philosophical

There have been a few fun synchronicities for me on the web in the last few days that I felt like sharing. This week the NYTimes had an article on changing your habits, not by trying to remove old habits, but by "overlaying" (my term) new ones. One paragraph in particular stuck out for me though:

Ms. Ryan and Ms. Markova have found what they call three zones of existence: comfort, stretch and stress. Comfort is the realm of existing habit. Stress occurs when a challenge is so far beyond current experience as to be overwhelming. It’s that stretch zone in the middle — activities that feel a bit awkward and unfamiliar — where true change occurs.

The same day, I saw this post on Mind Hacks referring to Mihály Csíkszentmihályi's ("chick-sent-me-high" is the pronunciation of his name, apparently) book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience:

"Contrary to what we usually believe, moments like these, the best moments in our lives, are not passive, receptive, relaxing times - although such experiences can be enjoyable, if we have worked hard to attain them. The best moments usually occur when a person's body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile."

The reason all of this seems relevant to me in particular lately is because I've been trying to learn more about math, and I'm finding it relatively challenging, but it feels like I'm actually getting it (slowly). It's very satisfying and feels good, and it is illuminating to me to realize that I'm probably positioning myself just right with this stuff to get the maximum benefit out of it. At times I've worked at things that were too far over my head, and on the other hand sometimes I feel like the majority of my time is spent executing things that are below any level of challenge for me (let me clarify that that is 'cause I think I'm lazy, not 'cause this ho-hum existence doesn't offer enough challenges for me...).

I guess the really interesting thing for me is that, putting the ideas above together, there is the implication that the most satisfying experiences in our lives might be when we are working hard to integrate new patterns into our behavior. It's not easy to do, but these can be the most rewarding experiences in many ways.

I just felt like this was the right thing for me just now. Here ya go.

Thank you Centripetal Notion.

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty – a beauty cold and austere, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.

—Bertrand Russell.

...is that New Yorkers are within a unique social group wherein the five moral "primary colors" as suggested by Steven Pinker in his recent NY Times piece The Moral Instinct—harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity—are present in a bizarre configuration unknown by other cultural groups in this country, and perhaps the entire world.

Furthermore, I believe that we have a readily accessible dataset that will make analysis and verification of this thesis trival. I offer for your examination selections from Overheard in New York:

Putting Me in the Lead for Valedictorian. Booyah!

Nerdy white boy whose homework just blew away in the wind: Dang!

Ghetto girl: Looks like you ain't doin' yo' math homework tonight, nigga!

--7 train

and

I Heart New York (A Short Story)

Wheelbette (editorial: that is, a "bimbette" in a wheelchair): Excuse me, sir -- do you have the time?

Guy: Shut up.

--26th & 6th

and

Actually, in Trenton, You Do

Tourist: Is this the 1:13 to Trenton?

Suit: No.

Tourist: Oh, well, where is that?

Suit: Are you just, like, picking track numbers and hoping for the best? Go read the screen, you dumbass.

Tourist: You don't have to be rude.

Suit: You don't have to be stupid.

--NJ Transit

and I'm sure there are more.

You decide. That is, assuming you can figure out what I'm talking about. Go read the article, you dumbass.

Taking Science on Faith is an op-ed in the Times (11/24/07) which makes a facile point about the philosophical equivalency between science and religion. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that it attempts to make a point facilely and fails.

Paul Davies is a physicist currently running the BEYOND program at Arizona State University. It seems that he has good credentials. Better than mine, that's for certain...one of us has taught at the University of Cambridge, and it's not me. So, I'm a bit confused why he comes off sounding like a lame apologist for the Intelligent Design crowd.

He states, rather vaguely, that scientists are no longer having "...an inclination to shrug aside such [basic philosophical] questions concerning the source of the laws of physics..." This, he says, is due to two points of consideration:

...the emergence of life in the universe, and hence the existence of observers like ourselves, depends rather sensitively on the form of the laws [of physics].

and

...[the laws of physics] could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our very existence.

I don't understand how he couldn't see the basic contradiction that arises here: the "specialness" of the laws of physics of our universe disappears in the light of the possibility that there are multiple universes (a multi-verse). He practically says so himself by stating that "we have selected it by our very existence." Didn't we already fight this battle back in Copernicus and Galileo's time? The entire glorious history of science is about humans understanding more and more clearly that we aren't the center of the universe. Professor Davies, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Based on this specious argument Davies goes on to claim that "both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too." I would like to point out that he was the one using the fact that there are a Baskin-Robbins' freezer-full of universe flavors to prove his argument.

But I digress. After this little intellectual foible he neatly concludes "for that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence." (So then Hinduism has the answers?)

