Peace and Long Life

Feeling tells you what matters
Reason tells you what is true


Reality
Is what kills you
If you ignore it for long enough


Dogmatic belief
Is not a feature
It's a bug


Religion is like a complex number
It has a real part
And an imaginary part
The real part is the Church
The imaginary part is God


Climate change:
What's the bottom line?
Don't fuck with the atmosphere!

Seriously …
Don't

Free Your Mind

Dogma is a cage for the mind
Faith is the lock
For which doubt is the key
Free your mind!

— peaceandlonglife


[Faith is] that luminous inner conviction that needs no recourse to evidence.

— Ian McEwan (1948), Stanford University, 2007.


Belief is the wound that knowledge heals

— Ursula Le Guin (1929 – 2018), The Telling, 2000.


The first step towards philosophy is incredulity.

— Denis Diderot (1713 – 84)


[Doubt] is not to be feared …
It is to be welcomed
As the possibility of a new potential for human beings

— Richard Feynman (1918 – 88), Seattle, 1963.


What a man had rather were true he more readily believes.
Therefore he rejects:

• difficult things, from impatience of research;
• sober things, because they narrow hope;
• the deep things of nature, from superstition;
• the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; …
• things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar.

Numberless, in short, are the ways … in which the affections color and affect the understanding.

— Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), Novum Organum, 1820.


Like everyone else you were born into bondage.
Into a prison that you cannot taste, or see, or touch.
A prison for your mind. …
You have to let it all go …
Free your mind.

— Lilly & Lana Wachowski, The Matrix, 1999.

Richard Feynman (1918 – 88):
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong. …
I don't feel frightened:

• by not knowing things;
• by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.

Which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell …
(Christopher Sykes, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, BBC Horizon, 1981)

Carl Van Doren (1885 – 1950):
[Unbelief] is rooted in courage and not in fear. …

• There are breathing myths,
• there are comforting legends,
• there are consoling hopes.

But they have … no authority beyond that of poetry. …
However many fears [the unbeliever] may prove unable to escape, he does not multiply them in his imagination and then combat them with his wishes. …

There is no moral obligation to believe what is unbelievable any more than there is a moral obligation do what is undoable.
Even in religion, honesty is a virtue. …

[It] must always be remembered that the greatest believers are the greatest tyrants.
(Why I Am an Unbeliever, 1926)

Daniel Gilbert (1957):
People are credulous creatures who find it:

• very easy to believe, and
• very difficult to doubt.

(How Mental Systems Believe, American Psychologist 46, no 2, February 1991, pp 107-119)

Scepticism	Dogmatism
Open Mindedness	Closed Mindedness
Rational Doubt	Irrational Certainty
Curiosity	Complacency
Evidence	Emotion
Reason	Faith
Knowledge	Belief
Science	Religion
Painful Truths	Comforting Lies
Freedom	Slavery

Seeking the Truth	Knowing the Truth
Humility	Arrogance
Heterodoxy	Orthodoxy
Provisional Truth	Absolute Truth
Falsifiability	Infallibility
Innovation	Tradition
Novelty	Familiarity
Progress	Stability
Dynamic	Static
Adaptable	Inflexible
Growth	Stagnation

Autonomy	Authority
Internal Locus of Control	External Locus of Control
Dissent	Obedience
Diversity	Conformity
Pluralism	Uniformity
Complexity	Simplicity
Tolerance	Prejudice
Permisiveness	Control
Chaos	Order
Change	Continuity
Reform	Reaction
Revolution	Restoration
Renaissance	Dark Ages
Reformation	Counter-Reformation
Enlightenment	Counter-Enlightenment

Belief with evidence	Fact	Knowledge
Belief without evidence	Fiction	Faith
Belief contrary to evidence	Error	Denial

Well Being
Mind	Spirit	Body
Learning	Meditation	Exercise
Thoughts	Emotions	Sensations
Wisdom	Happiness	Pleasure
Folly	Suffering	Pain

Wisdom
Knowledge	Reason	Kindness
Truth	Freedom	Justice

Folly
Ignorance	Delusion
Mistaking Truth for Falsehood	Mistaking Fact for Fiction
Mistaking Falsehood for Truth	Mistaking Fiction for Fact

Facts, Fictions, and Values

Knowledge is about truth and falsehood

— discovery, evidence, and reason.

