Why Dumbass?

My last post was titled, "Some dumbass thoughts on Paris and ISIS. . .". No doubt a silly title but there was a point. The post simply asked some questions regarding ISIS. In a nutshell, the post asks whether ISIS is self-interested, and if it is, how or why would it initiate an attack on Paris.

That was what that post was about. The title, "Some dumbass thoughts. . . " however alludes to something else. For myself and probably for most, dumbass traces back to Beavis and Butthead. It was Butthead's refrain to the often nonsensical stuff coming out of Beavis' mouth. In hindsight, maybe Beavis was not always offering nonsense, but that is a whole different discussion. Going back to my post, and to borrow from Butthead, the title does point to something perhaps nonsensical.

There is, however, a disconnect here, as there is really nothing too nonsensical in my post. The post simply asks what is ISIS thinking, considering that such attacks as Paris will only reinforce and confirm the wests need to engage and destroy them - to eliminate the threat. I may not have the specifics right but in general it seems to be a legitimate question.

So why do I refer to my post as a collection of dumbass thoughts? I have already given above one hint regarding the specifics. I did not go into who the attackers were, where they in fact originated from, and what their actual relationship to ISIS was. So the neglect of details is a problem. That, however, is just part of it. The larger issue is our general willingness to espouse a position without full knowledge of the subject. I might have chosen to not go into such details, but one would hope that if you discuss a topic you have some understanding of it.

In this case, I know little about ISIS, or the events that took place in Paris. I know no more than the rest of us who sat stunned and saddened by what we saw on the TV and web during that time. That, however, is where dumbass thoughts come from - a willingness to talk about and make assertions about things we perhaps know little if anything about.

Today, it feels like, and this post might again be more of the same, but it does feel like we allow for, encourage and accept much that is really not known. The sources are easy to name. The web with all its dark corners and alleyways is of course loaded with all kinds of information, much true, a lot that is blatantly false, and good amount that is a mixed bag. On top of that, we have cable and talk radio, which focus on the political realm. And then you have of course the ongoing Presidential election and the resulting soundbites from Donald Trump and others. Another domain where you see this is regarding science, and pseudo-science. Just look at our discussions of global warming or vaccines.

So today, with the demise and shrinkage of local papers and print, we have turned to the web and to cable TV. With that, we do have a diversity of views and opinions-much of which I might term dumbass. The question becomes are these various views and positions dumbass? Are they knowledge? Do we or should we care?

So that is largely what I alluded to in using the term dumbass. That said, I do think the term does raise several issues regarding much of what we consider fact or knowledge, of how we treat or neglect the information available to us today. It is often joked that philosophy offers little to its students, but an appeal here to epistemology, the study of what it is to know, of what is required to claim knowledge, might just be appropriate. It could at the very least further broaden our understanding of what it is to be a dumbass.

To be continued. . .

Some dumbass thoughts on Paris and ISIS. . .

Below is the rambling thoughts of person who has little knowledge of Syria, the middle east and the like. That said, I cannot help to have questions and concerns after this past Friday in Paris.

I just continue to ask why did Paris happen? Why were roughly 130 people killed and another 300 people wounded?

We know that ISIS has claimed responsibility for those events. Just as they have claimed that they are responsible for the Russian airliner over the Sinai Penisula. Regardless of the truth of these claims, why would they want to make those claims much less initiate and cause those events. 

I do not have any answers here. I am just perplexed. It is not over the fact that ISIS killed on these ocasions. They have a long history of that. What I am perplexed about is why they so seem to want to provoke the west, the Russians, the G20 into a war.

And it does seem that these recent events, these murders, will only provoke the demand for retaliation, a demand to end their Islamic State. You have the richest countries in the world meeting days after the events in Paris. I like Donald Trump get much of my information off the TV. Regardless it seems from where I sit that the Islamic State wants to fight the west and the Russians and anyone else who challenges them. 

