Do you want to be right or happy ?

Sitting around with a group of people discussing the challenges of communication in relationships when one person offered an insight that I really liked:

"You can be right or you can be happy."

Can't you be both? 

One person suggested: "If I'm right, then I am happy."

"Ah, but if you think you are right, reason surely tells you that you may be mistaken. Right ? So your happiness is not assured."

Turns out that Voltaire has wrestled with this question in a thought-story which is produced in its entirety below.

Cup of tea: a lesson in learning

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868 – 1912), received a university professor who came to enquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. ‘It is overfull. No more will go in!’

‘Like this cup,’ Nan-in said, ‘you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?’

-- Paul Reps, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, p.17

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

It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows
  -- Epictetus

Other koans: https://avocastreet.com/koans/Shaseki.pdf

Who is the better altruist?

Hede: I recently made a donation of $1,000 to a charity and I'm feeling pretty good about it.

Hart: Really? I recently made a donation of $1,000 to a charity too. Which one did you donate to?

Hede: I gave $1,000 to a charity that provides cost-effective treatment against parasitic worms that plague many people in Africa. I did a fair bit of searching for the most effective charity, and chose this one as it has the greatest impact on people's lives per dollar invested. How about you?

Hart: I gave $1,000 to a charity that provides cuddly teddy bears to sick children in hospital. I was watching this documentary about sick kids, and when I saw what this one charity was doing, well, I just cried. I called them immediately after the program ended to make a donation.

[Adapted from a scenario created by Tadeg Quillien 2022]

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

 Who is most concerned about the outcomes of her altruistic act, Hede or Hart?

Who is the most genuine in her altruistic intention? 

Who is the better altruist out of Hede and Hart? Why?

Who is more likeable person? Why?

What are the most important features of 'good' altruism? Effectiveness? Compassion? Something else?

 

EXTRA READINGS

"Is virtue-signalling a vice?" Tadeg Quillien (2022) https://aeon.co/essays/why-virtue-signalling-is-not-just-a-vice-but-an-evolved-tool 

Effective Altruism: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

Ethics of care: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

Compassion & altruism: Steno (2015) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154615000261  

 

Idol Words on the meaning of life

Image from Le Magasin Pittoresque, 1839

 

[The following is an extract from "Idol Words" by Scott Alexander at https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/idol-words] 

"Hello, welcome to the temple of the three omniscient idols, one of which always tells the truth, one of which always lies, and one of which answers randomly. I know you already signed the release form, but I’m supposed to remind you that we are not legally responsible for any consequence of following the false idols’ advice. Do you have a question?”

Do you know what time it is ?

 

Claire asks Tiffany "Do know what time it is?"

 

Tiffany looks around at an old-fashioned clock sitting on the sideboard which shows that the time is 6.56. 

"Yeah, it is four minutes to 7," says Tiffany.

  

Following Tiffany's glance, Claire says, "Oh, that clock doesn't work. It always shows 6.56. So you are mistaken."

 

Tiffany looks at her mobile phone and says "Really? I think you are mistaken as my phone confirms that it is 6.56 at the moment."

 

(Adapted from Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its scope and limits, 1948)

QUESTIONS

 

Does Tiffany have a legitimate claim to "knowing" the time after viewing the stopped clock? 

 

If the time was 6.56, and Tiffany believed it was, and justified that belief by reading the clock, does she have knowledge? 

 

The notion that knowledge is 'justified, true belief' suggests that she does. Perhaps we ought to change the definition of knowledge? How would you change the definition?

 

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

https://philosphere.blog/2018/03/28/russell-and-the-stopped-clock/ 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem 

From impossible to improbable: small step or giant leap ?

Simon: Isn’t it ludicrous that some people think that the moon landings are a hoax? Bloody conspiracy-theorists! The moon landings happened, the evidence is incontrovertible.

Thomas: What is that evidence?

