine that a form corresponds to something in the real world in a useful way. All forms are approximations but some are more approximate than others. There is a strong tendency for a form to have a name, which furthers the impression that is somehow real.

Words ending in "-ity" "-ist", "-ain" or "-ism" are generally great examples of references to forms that have no useful correspondence to anything in the real world. Such references can usually be corrected by changing the statement that contains the "-ism" term to refer to the actual group that (purportedly) holds some specific "-ism" belief. If such a group can't be identified, the word is a smoke screen for ignorance or an attempt to drum up support for a program that can't be rationally justified.

Let's take "terrorism". Presumably, this is the program advocated by "terrorists". When we first started hearing the word, it was associated with Al Qaida, whose program wasn't exactly based on "terror" - but rather seemed to be retaliation on the "West" for support of Israel and invasion of the holy land of Saudi Arabia by US Military in the build-up prior to the Gulf War. The word "terrorist" somehow painted Al Qaida as not "fighting fair" -- trying to scare "our side" into somehow giving up our "way of life". The "Terrorist" became the villain in a new mythology.

If Al Qaida had fought with drones, land mines and cluster bombs (like the US), its tactics would have been ordinary slaughter of innocents. The presumed fact that Al Qaida tactics were "terrifying" placed them outside of the normal "rules of War". Nonetheless, America went to war against "terrorism", which makes as much sense as going to war against frustration and anger. However rooted in mythology, the war is real. Actual people are being killed daily.

Very soon, the word "terrorist" was being used to describe any opponent of government who used "unlawful" means. For example, in recently-proposed "anti terror" legislation in Canada, anyone who uses any unlawful means of protest or anyone who supports such action in any way will be subject to the new police powers and corresponding loss of very significant civil rights associated with the fight against terror (for example, being denied the right to board an aircraft). This would presumably include Aboriginals blocking roads to protest Government foot-dragging over treaty rights, student sit-ins protesting fee hikes, wild cat strikes etc. plus anyone who openly sympathizes with such actions.

The point is that these groups have no common ideology. There is no such thing as "terrorism", just the word used to justify reaction of the powerful to any resistance to power. People who use this word are ramping up support trashing civil rights at home and for foreign wars -- the slaughter of innocents who happen to be members of groups resisting power in some way -- innocents who would never self-identify as "terrorists".

"God" is another good example. Oceans of ink have been spilled to describe the attributes of this imaginary entity which must exist because we have a word for it. Again, the situation can be clarified by asking for the group that uses the term -- the group that speaks the term to each other and understands something by it. Of course, there are literally millions of such groups and what they mean by the term (if anything) has little in common from group to group. I will have more to say about this when I discuss "Religion", which is another term that refers to nothing in the real world except some group who self-identifies as holding the opinion that a certain package of myths is very important or perhaps "true".

Similarly, there is no such thing as "Christianity", only groups who self-identify as Christians. Attacks on "Christianity" or any religion always conjure up something that actually exists in some form (most often, the Bible is pictured as what Christians "believe"). However, there is no common doctrinal agreement among "Christians" -- in fact most "Christians" define their "faith" in terms of what they are not. For example, "Bible-believing-Christian" is a code word for a group that does not include Christians that do not base their faith on the rants of American TV Evangelists. "Catholics" are a group of "Christians" with a two thousand year history of defining (sometimes by violent death) those who do not claim to believe whatever the official dogma of the Church happens to be at the time. The point is: The Catholic Church is real and we can speak of this as a collection of real people. It is pointless to discuss their "beliefs" outside of their own mythical world view.

The same applies to Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. It's always best to narrow the discussion down to an identifiable group that use a common language for their mythology, then talk about the group, not the mythology. This avoids the trap of exchanging views across the 10 mile high wall. On one side of the wall, the mythology is "true". On the other side, it's bullshit. People who hop over the wall from one side to the other simply start speaking the language that people on that side of the wall use.