And it is that desire to fight such a war that perplexes me. Why would ISIS want to bring the armies and airforces of the various nations of the G20 and others to their new caliphate. Why not just continue to hold onto their existing territory against the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians. It is said that much of ISIS is the officer corp of Saddam's army, which the US disbanded back 10 plus years ago. The US military has beat that army twice now and I just do not see the third time being a charm.

Nope, at the end of the day in addition to the disgust I feel for these events I also just find myself asking why the Islamic State wants to self-destruct. It seems to be begging for it. 

From One Story to the Next. . .

So now a month later with life intruding and the accidental deletion of one version of this. . .(Blogger is not a kind app!), I continue from my earlier post, The Ramblings of a Rutgers Philosophy Student.

As I wrote in my prior post, the paper being read, David Chalmers', “Consciousness and its Place in Nature” is an overview of the various positions relating to that topic – Consciousness and its proper explanation. It is basically a review of the literature examining whether a materialist solution is feasible or is it the case that a dualist solution is required. Chalmers is sympathetic to a dualist position. That said most solutions to the question are guided by the proposition that mind and consciousness are of this world – they are materialist.

Returning to my narrative, I decided to write some response to the paper, as my writings from school had been shot down as too dated. And I did write a rambling response to it, which got me no where regarding the group. In the process of writing that response I did discover two topics that have continued to hold my attention. The first was or is what Chalmers described as “The Knowledge Argument”, involving Mary the neuroscientist. The second is the core of the debate over consciousness – qualia.

So Mary the neuroscientist, despite her complete knowledge of neuroscience and visual perception does not and / or has not perceived the color red. With that, Mary in fact has an incomplete knowledge of these topics. Despite her knowledge of the facts, her knowledge is incomplete.

The second topic is what drives the whole consciousness debate – qualia. In the end, I would have to say that Mary and her inability to experience red boils down to the discussion of qualia. Mary, despite all her knowledge is unable to experience red, just as we are unable to experience what it is to be a bat. Chalmers points out from the outset that there is an epistemic and metaphysical gap between the physical and the phenomenal truths. Regardless of how much we come to understand of the brain and neural processes, there will always be a gap between that information and our experiences.

Chalmers proceeds to explore the two most common responses by materialists regarding this gap, calling them Type A and Type B Materialism. The Type A entails a denial of the gap. Type B is a little more involved but roughly acknowledges the gap but limits it to an epistemic issue. At the end of the day the Type B materialist arrives at the same place as the Type A. There is just a little more work regarding the epistemic component, but again at the end of the day it is a materialist solution.

From there Chalmers proceeds to eliminativism, which falls under the Type A category. It basically argues that consciousness can be explained by an examination of neurological processes. In short, we have a study of the underlying neurological processes performing the various functional tasks explaining the various behaviors, responses, and self-reports. What was once defined as consciousness is eliminated and replaced with a discussion of the neurology and its functionality.

Now in the next section I will be looking to Daniel Dennett. Specifically parts and pieces of his book, Consciousness Explained – an appropriate work to appeal to. Before we turn to that, I want to poke at something here. So far we have Chalmers pointing out that the physical facts seem to leave something on the table. To the eliminativist, Chalmers is saying that their neurology and perhaps some set of functions is not sufficient.

It seems to all go back to common example to which I referred to earlier - the bat. We just cannot comprehend what it is like to be a bat. I have no idea what it is like to be hanging upside down in a cave with several hundred or perhaps thousands of one's fellow bats. Nor do I have any idea of what is like to be fluttering around in the dusk and dark relying upon some type of sonar to guide one's self, as opposed to the vision we rely on.

That said in the above paragraph we have already started making inroads into getting some understanding of their existence. It may not be perfect but it is not incomprehensible. Perhaps the biology including the neural processes, the associated functions and behavior these lead to are sufficient. Perhaps we can have some understanding of what it is like to be a bat.

Yet Chalmers' initial claim does resonate. At first blush it is hard to grasp what it is like to be a bat. Even a second or third is perhaps a challenge. . . A bat's phenomenal existence and experience is different from our own. That said, after our initial pause and shaking our heads, we do start to put together a story of their existence. We can examine the workings of their wings, theirs ears, their claws, and arrive at some understanding of them and with that eliminate some small distance between us and them.