Meaning is about storytelling

— creativity, imagination, and emotion.

Wisdom is about not confusing

— knowledge with meaning,

— fact with fiction.

Facts	Fictions	Values
What Is	What If	What Matters

What Exists
Real	Imaginary
Mind Independent	Mind Dependent

Fact	Fiction
Demonstrably True or False	Not Demonstrably True or False
Objective	(Inter)Subjective
Mind	Heart
Intellect	Intuition
Rationality	Emotionality
Discovery	Invention
Observation	Introspection
Outer World	Inner World
Waking	Dreaming
Knowledge	Meaning
Events	Stories
Determinism	Choice
Necessity	Contingency

Naturalism	Supernaturalism
Astronomy	Astrology
Chemistry	Alchemy
Mathematics	Numerology
Psychology	Parapsychology
Medicine	Alternative Medicine
Philosophy	Theology
Science	Religion
Explanation	Consolation

Mistaking the Imaginary for the Real

Facts are objective.
They are likely to be true, or likely to be false, according to the available evidence.
Fictions are subjective — they are psychologically, culturally and historically contingent.
They are neither true nor false, but rather matters of agreement or disagreement.

Facts, unlike fictions, are subject to verification and resist falsification.
Because they cannot be falsified, fictions that masquerade as facts can be extremely destructive.
For example, that witches are real.

Facts are discovered.
Fictions are invented.
You cannot choose your facts.
You can, however, choose your fictions.

Morality a blend of both fact (mind) and fiction (heart).

Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970):
There is a stark joy in the unflinching perception of our true place in the world, and a more vivid drama than any that is possible to those who hide behind the enclosing walls of myth.
There are ‘perilous seas’ in the world of thought, which can only be sailed by those who are willing to face their own physical powerlessness.
And above all, there is liberation from the tyranny of Fear, which blots out the light of day and keeps men grovelling and cruel.

• No man is liberated from fear who dare not see his place in the world as it is;
• no man can achieve the greatness of which he is capable until he has allowed himself to see his own littleness.

(Dreams and Facts, Sceptical Essays, Chapter 2, 1928, p 22)

Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination.
(The Rise Of Greek Civilization, p 36)

There [is] a vast field, traditionally included in philosophy, where scientific methods are inadequate.
This field includes ultimate questions of value.
[Science] alone, for example, cannot prove that it is bad to enjoy the infliction of cruelty.
Whatever can be known, can be known by means of science.
[But] things which are legitimately matters of feeling, lie outside its province.
(The Philosophy of Logical Analysis, A History of Western Philosophy, 2nd Edition, 1961, p 788)

I mean by wisdom a right conception of the ends of life.
This is something which science in itself does not provide.
Increase of science by itself, therefore, is not enough to guarantee any genuine progress, though it provides one of the ingredients which progress requires.
(The Scientific Outlook, 1931)

Stephen Gould (1941 – 2002):
[Science and religion] bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border.
Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer …
(Nonoverlapping Magisteria, March 1997)

Hannah Arendt (1906 – 75):
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not

• the convinced Nazi or
• the convinced Communist,

but people for whom

• the distinction between fact and fiction (that is, the reality of experience) and
• the distinction between true and false (that is, the standards of thought)

no longer exist.
(The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951)

Stephen Bachelor:
As long as we don't confuse myth with history, we can appreciate the value of both.
(Study and Practice, Secular Buddhism, Yale University Press, 2017, p 191)

Ludwig von Feuerbach (1804 – 72):
Religion is the dream of the human mind.
(The Essence of Christianity, 1841)

Chapman Cohen (1868 – 1954):
[Surely] there is, in this human story, [enough inspiration] to make one feel:

• that, whatever our failures may be, they are neither eternal nor irremediable;
• that the course of evolution has loaded the dice in our favour; and
• that even though, as individuals, we are mere links in the chain of beings, as links, we still play our parts, and so serve to provide a finer metal out of which may be forged the links that follow.