I think science is about making claims about phenomena that can be tested and falsified. That's it, as far as I understand. Again, I'm not a scientist, I don't have credentials—hell, I've got a BA and I majored in music—but I'm pretty sure there's some other scientist types who might back me up on this. As far as I know, science was never about trying to explain anything that we couldn't make predictions about in the real world. From what I understand, that's why string theory has some physicists up in arms these days.

Davies says "It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence." I want to understand what he proposes then? How do we come up with an explanation that satisfies our need to find evidence as to its truth? He's just...whining that science doesn't answer some questions.

Science isn't supposed to answer everything. Sure, it may have some problems, and it may be reasonable to point out that there are assumptions from a philosophical point of view. If you want to have an answer to a question that you can't solve through the normal means (through hypothesis and observation), that's what religion or mysticism or philosophy (or whatever) is for. If you are dissatisfied, then propose a theory that can be tested.

What is the point of writing an editorial that is going to be disseminated to the lay public that is merely confusing, inconclusive, and, frankly, lazy? I think Professor Davies has lapsed in his responsibility to express clearly and cogently valid scientific thinking to a public who is far removed from the esoteric theories of current physics research, and which takes much...ironically...on faith. It's an editorial, but first and foremost Professor Davies is a scientist.

I miss Douglas Adams. He would have had a eloquent response.

...and their music is pretty good too.

I'm really pleased with them, I'm pleased they are offering their album in this way. It is so smart. It is also such a big f%*& you to the record companies. Of course it is the case that they can do this and make a lot more money than some random indie band, but it is a major statement that they are choosing to let their music out this way.

My friend Ted said something interesting and profound the other day about the current state of the music industry. I'm paraphrasing: "the reality is that music now is free--there's no way around that--but you are also free to buy it or to figure out how to make money off of it." This is what Radiohead is investigating. I gave them about $10.00 (whatever five pounds is in U.S.$), and I felt a little guilty I wasn't giving more...is that clever of them or what?

• in rainbows
• Radiohead lets fans pick price for new album
• Radiohead's new downloadable album: DRM-Free!
• Radiohead, Big Enough To Act Like a Baby Band
• Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget)
• In Radiohead Price Plan, Some See A Movement
• Radiohead to Let Fans Decide What to Pay for Its New Album

I just finished reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. I heard about the book from a friend early last fall, then I bought it for my girlfriend's brother who shares my abiding interest in food (and I snuck a reading of the introduction and part of the first section on corn before I gave it to him). I haven't read the book yet but it's on my list.

The Times piece, "Unhappy Meal" (inspired by the antonymously named McDonald's children's food product no doubt) goes into some detail on the history in the United States of what Pollan characterizes as "nutritionism" (he gives Australian sociologist Gyorgy Scrinis credit for the term). Based on what I got from the article, nutritionism can be defined as the reductionism of nutrition to constituent parts at the expense of health, or...really any other perspective. Pollan argues that we actually know very little about how our body processes food to allow for good health, and we would do well to eat how our great-great-grandparents ate, and avoid adhering to the latest food fads (low fat, low carb, etc.).

Pollan connects nutritionism to politics and economics. Senator George McGovern's Senate Select Committee on Nutrition announced in 1977 that Americans should "choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake." But this was a replacement for the committee's original statement that Americans should "reduce consumption of meat"--the language changed after the dairy and meat industries screamed bloody murder. Pollan suggests that this is the origin of the current American trend toward confusingly focusing on invisible components of food rather than whole foodstuffs.

He ends with a list of suggested dietary rules for living the good life. These include choosing higher quality, less processed food, avoiding food with unrecognizable ingredients or high-fructose corn syrup (sure markers of extra processing), skipping foods marketed with health claims (my favorite line from the article: "Don’t take the silence of the yams as a sign that they have nothing valuable to say about health") and he says we should all eat more greens.

I think my mom would approve.

I've been reading Journey to the End of the Night by Louis-Ferdinand Céline, and I found this gem:

A man should be resigned to knowing himself a little better each day if he hasn't got the guts to put an end to his sniveling once and for all.

Okay, I know I'm behind the times, but this "re-surfaced" for me, and I keep getting stuck at #12, Kurt Cobain:

The 100 Greatest Guitarists of all time?

I could get past him but they put Jerry Garcia immediately after. I get to Jerry Garcia and I think, "How could Kurt Cobain be considered a better guitarist than Jerry Garcia? Does anyone really think Kurt Cobain could play the guitar better than Jerry? I'm not even a deadhead, I've got an album or two and I'm a music fanatic and Jerry is worth listening to--so is Kurt--but how could Kurt be considered a better guitarist than Jerry?" Then I have to go back and double check, and look to make sure I really saw Kurt Cobain's name, then I go down to one after, and it's Jerry Garcia, and it doesn't make sense.

If you know why this is, please email me and tell me. Thank you!