Is it possible, considering that we can start to grasp something about a bat, that what Chalmers is pointing to is that which is novel? Is it possible that the phenomenal experience that he is pointing to is simply that which cannot be processed by our normal neurological and functional processes and components? In short, pondering what it is like to be a bat is not part of our day-to-day activities, and likewise not part of our cognitive nor neural processes. Granted if you are a zoologist or even a chiropterologist that might not be the case but for most of us, it is.

Consciousness is often gained at such moments. It is that moment when we stumble or trip over something novel. It is that moment when we do not know how to proceed. Our brain and the associated tools and processes both in our heads and the tools in our hands do not work. They are for that moment insufficient, That said, it is often the case that we do after that initial moment, that initial pause, do proceed. We stop in our tracks, realizing that we were about to walk out into traffic, or we run like hell away from the bear, or take in the scenic beauty of the valley and mountains that we have come upon. We might reflect on the question of what it is like to be a bat, and arrive at some type of answer, or we simply end up dead on that occasion, such as a bear or the oncoming taxi moving too fast, where no solution is forthcoming.    

A Footnote to my Philosophical Tale. . .

So far (In my most recent posting titled "The Ramblings of a Rutgers Philosophy Student" I gave you a little background for where I am regarding philosophical positions. Despite some interest in the subject I have had little recent involvement. That said, I did read through Chalmers' paper with enthusiasm and and am left with several thoughts and opinions on the matter. So with that I want to step from the auto-biographical to philosophical. It is interesting or at least amusing, however, that am timid to enter such domains. Today, I am not writing in the safety of a classroom or seminar. I feel naked, exposed, vulnerable posting all this on the web for any and all to read. More likely few if any. . .
I find myself asking myself who am I to write such things? On what authority do I write such positions? And this is a concern. I do not want to be perceived as a buffoon much less simply be one. That said there are plenty of such people offering such positions, both in and out of academia. The fact that one is in academia does not guarantee the quality of one's writing, content or thoughts relating to any subject. What is gained in the academy is the ability to focus for extended periods on a particular topic and perhaps share this with peers. The value of this, however, can also be questioned. It is easy to find positions, often long held positions, which we look at today and ask what were they thinking? All too often especially in fields such as philosophy an appeal to sociology provides a far better explanation of how consensus on a topic or subject was arrived at, as opposed to the topic's truth and validity.

I do wish I could spend more time on these topics - to review the literature thoroughly. This is true of any analytical or decision process.There is, however, something to be said about being required to proceed, needing to arrive at a conclusion, decide a course of action - to act. As they say to those with writers block. . .just start writing. So the solution here is perhaps to simply start. Take the plunge and acquire the tools and texts as required.

So I proceed. Back to Dennett and for the moment, Chalmers.

The Ramblings of a Rutgers Philosophy Student. . .

A long time ago when I was an undergrad at Rutgers, I had taken a Philosophy of Mind class. Not one of my better efforts. The three things I remember from it were that we began with BF Skinner and a Behaviorist view of mind, that the Professor teaching the class was impressed with Daniel Dennett, and that I wrote probably the worst paper of my academic career. The paper embraced Hubert Dreyfus' What Computers Can't Do - arguments against the mind as some type of computer.

The topic here, however, is Daniel Dennett and his work. At the time of the above class I chose not to explore his work. That was spring of 1989. Dennett had written Brainstorms. Consciousness Explained came out in 1991. Basically as the undergrad I was I just lumped the Professor teaching the class and Dennett together, and ignored them both. That entailed both short and long term consequences. The short term was simply that I missed a big chunk of what was going on in that class, which led to a poor grade. Not the worst thing. It is the long-term consequences that I find much more interesting.

Since that time I have proceeded to pick up the Intentional Stance, and also read through Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Neither really resonated or grabbed me, but they were interesting enough for me to buy and read. How many philosophy text do grab one? There actually have been some, Now these readings have taken place over the past 20 years. In short, I appreciated that Dennett values Intentionality and Darwinism.