(Monism and Religion)

William Gibson (1948):
Conspiracy theories and the occult comfort us because they present models of the world that more easily make sense than the world itself, and, regardless of how dark or threatening, are inherently less frightening.
(Review of London: The Biography by Peter Ackroyd, The Whole Earth Catalog, Summer 2001)

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955):
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth … lest doubt about the myth … imperil the foundation of sound judgement and action.
(20 November 1950)

Anthony Mercatante:
[A myth is] an anonymous traditional story: …

• [originally] believed to be literally true by the culture that produced it,
• about gods and goddesses, heroes, heroines, and other real and fantastic creatures,
• taking place in primeval or remote times.

(p xiv)

[A legend is] an anonymous traditional tale:

• sometimes believed to be true, but not necessarily …
• having as its main characters some historical personages but also fantastic elements such as dragons,
• taking place in historical times.

(p xvii)

[The] Dinka of Eastern Sudan [believe that Abuk and Garang,] the first woman and man … were tiny and made of clay.
When a pot in which they were placed was opened, they grew larger.
The Great Being allotted them one grain of corn each day, but Abuk became selfish and [ground] more.
[Her greed offended the sky.]
[Abuk's] symbol is a snake. …
(p 6)

[Imana, the creator god of the Banyarwanda (Ruanda-Unrundi), once tried] to stop Death but failed.
Imana ordered everyone to stay indoors while he hunted Death.
But one woman went out, and Death asked her if he might hide under her skirt.
She consented.
This angered Imana, who then allowed death to have its way with humankind.
(Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, Child & Associates, 1988, p 339)

Fact	Value
Truth	Utility
True or False	Good or Bad
Is	Ought
Declarative	Injunctive
Descriptive	Prescriptive
Can	Should
Objects	Agents
Causes	Reasons
Explanation	Motivation
Science	Psychology
Determinism	Teleology
Necessity	Contingency
Mechanism	Purpose
Means	Ends
How	Why

Fact	Opinion
Data	Interpretation
Territory	Map
Science	Ideology

Truth	Falsehood
Right	Wrong
Dexter	Sinister
Good	Bad
Beauty	Ugliness

Anyone but me	Be
Anywhere but here	Here
Anywhen but now	Now

Contents

Facts, Fictions, and Values

Well Being

Free Your Mind

Dogmatism and Scepticism

The Dominion of Fear
The Second Comings of Christ

Ideology and Fanaticism

Painting and Sculpture

Photography

Poetry and Song

Prose

Eyquem, Michel (Lord of Montaigne)

Gibson, William

Thomas, Dylan

Stage and Screen

The Perfectibility of Man

Steve Fuller: The Engine of Progress

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

Tom Switzer: Playing Nuclear Roulette

On Tolerance

Honour and Freedom

Cosmological Fine Tuning

Franco-German Fiscal Hypocrisy

Dissociative Identity Disorder

The Birth of Modernity

Inequality

Freedom (of Action) Without (Freedom of) Will

Friedrich Hayek: The Divine Right of Plutocrats

Malcolm Turnbull: Coal is King

Scott Stephens: In Praise of Aristocracy

The Politics of Energy

An Orgy Of Free Thinking

The Rage of the Powerless

Donald Trump: Why Are We Surprised?

Malcolm Turnbull: The Pretty Face of an Ugly Party

A Free Man's Catechism

Mon Coeur Sauvage

The Meanings of Life

The Universe

A Virtual Epitaph: Digital Graffiti on the Wall of Civilization

Reality
Is what kills you
If you ignore it for long enough


Don't fret about:

• Future events you can't control
  
• Past events you can't change

Life is about doing the best you can,
With the tools you have,
In the circumstances that you find yourself in


Feelings shape our thoughts
Thoughts shape our feelings


For in the image of Man made he god.


Economics is not physics.


Taxation is investment in the public good.


Clarity is a blessing and a curse.
It is a blessing because is makes it easier to tell when one is wrong.
It is a curse for the same reason.