Simon: This article tells and shows how photographs taken by NASA's reconnaissance lunar orbiter reveal human footprints on the moon.

Thomas: Yeah, that seems compelling, but maybe the photographs could be fakes. Or maybe NASA actually landed a mechanical lunar rover on the moon that has two wheels on each side with boots in place of tyre treads, and it was set to "walk" around a bit. Voila! Footprints.

Simon: Aww, come on, that's just stupid.

Thomas: Stupid, yes. But possible, right?

Simon: No way. They have soil and rocks that they brought back from the moon that are not found anywhere on earth.

Thomas: Well, you’ve set up an interesting paradox: these rocks not found anywhere on earth are currently on the earth; they're found in NASA labs and museums. How can we be sure they are not elsewhere too? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And besides, have you seen these rocks? Are you a geologist? Can you confirm that they absolutely cannot be of this earth?

Simon: No the experts have made this judgment. I trust the experts.

Thomas: Sure, I trust experts too. But I also know that it is sometimes wise to ask for a second opinion. Experts do not always get it right. Indeed, they often disagree: it's almost certain that for any expert opinion, you will be able to find another expert who has a different view.

Simon: Oh this is silly. The theory that the moon landings are a hoax is simply impossible.

 

Thomas: I'm not asking you to admit that there were no moon landings, or no humans walked on the moon, or even that they are a hoax. I'm asking you whether you might be wrong about man walking on the moon?

Simon: While I acknowledge the points you are making, let me respond with the 17th century idiom that your words 'doth butter no parsnips with me'. In the modern vernacular, I ain't buying it.

Thomas: Let me respond to your parsnips quote with another bizarre one from the same century called Cromwell's rule: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken?'  

 

Simon: What?

 

Thomas: Cromwell's rule says that anyone who is 100% adamant about their view is in trouble for two reasons: (a) they might be wrong and (b) they are blind to this possibility.

 

Simon: Ah, OK, I think I’m beginning to understand. You’re trying to crack me open to the idea that a hoax about the moon landings is possible. So let me respond using the words of an Aussie character Jasper Jones: 'Course it's possible. I don't reckon it's likely but'. And yes, I see that I can’t make the claim that the hoax is absolutely impossible.

 

Thomas: Yes, exactly. It's a small step, but with enormous implications.

 

Simon: But you have to make a giant leap to get over a problem that remains. Your view presents an absurdity, namely that the impossible is not possible at all! 😂 

 

---

Course it's possible. I don't reckon it's likely but.
 -- words spoken by Jasper Jones in Jasper Jones, Craig Silvey

 

Induction is the glory of Science, and the scandal of Philosophy

   -- C.D. Broad, Commemorative Address at The Bacon Tercentenary, (1926)

Words are but wind that do from men proceed;

None but Chamelions on bare Air can feed;

Great men large hopeful promises may utter;

But words did never Fish or Parsnips butter

   -- John Taylor, Epigrammes (1651)

 

I never made a mistake in my life.

I thought I did once,

but I was wrong.

  -- attributed to Charles M. Schulz, creator of Peanuts

Do prayers get results ?

 Two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness.

One of the guys is religious, the other's an atheist.

The two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer.

The atheist in a fleeting moment of vulnerability says "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from camp in that terrible blizzard and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing and it was 50 below and so I tried it. I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh God if there is a god I'm lost in this blizzard and I'm gonna die if you don't help me now.'"

In the bar the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled: "Well then you must believe now" he says "after all here you are alive."

The atheist just rolls his eyes: "No man, all that happened was a couple of Inuit happened to come wandering by and they showed me the way back to camp."

(From David Foster Wallace, Commencement Speech, Kenyon College, 2005, https://youtu.be/OsAd4HGJS4o?t=161)

QUESTIONS 

Does the atheist's experience in the blizzard prove that prayers are answered or not?

How can the same experience mean totally different things to the atheist and the believer?  