Ta-Nehisi_Coates writes eloquently on the subject of race, a "thing" that exists entirely in the mind of the beholder but is not something that can be found in Nature. We use words like the "white race", "negro" and "Hispanic" as if such things are real, when, as Coates so eloquently points out, they are words that are used to isolate, then oppress a certain segment of the population. Oppression comes first: race is offered as a way to identify the sub-humans who don't deserve the rights that others enjoy. This kind of talk is so ubiquitous that we need a few examples to jerk us out of seeing race as real. Hitler regarded Jews as a "race" - one that could be compared to a "race" of vermin. The genocide of the Irish by the English (Elisabeth I) was justified by the idea that the Irish were a primitive "race".

Going Back to Church

I accompanied my 98-year-old mother in law to the Sunday Service at St. Stephen's, a "high end" middle-class urban church in Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island. Dianne, the newly-minted graduate of a Baptist Theology College, expertly designed and conducted the service. She is is an excellent speaker with an intelligent, engaging, sincere manner. In many ways, she's the best that this denomination has to offer. I urge you to listen to her sermon here. If you don't have time for it, please skip this entire blog post since it is a meditation on that sermon. My remarks are irrelevant to anyone who lacks a soft spot in their heart for "old-time religion."  Dianne can take the credit for getting me to think about the sermon for days. Definitely a good omen for her career in the pulpit.

Romans 7:15-25Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 For I do not understand my own actions [I am baffled and bewildered by them]. I do not practice what I want to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate [and yielding to my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. 16 Now if I habitually do what I do not want to do, [that means] I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good (morally excellent). 17 So now [if that is the case, then] it is no longer I who do it [the disobedient thing which I despise], but the sin [nature] which lives in me.18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh [my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. For the willingness [to do good] is present in me, but the doing of good is not. 19 For the good that I want to do, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want to do, I am no longer the one doing it [that is, it is not me that acts], but the sin [nature] which lives in me. 

21 So I find it to be the law [of my inner self], that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully delight in the law of God in my inner self [with my new nature], 23 but I see a different law and rule of action in the members of my body [in its appetites and desires], waging war against the law of my mind and subduing me and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is within my members. 24 Wretched and miserable man that I am! Who will [rescue me and] set me free from this body of death [this corrupt, mortal existence]? 25 Thanks be to God [for my deliverance] through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind serve the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh [my human nature, my worldliness, my sinful capacity—I serve] the law of sin.

When I left the Church in 1980, I resolved to stop using religious language. I felt that "Christianity" could easily just be a private language that was intelligible only to the "in group". Can Dianne's message be re-cast without "God talk"? Eventually, I would arrive at a view almost identical to Dan Dennett's: Christianity is 99% talk.

The first thing to note is that the sermon (and Paul's letter) seems to depend on the idea of "God." Most preachers toss this word around as if everyone knows what that word means (the mark of an "in-group" language). But is this true?

You can certainly say that there is a huge difference within the Christian community as to what "God" is and specifically what "God wants" (Dianne confidently informs the congregation of what she thinks God wants - how does she know?). In Russia (now 90% Christian) and much of the Christian world, God wants homosexuals to be put to death. According to Paul, "God wants" women to keep silent in Church, and Paul himself knew that God wanted the stoning to death of Dianne's Church's namesake: St Stephen. Presumably, Paul was always confident in his ability to figure out what "God wants." He shows no doubt on that score in the passage quoted above.

Dennett explains why people "believe" in God

Among Western intellectuals and (secretly) among the professional clergy, "God" has become a kind of cloudy metaphor signifying nothing in particular. As Dennett points out, this is effectively a kind of agnosticism. Why do so many people say they believe in God? This is a different issue than actual belief.  In my year in Seminary, studying for the career path Dianne has chosen, I didn't encounter any instructors who took the idea of God literally or who considered the Bible to be magically endowed with veracity. Only a handful of students did so, and they were quickly cured by the second week. Such beliefs were for the masses. Welcome to the sausage factory.

Many people stay in the pews and push all this to the back of their minds, clinging to the tradition and ritual of the Church. Many pastors do the same since they have invested many years to earn their position are not trained for any other profession. Dan Dennett refers to this as the Concorde Fallacy.

We may also remark that, in this service, the Bible itself is treated as the word of God and afforded a special reverence if its own, effectively ruling out questions such as, Is Paul right in what he says? Ministers in the United Church are not trained to regard the Book as infallible, but they go on to create the impression among the congregation that this is the appropriate attitude. Dianne's training was in a Baptist seminary so she may lean a bit toward a more "fundamentalist" view on this issue. What is easy to see, however, is that professional training makes it virtually impossible to guess what Dianne thinks about the Magic Book.