Jump to 2015, more than 25 years since that class and my introduction to Daniel Dennett. A constant theme of mine lately is to read more - things such as the philosophical traditions I had read at Rutgers. Meanwhile, a few years back, I had joined a website - Meetup.com for both work and amusement. In January of 2015 they had announced a new group doing readings of Analytic Philosophy in NYC. That was perfect as my Rutgers' philosophy studies was largely in that space.

Now strangely this group on Meetup.com were asking for a writing sample. At first I had sent them some things I had written back during that Rutgers period. They responded that the material was dated and that they were passing. OK. That, like the class I mention above, could be a blog post or two. I was a bit annoyed, a bit amused. Meanwhile, they had also posted an article which was to be the subject of their first meeting. It was a paper written by David Chalmers, Consciousness and its Place in Nature. It is an overview of the positions taken by philosophers on the subject, dating back to Descartes.

To be continued. . .

The Photograph - Another Moment in Time

Watching Charlie Rose this evening. He has on Sally Mann. I had not heard of her but from the half hour on Charlie Rose, I was impressed with both her work and herself. What she offered seemed so rich. Perhaps it was simply fresh. . . foreign to me. I know nothing of photographers and photography. I doubt it is purely the novelty. Once again the beauty of Charlie Rose is evident. I have something new to explore in Sally Mann and her work.

The show that night was focused on photography with not only Sally Mann but two others and that focus did make me pause. The last thing I wrote focused on storytelling and the corresponding technology that has effected and changed the craft. As I take in the show I realize that the photograph is responsible for the moment.

Stories, whether read, spoken, or viewed provide a progression, a sequence. This happens, then that, and then somehow this. The beauty and wonder of a story is in that sequence. Photography, however, locks you in the moment. It captures and holds the moment. It might shock or provoke. A photograph frames or is framed. A photograph is focused.

To go back to Sally Mann she said several times in the course of her conversation with Charlie that a photograph has a story. At least that was what I was left with. For her that is success. Perhaps. She also comments how critical it is to capture the right moment. One tenth of second before or after that moment and you missed it. You missed the story.

I am not sure it is the story that is missed. It is the image that changes in that moment, in that tenth of a second. It is what is seen, what is viewed, that is effected. For the viewer, that image makes you want to see more. The image makes you want to know the story behind the image. You ask what is going on in that photograph. The image pulls you in.

I know, who am I to make assertions on something I know nothing about. I began this essay with the premise that I know nothing of photography. Yet it is obvious that a photograph cannot offer a story. How could it. It can only invite one to find a story. It can only pull the viewer's eyes to it. The best photograph will lead one to a story. You will search for meaning in that photograph and that translates to a story. A story provided by either the photographer or imagined by the viewers. Either way, it starts with only the desire or need to see and know more about that photograph. It begins with a response- one sees and one responds. The photograph provokes. The photograph leads one to ask what it is that is being viewed. With a successful photograph a story is what is arrived at.

The most interesting photograph is perhaps the one that leads to incredulity about what is seen. That is the photograph that leads one to ask what is really being viewed. That is the photo that leads one to a story, which then is questioned. The story is not believed, the photograph is not believed, yet the photograph is there before my eyes,

The beauty of photography it seems is again tied to storytelling. That said my original intent was to suggest that it is not story but moment. It freezes time. You see an image of a beach and you can smell the ocean. To witness an image of a battle is to smell gunpowder and sulfur. It is all in the moment and so sensual. It is all senses. You see and you taste and you smell. You can hear the gulls, the cannons. It is not about what happened the moment before, nor about what will happen.  It is what is there before you - and your response.

Story or no story, a photograph evokes,

For those who are not familiar with Sally Mann do check out her site - sallymann.com/. And I do encourage you to check out the Charlie Rose segment that inspired the above, Interestingly, the photographer that followed her was Russell James, whose work most have seen. Among other things his credits include Victoria Secrets and his conversation is interesting too.