It is irrational to believe in falsehoods.
Irrationality is both addictive and contagious.


Being wrong is not an intellectual vice.
Resisting correction is.


Economics is not physics:
In physics, when theory does not agree with the observations —
     the theory is rejected.
In economics, when theory does not agree with the observations —
     the observations are rejected.


Maximize the benefits of cooperation.
Minimize the costs of competition.


Pursuit of Truth → Knowledge
Pursuit of Good → Wisdom


Merit is not Virtue
Intelligence is not Wisdom
Price is not Value


Democracy protects the Many from the Few
Liberalism protects the Few from the Many


Explanation is not Justification
Disagreement is not Criticism


All reality is virtual


All politics is identity politics


Ignorance is the first stage of Knowledge
Humility is the essence of Wisdom


Markets are infallible
People make markets
People are infallible
Reductio ad absurdum


Patriotism = Love of country
Nationalism = Hatred of other countries


The Market is a good servant, but a bad master

Market Democracy = Government of the People for Businessmen by Businessmen


Rationality = Forward Thinking = Evidence → Conclusion
Rationalization = Backward Thinking = Evidence ← Conclusion


Morality = Values + Norms
Spirituality = Meaning + Purpose


Knowledge = What is true
Morality = What is right


Virtue = What is praiseworthy
Vice = What is blameworthy


Imaginary things exist
But they are not real
This does not mean they are unimportant
The most important things in life are imaginary
Nonetheless, it is unwise to confuse the Real with the Imaginary
Such as when religion conflates mythology with history


Democracy = One person one vote
Plutocracy = One dollar one vote


Scientific inferences are premised on observations of the world
Moral inferences, on the introspection of our emotions


God is a great, powerful, and wholly imaginary friend


Reformers exist to make things better
Reactionaries, to stop things from getting worse


What distinguishes a conspiracy theory, from an actual conspiracy?
Falsifiable evidence


Folly is not making mistakes
It is making the same mistakes repeatedly


Factual errors are mistakes
Moral errors are crimes
However, factual errors can have moral consequences


Study the past to avoid repeating old mistakes
Contemplate the future to avoid making new ones


What is the opposite of diversity?
Monotony.


Because a false belief prevails for thousands of years
Does not make it any less false


Moral virtue cannot be won through the exercise of intellectual vice.


Free Market = Unregulated Market


God is the name we give to our ignorance


Freedom without Justice
Tyranny of the Strong


History is the story of the never-ending war
Between Wisdom and Folly
Ingenuity and Fallibility


Those who are absolutely sure they are right
Are almost certainly wrong


Self-delusion is the height of folly


Wanting something to be true
Is not evidence that it is true


Climate change
It's not about saving the planet
It's about saving ourselves


Stories trump facts


In the Age of Religion, God(s) were the final arbiter of value.
In the Age of Commerce, the Market is the final arbiter of value.


There are two roads to hell: a short road, and a long road.
The short road is paved with nuclear weapons.
The long road is paved with fossil fuels.


Economics is not physics:
In physics, when theory does not agree with the observations —
     the theory is rejected.
In economics, when theory does not agree with the observations —
     the observations are rejected.


What we believe about the world often tells us more about ourselves, than it does about the world.


The fact that you cannot prove a proposition false, is not evidence that it is true.


Fanaticism is the breeding ground of atrocity
Atrocity is the breeding ground of fanaticism


Equality = Fairness = Justice


Governance = Leadership + Followership


Data is not Information
Information is not Knowledge
Knowledge is not Wisdom


If you can do significant good at insignificant cost, you should do it.


Markets do not have hands, invisible or otherwise.


Most ugly ducklings grow up to be ugly ducks


A cloud with a silver lining is still a cloud


Denial: there is no problem.
Indifference: there is a problem, but it doesn't bother me.
Resignation: there is a problem, it does bother me, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Acceptance: there is a problem, it bothers me, and there is something I can do about it.