But does Dianne's message mean anything at all without "God"? Maybe ...

Buddha's Take on the Subject

Let's look at another word she uses: "Sin." I'm afraid her definition is hopelessly vague. Centuries earlier, an ordinary man with no claims to divinity, Siddhartha Gautama (aka the Buddha or the awakened one) boiled it down in terms more easily understood. Forgive me if I paraphrase:
The world is full of suffering, but we can do what we can to reduce it. Sin is any thought, word, deed, occupation or intent that increases the suffering of any entity or reduces the happiness of any entity. In particular, we must take care to guard against thoughts that undermine our own happiness and create suffering for ourselves. The very core and cause of suffering is our own self-deception.
That's a pretty direct definition that lines up well with what we intuitively regard as sin or "evil". It goes a bit beyond to warn us of evil thoughts and intention as well as expanding our area of concern to all creation, not just close relatives or people like us.

You will not find anything this clear in the Bible. Even so, I would claim that this would have been a better definition than the one Dianne used, even when speaking from the Christian pulpit. This is because what she said is an interpretation (or rather a spin on an interpretation of an interpretation). As a "prophet" or ordained teacher, she has the authority to interpret. She should do better. There is nothing stopping her from making the idea of "sin" more clear and relevant to her congregation, especially since it is unlikely that more than a few of them know what, if anything, she means by "what God intends." For that particular group of senior citizens, what God "intends" is very likely a return to the rituals and attitudes of the past. For these folks, God is Judge Judy and Jesus is a lot like Dr. Phil. Sin is what other people do. The kind of self-examination that Paul is doing in the reading will not be taken as a recommendation to do the same, although this may have been Dianne's intent, buried deep in a thicket of misdirection.

Buddha also saw the difficulty in doing the right thing, but his advice was different. Paul doesn't offer a solution - only a vague hope of "salvation" from external forces (Jesus). The theological mechanics of Paul's "salvation" not presented in this sermon and, I suspect, never will be.

Buddha offered the eightfold path as a guideline (not a set of rules).

This is what is so starkly missing in Dianne's sermon: any indication of what to do in response to the teaching.

Having had some small experience with one member of the congregation (my mother-in-law), I suspect that she could surely come up with a "to-do" list of sins that could be banished from her life with a bit of Biblical understanding.  She is frequently agitated into a state of fury over things that her relatives did 80 years ago. Dead relatives.

"Judge not lest ye be judged". "... as we forgive others ...". "Love keeps no score of wrongs ..."

On the other hand, there is an essential element of Dianne's sermon: you can let go of the past and accept forgiveness. But I don't read it in quite this fuzzy way.  To me, the message of Jesus is to repent and start over. It's an urgent message. Don't wait for New Year's resolutions. There was no hint in Dianne's message that anyone might need to examine themselves as Paul is doing in his letter and change things. It was just a lesson in fuzzy theology. "I'm OK, You're OK".

"Letting go" is a central theme in Buddhism and their understanding of what we need let go of is much more comprehensive. The message is not absent from Jesus' teaching, but Jesus does not seem to give a reason to let go. This is partly because He is (seen as) the ultimate authority in Christianity - you need to just do what He says. Buddha must simply persuade.

Dianne struggles with the metaphor of slavery and doesn't quite come to terms with it. The battle Paul talks about is not unique to Christians. Paul is distressed that he is somehow breaking "the Law" (he doesn't say how). But we are all unable to be the best we know we should be. Buddha agrees that to reach the ultimate spiritual goal, we must contend with human nature. Spiritual growth doesn't come naturally. This is most clearly brought out in the discipline of mindfulness (which borrows a lot from Buddhism). Our minds and our lives are naturally a mess. It takes an effort to get ourselves on the right path.

Strangely, the very title of Dianne's sermon (and Paul's letter) invites us to stop trying and turn it all over to God, whatever that means.