The Death of Storytelling. . . or not

This week I attended an event in the WeWorks suite that my office is located in. This is truly one of the perks of working at a WeWorks facility. The number of things going on is pretty amazing. Now I think I am lucky in that we have on my floor one of the larger spaces for such events. Either way it is nice being wined, dined, and sometimes even entertained, even challenged intellectually.

So this week I was introduced to Eventsy, which partnered with another group M.E.T (Media-Entertainment-Technology) to present a panel discussion titled: "The Slow Painful Death of Storytelling".

The general premise was that with the ever changing distribution channels - broadcast television, cable, digital, etc. . . storytelling suffers. Somehow we would lose the ability and focus on storytelling. To explore that theme they brought in a panel of speakers coming from various areas of the media and entertainment sectors.

A few days later I continue to dwell on various thoughts they provoked in the course of their conversations so I thought it appropriate to detail some of them here. Below are some of the thoughts that i keep going back to.

 At the core of my thought is the  title of the panel. The death of storytelling from where I stand is not happening anytime soon.  It might take on new twists and turns, but at the end of the day storytelling is not going anywhere. I am afraid it is practically hardwired into us. It seems to entail parts of our perceptual system. . .what we see and what we hear, And then we try to explain what is happening - what we are seeing, what we are hearing, and why. What materializes is a story that may explain, or amuse or challenge, perhaps all of those, but always it is a story.

With that I just look at the history of storytelling, and technology. With Gutenberg we had the printing press and the Bible. In  the 19th century it was the serial and with it Huck Finn, and a Tale of Two Cities. In the early 20th Century there was radio with the War of the Worlds, and silent movies which allowed for the likes of Charlie Chaplin. The timeline can run right up to today, with cable with Tony Soprano and  Mr White.

And it could be argued that those technologies lent themselves to those stories. The Bible could not have happened without the printing press. The serials allowed for long large stories to be broken up and digested by a newly literate cultures. Charlie Chaplin though he did do one or two talkies, was a Silent Picture Star.

Lastly, HBO and others really had to introduce their stories on cable. They could not be shown at 10 PM any night on broadcast TV. They had to wait till we had cable. And to really see and feel the story we did need a visual image-which grabbed us through the screen. On the TV we could literally see where the bodies where buried unlike Capote's In Cold Blood. And to understand and feel these characters we needed at least a season.

No the story is alive and well. It has evolved but is still with us. It will digest reality TV and all other absurdities and come back even stronger.

Now at the end of the event the focus moved to funding. Crowdfunding is quite amazing. I have seen numerous musicians take advantage of it. One artists who I follow has offered up jam sessions, living room concerts, and background vocals on his latest album. In the process he is able to spend more time in the studio with a range of musicians, just adding to the quality and duration of the material. In short, for musicians crowd funding is an amazing tool and allows them to truly work with and interact with their audience. Filmmakers I am sure can have a similar relationship with their audience. In both cases I am talking about the "indie-artist", with little or no relation to the studios and record companies.

I will end with one sad note regarding movie financing. Specifically movie futures and a movie futures market. Futures are a type of financial instrument allowing one to invest in various goods and commodities. A famous play in the futures market is the end of the Eddie Murphy Danny Aykroyd film - Trading Places. If you recall they manipulate the price of Concentrate Orange Juice, much to the chagrin of their former masters.

Such markets for the movies would allow traders to bet on the gross receipts that a movie pulls in during its opening. Just as fans are allowed to support their favorite director or production company, with this market, financially driven investors looking for a return on their investment would also have a place to play. At least that was the way it looked, Shortly after getting initial regulatory approval in June of 2010, however, it was killed. The Dodd-Frank banking bill basically prohibited such markets.

Considering all that we have seen evolve otherwise, it is a shame that such markets were not allowed. We might have been forwarned of the success of Mission Impossible this weekend, maybe even made some cash of it.

Once again, a nod to WeWork, Eventsy and the M.E.T. for a fun and provocative evening!