Fear begets Anger
Anger begets Hatred
Hatred begets Cruelty
Cruelty begets Suffering


The reference point for science is reality
The reference point for values is consensus


Science tells us about the world
Religion tells us about ourselves


If Life is a journey
Death is its destination

A Free Man's Catechism

Without Reason

There is only Faith

Without Knowledge

There is only Belief

Without Scepticism

There is only Dogmatism

Without Science

There is only Religion

Without Kindness

There is only Cruelty

Without Wisdom

There is only Folly

Without Light

There is only Darkness

Mon Coeur Sauvage

Loudly sing my Savage Heart
Upon the darkened windswept plain
Of bitter battles yet to fight
With weapons worn and armor stained

Listen for the Havoc's cry
Beneath the blackened winter sky
Sing within, mem'ries fading pale
Of distant dreams, and hopes assailed

Loudly sing my Savage Heart
Be strong, before the coming of the Dark

The Meanings of Life

The Seeking of Pleasure
The Avoidance of Pain

The Hunger for Love
The Thirst for Knowledge

The Cultivation of Wisdom
The Practise of Virtue

The Craving for Approval
The Need to Belong

The Pursuit of Happiness
The End of Suffering

The Universe

The universe does not care.
It does not hear our prayers.
It is not flattered by our offerings or sacrifices.
It is neither vengeful nor forgiving.

There is no relationship to be had with the universe, no reciprocity, no intentionality.
There is only direction without purpose.
It is a blank canvas upon which humanity expresses its needs and desires for pattern and meaning.

Human values are the by products of the sociobiological history of the human species.
As is our freedom to choose between them.
Our purposes are our own.
To be pursued with such dignity and courage as we can command.

The universe is a wondrous and a terrifying place.
But it is neither friend nor foe.
For those, we only have each other.

The Perfectability of Man

The idea of the perfectability of man has long been criticized as unrealistic on the grounds:

• that biology implies immutability (human nature is fixed);
• that social engineering necessarily infringes rather than enhances human liberty;
• that human nature is irredeemably corrupt (ala original sin) and that strict authoritarianism is the only way to contain it;
• that women were incapable by nature of exercising the same rights and privileges as men;
• that certain races are by nature inferior to others (Aristotle's natural slaves).

There is a conservative defense of the status quo that argues:

• it cannot be changed because human nature is fixed (biology is destiny), and even if it were possible
• it shouldn't be changed because to do so would be a violation the natural (or divinely ordained) order.

Progressives (idealists) tend to be optimistic about the prospects of ameliorating the human condition, conservatives (fatalists) pessimistic.
Social evolution always been a compromise between ambition and caution.

Human societies exhibit enormous cultural variation across both time and space; despite the human species being remarkably genetically homogeneous.
Anatomically modern humans emerged 300,000 years ago.
Since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago human thought and behavior has been radically transformed.
This not a biological effect.

Biology may determine what range of behavior is possible.
But that range is very great.
And what genes or behaviors are actually expressed depends of the sociocultural and physical environment, including the way society is politically and economically organized.

Are we really living in the best of all possible worlds (Gottfried Leibniz)?
Because human nature is shaped by biology and culture, human potentiality is not static, it is open ended.
Have we reached the limits of human potentiality?
I wouldn't bet on it.

The idea of the perfectibility of man emerges in the 18th century, with the relaxation of the theological barriers protecting the property for God alone.
In Enlightenment writers such as Condorcet and Godwin, perfectibility becomes a tendency actually capable of being realized in human history.
Before Kant, both Rousseau and the Scottish thinker Lord Monboddo (1714–99) envisaged perfectibility as the power of self-rule and moral progress.
The 19th century represented the high-water mark of belief in perfectibility, under the influence first of Saint-Simon, then Kant, Hegel, Comte and Marx.
With the arrival of the theory of evolution it was possible to see successive economic and cultural history as a progress of increasing fitness, from primitive and undeveloped states to a potential ideal associated with freedom and self-fulfilment.
This optimism, frequently allied with unlimited confidence in the bettering of the human condition through the advance of science, has not generally survived the battering of the 20th century.
(The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

In terms of prophetic traditions, Jews, Muslims and Christians all agree that they worship the God of Abraham.
But do they all believe that he worshiped the same God?
If they do, they worship the same God.
But if each believe he worshiped a different God, they don't.