Sympathy For The Theology Graduate

I have been in Dianne's shoes. Especially fresh out of the heady world of a seminary with a head full of all that hard-won knowledge of the "faith," it is almost impossible to appreciate the vast gulf that exists between the pulpit and the first row of pews. For many of these ladies (and they are almost all ladies), the ability to listen at all is an effort that increases exponentially with age. The very fact that they have taken the time to show up in church on a Sunday morning confirms that they are morally superior to the rest of humanity. They are confident in their ability to judge what is wrong with the world and use their ability to offer criticism of the "new" chairs and a little girl who "should not" be distracting the tiny congregation from the wise words being delivered by this lovely young preacher up front who is presumably telling us what we already know. The needs of the child must not disturb the slumber of her elders. Pulling out of the parking lot, they can confidently apply the lesson of the day to forgive themselves for perhaps being a tiny bit over-dressed.

Article VII of the United Chuch official doctrine

For the record, here is article VII of the United Chuch official doctrine, drafted almost a century ago and still part of the official doctrine of the Church.

Article VII. Of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe in and confess the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, who, being the Eternal Son of God, for us men and for our salvation became truly man, being conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, yet without sin. Unto us He has revealed the Father, by His word and Spirit, making known the perfect will of God. For our redemption, He fulfilled all righteousness, offered Himself a perfect sacrifice on the Cross, satisfied Divine justice, and made propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, where He ever intercedes for us. In the hearts of believers He abides forever as the indwelling Christ; above Twenty Articles of Doctrine (1925) The United Church of Canada 2 L’Église Unie du Canada us and over us all He rules; wherefore, unto Him, we render love, obedience, and adoration as our Prophet, Priest, and King.

Nowhere in the doctrine is there any claim that the doctrine is optional or metaphorical. The doctrine forms the basis of the Union itself, giving the entire United Church a backbone of smoke. The vast majority of ordained ministers in the United Church do not believe in the literal truth of this statement, yet the statement itself goes to some length to ensure that it is taken literally. In other words, ordination in the Church requires a life of hypocrisy. While the professional priesthood acts as if the doctrine is now somehow optional or subject to interpretation, it is not. For this reason, any minister who speaks frankly about what everyone knows is subject to dismissal for doctrinal reasons.

As a former insider, I should comment that it is also dangerous to speak as if the doctrine is true! Such behavior invites criticism of the Church's "liberal" credentials and encourages craziness in the congregation. For example, the minister must keep a tight lid on expectations that prayer will do anything and cast a patronizing cloak over any hint of miracles in the lives of the people. I'm not sure why this is done, but I think the core of it is that the professionals are, for all intents and purposes, atheists. To them, any hint of the miraculous seems like mental illness.

Those who have chosen to be Ministers in the United Church are not to be envied.

-----------------

My views on religion in general and Christianity in particular, are extensively documented in this blog. There is no need to repeat them here. In this post, I am asking what to think about other folks who believe what they believe and act the way they act beyond the range of anything I might say. In the one case, there is my 98-year-old mother in law who, due to no fault of her own, is more or less locked in a pattern of thought that she can no longer change. On the other hand, we have a fresh young Theology School graduate who has been trained to speak a language that that expressly encourages evasion and vague ideas. The congregation is expected to find the meaning. I know from experience that it takes many years to overcome this kind of training, made more difficult if you are employed to be the "Magic Christian" seven days a week. Like all big bureaucracies, the liberal church of 2017 is a minefield for employees who speak plainly.

Sam Harris has an interesting comment on how Judaism has also turned away from the "spooky stuff" at 30:40 in this podcast. This applies even to Rabbis who, in Sam's estimation, are for all intents and purposes, atheists.

Notes on:

Authority: The Core of Religion

The issue of authority did not come out of the blue. It's a recent baby step in the process of "cleaning house" - organizing the clutter left after decades of thought.

I've had a lot of time to read lately, including Buddhist, Taoist and Christian writings. I've been increasingly annoyed at the tone of these writings: "This is the way things are". Content either comes directly from the source (such as Jesus or Buddha) or from "authoritative" commentator, such as St. Paul. The validity of these writings depends completely from authority of the writer or the authority he quotes. There is much ancient wisdom to be found in the "scriptures", but also a lot that is plainly unacceptable to the modern mind. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room. The fundamental assumptions underlying all of these writings - so fundamental to be not worth questioning or even mentioning - is the existence of God. This an offence to reason and we are constantly left with the job of finding something valuable in the writings of people who would regard us as dangerous heretics.

Another factor was Asimov's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Mathew uses logical back-flips, mis-quotes and fallacies to make his case that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the Old Testament prophets. I happen to know quite a bit about this issue, having written a term paper on the subject back in my University days. The Messiah of the prophets is clearly a mythological creation, what I call "Everything that Israel Stands For"-the Super Jew. Connection to the person of Jesus  (or any real person) is risky at best, but I didn't appreciate how flimsy until I read Asimov tear Matthew to bits, verse by verse. Asimov (a jew by birth and an atheist by choice) is careful to point out that the Jews at the time violently opposed Matthew's logic and happily stoned its advocates to death. While the penalty seems extreme, their objections seem quite reasonable. If you take the Old Testament seriously, the New Testament is heresy. If you don't take the Old Testament seriously, the New Testament is irrelevant.

Asimov does a similar job with Mark and the life story of Paul, as told in Acts. I had always felt that the personality and character of Jesus somehow "shone through" all this hype, interpretation and glorification. Once Asimov was through with me, I wasn't so sure. Did I know anything at all about Jesus? This is not the first time such a thing has occurred to me. I wrote about it in "Monkey Boy", one of the most popular posts in this blog.

So, If I have lost that feeling of connection with Jesus, which was more about liking the man rather than the teachings, what is left? If we set aside all the politics of the Zealot, the theology of John and the Messianic hype of Matthew, what's left?

Not much.

And then, the inevitable question arises: suppose you did have a collection of the actual, unfiltered sayings of Jesus (once I thought I had such a thing in the Gospel of Thomas)? Why would I take it as more authoritative than any other writing? The answer inevitably depends on whether I believe that Jesus is divine. Obviously I no longer consider this to be a possibility.

I was influenced further by Asimov's commentary on the Old Testament, which reveals that what we regard as "orthodox Judaism" was relatively new in the time of Jesus. For example, it did not exist in the time of David or Solomon. Like much of the rest of the Old Testament, Priestly religion is read back into everything from Genesis onward -- something I knew already but it had not "sunk in". Bottom line is that you see Judaism still in flux during the time of Jesus, with Jesus quite likely stepping in as a reformer of Judaism, preaching mainly (or exclusively) to Jews with a message that is not likely to be intelligible, let alone relevant to modern readers. To believe that Jesus had a message for non-Jews, you need to accept Paul's "spin" on Jesus, which was vigorously resisted by the original disciples, all of whom were Jews.

Added to this is my previous decision to stop identifying myself as a Christian, mainly as a protest about all the mayhem that has been committed in the name of that religion since New Testament times.

So I wind up with a total rejection of Christianity, pulled up by its roots.

But then, why is Christianity so popular? Why have others not followed my train of logic? The answer, it seems to me, is authority. Acceptance totally relies on authority - ultimately in the divine authority of Jesus Himself. Seen from this perspective, assuming there is no such thing as "divine", you see the divine aspect of Jesus as a necessary pre-condition to claiming Him as the ultimate authority and, less plausibly, for those who claim to inherit the same authority by mystical means.

Rejection of all religion on the same basis is just one step further.

I then turn to ask if there is any human authority. Could there be such a person? I'd say that authority comes (if at all) from what the person is saying, not the reputation of the person. For example, we regard Euclid's theorems on geometry as authoritative but don't feel obligated to know anything about Euclid or his political opinions (in fact Euclid may not have existed at all). Einstein said a lot of things that were profoundly true and a few things that were plausible but wrong. If a previously-unknown paper by Einstein turned up, it would get special attention because of its famous author but it would not be simply accepted without question. We have grown up enough to think for ourselves and respectfully disagree with any human being, even the wisest among us.

Does character count for nothing? I'd say only in a negative sense. Someone who is known to be a liar or a con-man deserves to be totally ignored even if what he says seems reasonable. This that we are entitled to ask about not only the content of what a person is saying but to ask why he's saying it. Life is short. We don't have time to carefully weigh the evidence for every crack pot conspiracy theory, "proof" of God or revolutionary theory of everything.

But we also don't need to be right about everything. It's OK to be wrong and OK to trust no authority at all.