The God of the Jews and the Muslims is a unitary God.
The God of the Christians is a tripartite God.
By this reasoning, two traditions worship the same God, and all three worship 1/3 of the same God.

Names as unique identifiers work best when referring to events in space-time, like Vicky the Vase (if she existed).
Suppose, hypothetically, that God(s) do not exist, that they are purely fictional entities.
Purely fictional entities derive their uniqueness from the context of the stories in which they occur.
"James T Kirk" only refers to the Star Trek character if the name occurs in the a story set in the Star Trek universe — otherwise it doesn't.
If the stories in which the world "God" occurs conform closely enough (a matter of interminable debate) they refer to the same thing — like the multiple versions of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Historical characters are often placed in fictional settings, like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan in the Eye of Time science fiction novels.
Fantastic stories circulate constantly about real people: Elvis, Marilyn, JFK, Jesus …
Real subjects with imaginary predicates.
Identity here is anchored in reality rather than narrative context.
But, of course, any analysis of language will not settle the ontological status of God(s).

Theological disputes are arbitrary matters.
The appearance of objectivity is an illusion — a lure for unwary analytic philosophers into entertaining, if ultimately futile, debate.
Theology is more like literary criticism than scientific peer review.

In the final analysis the issue is not the identity of God(s), but the identity boundaries of their worshipers:
Drawing more or less inclusive ideological lines between Us and Them.
And this is not a question for the head, but for the heart.

(5 September 2018)

Cosmological Fine-tuning

The Ultimate Watchmaker

The fine tuning argument is a version of the argument from design.
Finding a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.
A complex phenomenon is unlikely to occur by chance, therefore it must occur by design.
Design implies a designer.

Complexity demands explanation because of its apparent improbability.
But explaining complexity by resort to greater complexity seeks to explain the improbable with the even more improbable.
The less complex is created by the more complex, which in turn is created by the even more complex, which in turn … an infinitely complex designer: the ultimate watchmaker.
But, by extension, the infinitely complex would be infinitely improbable.

How does complexity emerge from simplicity?
By small degrees.
It may seem odd that, given enough time, complexity can emerge incrementally from simplicity — order from chaos.
Nevertheless, that this fact is surprising does not make it any less true.
The world is as it is.
Nature is bound neither

• by human preferences, nor
• by human expectations.

To believe otherwise is self-delusion.

The God Variable

Scientific progress consists in the refinement of causative explanations in terms of progressively fewer degrees of freedom.
The most robust scientific theories are those that are the most constrained.
Conversely, a theory which explains everything explains nothing.
That physics has reduced the number of free variables to a small number is a measure of its success. It is also the whole point of the exercise.
The supernatural is being left with fewer and fewer knobs to twiddle as the domain of natural understanding expands and the realm of ignorance shrinks.
The gap of the God of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller.
And if and when there is only one variable left, let's call it the God Variable, what value might we assign to this Divine Number?
How about 42?

(2 April 2017)

Freedom (of Action) Without (Freedom of) Will

The issue of free will contrasts:

• the animate with the inanimate
• the language of agents with the language of physics,
• teleological explanations with mechanistic ones.

Consciousness is the tip of the cognitive iceberg.
It has long been clear that vast amounts of preprocessing of perceptual data occurs below the level of conscious awareness.
The work on readiness potentials simply extends this to the experience of intentionality.
Likewise many of our preferences are influencing by factors which we are unaware of eg images flashed so quickly they are not registered consciously, ambient temperature, pupil dilation.

If free will has both a conscious and unconscious component (as is the case for all other mental phenomena) can it exist without the conscious element?
Freedom (of action) without (freedom of) will?
Say, in insects or sufficiently sophisticated machines?
What do you call freedom of action without self-awareness?
Zombieism.

Do we consciously choose what our next thought, feeling or impulse is going to be?
Do we choose to fire neurone X or neurone Y, or to upregulate or downregulate neurotransmitter system Z?

Determinism at the level of the atomic constituents of a system does not mean determinism applies to the system as whole.
The whole can be more than the sum of its parts.

A notion of free will that requires that we control the process by which choice is made leads to an infinite regress.

The idea of being free to choose otherwise given an identical brain state implies an entity that 'stands outside' the natural order (supernaturalism) or the material world (cartesian dualism).

Within a system causation need not be unidirectional, ie it does not just go from lower levels to higher levels (bottom-up); it may also operate top-down.
An example of bidirectional causality is:

• neurological events in the brain cause psychological events in the mind, and
• psychological events in the mind cause neurological events in the brain.

In a dynamic non-linear interactional system causation is not bottom-up or top-down, it is circular.
Hardware controlling software controlling hardware controlling …

Choices are a summation of multiple inputs:

• internal and external,
• conscious and unconscious,
• intuitive and rational.

Moral responsibility suggests a capacity to respond to a schedule of incentives and deterrents ie environmental contingencies.
It implies trainability.
An entity, whether conscious or not, which does not have the freedom of action to respond adaptively to different environmental contingencies cannot be morally responsible.

(20 March 2017)

No Party Politics Here

Malcolm Turnbull:
I regret to say, that a number of the state Labor governments have, over the years, set priorities and renewable targets that are extremely aggressive, extremely unrealistic, and have paid little or no attention to energy security. …

Tony Wood [Director, Energy Program, Grattan Institute]:
The policy that drove the 40% of electricity in South Australia coming from wind was actually a federal government policy introduced originally when John Howard was Prime Minister under a Coalition government for the Renewable Energy Target. …
[Industry then capitalised on the renewable energy target by building wind farms in the state with the most wind: South Australia.]
So I would say that if you wanted to place blame on anybody for undertaking an aggressive renewable energy target and not thinking through the consequences, that blame could just as easily be laid, if not more so, at the foot of the federal government than the state government.
(System black, Background Briefing, ABC Radio National, 6 November 2016)

(9 December 2016)

The Rage of the Powerless: The Political Economy of Illiberalism

Philip Pettit (1945) [Laurence Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values, Princeton University]:
[When] you look at the different socioeconomic classes; and you look at stable policy preferences associated specifically with those classes … what you find is that, [over the last 30-40 years,] the bottom 20–25% [have had] zero influence of their policy preferences on government — that's a shocking condemnation of a democracy …
(A Brief History of Liberty, Alan Saunders Memorial Lecture, 8 August 2014)

John Galbraith (1908 – 2006):
When … men and women are employed and at continuously improving wages or salaries, they are not greatly concerned that others, with whatever justification or absence of justification, have more, even greatly more.
The relevant comparison is not with what others have but with one's own previous economic position — it is the improvement over the previous year that is noticed.
When unemployment [and] wage reductions … are endemic, the comparison with previous years is unfavorable.
[It is then that] the mind turns to the better fortune of the fortunate.
(pp xv-xvi)

The ancient preoccupations of economic life — with equality, security and productivity — have now narrowed down to a preoccupation with productivity and production.
Production has become the solvent of the tensions once associated with inequality, and it has become the indispensable remedy for the discomforts, anxieties and privations associated with economic insecurity. …
Production has become the center of a concern that had hitherto been shared with equality and security.
(The Affluent Society, 4th Ed, Penguin, 1984, p 99)

Peace and Long Life

Mainstream (neoclassical) economics has failed (at least for the bottom 90%).
Income growth for most people across the developed world is stagnating.
Income and wealth inequality is returning to levels not seen since the Gilded Age prior to WWI.

As if, as Thomas Piketty has suggested, it was post-war reconstruction boom that drove the great contraction in inequality after WWII, then those days are over.
Low growth may be the new normal.

High growth covers a multitude of sins.
People might support, or at least tolerate, progressive attitudes towards women, ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants and asylum seekers, climate change, and LGBT rights when times are good and their economic prospects are rosy; but in times of general economic distress, focusing on such issues just stokes resentment — they are seen as middle class indulgences remote from the everyday concerns of ordinary people.

The conservative economic prescription for the macroeconomic malaise is more of the same microeconomic medicine:

• lower wages, poorer working conditions, and weaker unions (labor market deregulation);
• spending cuts for the poor (austerity); and
• tax cuts for the rich.

Politically and culturally they perform a bait and switch.
Populist anger is not due to economic injustice, but identity politics (nationality, race and gender).
People are being oppressed by the tyranny of left-wing political correctness.
The answer is greater opportunity to express illiberal values and the endorsement of such values by those in positions of authority (Section 18C).

The answer to rising intolerance is not the licensing of more bigotry and scapegoating.
Illiberalism is a symptom, not a solution.

(6 December 2016)

Why Are We Surprised?

Donald's victory was not a black swan event.

What was the Bayesian prior regarding Donald's chance of winning?
Say it was unlikely: 33%.

Throwing a 1 or 2 with a 6-sided die is not a "likely" outcome but since, of course, it happens 1/3 of the time and it is no cause for surprise.
Unlikely events happen all the time.
Just not as frequently as likely ones.

Because Donald won does not mean prior assessments of his chance of winning were necessarily wrong.

One's emotional reaction to an event is not just a function of how likely or unlikely it is.
The quality and magnitude of the outcome matters.
High impact, adverse events naturally evoke stronger reactions than low impact events event even if they are equally likely.
There is always both an analytic and an intuitive/emotional component to any assessment of risk.

Events often appear inevitable in retrospect.
This is the historical fallacy.

We tend to overestimate our ability to predict the future.
Uncertainty is scary.
It is comforting to think that we know what is going to happen next.

A failure of imagination.
Unprecedented events are more shocking than familiar ones.
It is not easy to imagine events that have never happened before.
Despite the experience of Brexit, it was difficult to imagine Donald becoming president — especially for those for whom this was a horrifying prospect.

What we are experiencing is the difference between possibility and reality.

(25 November 2016)

Malcolm Turnbull: The Pretty Face of an Ugly Party

Scott Stevens:
[Malcolm Turnbull is] trying to sell himself [firstly,] to the electorate, but primarily he was trying to gain a degree of authority over a … policy-conflicted party. …
[What he is pleading for is:]

Please God, give me time, to rebuild something here. …
Can we just have a bit more time to get something together?

(Do voters have moral responsibilities?, The Minefield, 7 July, 2016)

Peace and Long Life

This is the electors' dilemma.
Faced with a disunited party with an indifferent first term record:
Do you give them three more years in government to get their act together on the strength of a shiny new / recycled leader?
Or, are the opposition benches a more fitting place for them to sort out their differences?
Can the country afford the risk of wasting three more years in policy limbo?
Hope, it seems, has narrowly prevailed over experience.

Election campaigns are always fought on at least two fronts:

1. Program = Policy Platform.
2. Leadership = Trust.

Labor took the policy road.
Malcolm Turnbull:

Trust me I'm an businessman, investment banker, journalist, rich, smart etc

The Coalition had to run on leadership because their economic program has been in a shambles since the electorally devastating 2014 budget.
To gain the leadership Turnbull had give undertakings to retain essential elements of Abbott's hard right agenda.
To break those undertakings and have any prospect of changing policy direction he needed a convincing win — which he has failed to achieve.
It was a Catch 22.
He needed electoral success to unify his party while needing a unified party to achieve electoral success.

(17 July 2016)

Donations (AUD)
Annual Donations as a Percentage of Gross Income (5 year average)	10%
Total	$71,000
UNICEF Australia	$21,000
Oxfam Australia	$16,800
Australia for UNHCR	$6,700
Afar Pastoral Development Association	$5,000
Cambodian Children's Fund Australia	$5,000
Australian Greens	$3,000
Solar Aid	$2,500
Village Reach	$2,500
Pratham	$2,500
Médecins Sans Frontières	$2,500
Get-up!	$1,750
Gifts of Light	$1,250
Climate Council	$250
Skeptical Science	$250
Climate Change Action
Clean Energy Investment	$909,085.13
Dirty Energy Divestment - Superannuation
Dirty Energy Divestment - Banking
100% Green Electricity