Is it possible that belief, meaning & interpretation actually precede the evidence?

History - true or false or irrelevant ?

A brand new school opens freshly painted doors to welcome its first students to their first classes.

An enthusiastic history teacher, Anna Chronism, arrives to face her first students in her first class ever.

She considers that she is not simply teaching history, but helping to make history.

She arrives to find three young women sitting in a row, all have their heads bowed down, each is reading a book.

She is surprised to observe that the covers of the three books are exactly the same.

"Morning everyone," says the teacher. "Enjoying your book?"

"Yes Ma'am" the three say in unison as they look up.

She gasps. The three girls are dressed quite differently and yet appear to be physically identical. One has baggy cargo shorts, loose top and tattoos on her arm, another has a pleated skirt, a fitted black T-shirt, loose blouse over it, and prominent crucifix showing at her neck, and the third is dressed in long pants and a jacket with a belt at the waist. Despite the variation in what they are wearing, the three girls appear to be physically identical: same eyes, same nose, same hair, same height, same build.

As she seeks to calm herself, Anna asks the three girls what book they are reading.

The girl with the tattoos responds: "I dunno!"

Anna asks her for her name. She responds: "People call me Mysteryy. That’s with an extra ‘y’ at the end."

Nodding, Anna asks, "So Mysteryy, aren't you interested in the book, its name, its author?"

"Yes, yes, I am interested in the book, it is a great book, I'm really enjoying it. But I judge a book by the contents, not by the cover, not by the title, not by the author."

The wearer of the crucifix raises her hand offering her explanation, "Excuse me Miss, it is a book called Silas Marner by George Eliot."

And what's your name" she asks?

"I'm called Faith."

She turns to the third one wearing a jacket, and remarks: "You appear to be reading the same book. What do you think of it?"

"Well, not exactly the same book, because we each have our own copy. But yes it appears to be the same book that Mysteryy and Faith are reading. Its proper title is Silas Marner: the weaver of Ravelhoe, and the author's name was Mary Anne Evans, but she published under the name George Eliot."

The teacher is impressed. The other two young women are not.

"And your name?"

"I’m Verity."

"And all three of you are from the one family?" Anna asks.

The girls laugh out loud.

"Not likely" says Faith responding to the confusion showing in the teacher's eyes.

"Forgive me my presumption. But you all look very similar. Perhaps if you each tell me a little about your history. Who wants to start?"

Mysteryy says: "Well, my history is unknown. I was a foundling left on the doorstep of a kindly couple. There was no information left with me, I don't know where I was born, I don't know when I was born, I don't know my parents. And I don't know much beyond the names of the couple that raised me for the first five years as they then died in a car accident. I was then transferred to another couple who have looked after me for the last ten years. So I don't know my early life, but it doesn't seem that important to know it. I'm here and I'm happy. That's what counts, right?"

"Well yes, I'm glad to have you here today, and yes, I guess that is what counts," admits Anna.

Mysteryy nods and smiles.

Faith follows: "Well, I know my history perfectly. My parents tell me that I was conceived through the grace of God on the day of St Peter and St Paul which is June 29, and I was born nine months later on 1 April 2006 which was a Saturday. This was a sign of God's blessing because it would have been awkward if Mum had laboured on Sunday. God has commanded that we must not labour on the Sabbath in recognition of His act of creation, and His resting on the seventh day."

Verity, flicking her long blond hair with a hand, and offers her own thoughts: "Actually, Saturday is the Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week."

The teacher delicately intervenes, "Yes, there are a variety of views. It’s Verity, right? What’s your story?"

"I was given up for adoption by my mother who was a drug addict, and she died of an overdose shortly after my birth. My father was incarcerated before my birth, and died in prison without ever seeing me. I was one of three identical girls, but we were separated at birth and I ended up with a couple of lawyers, Marie & David. She’s now a judge, he’s a retired lawyer and they’ve looked after me all my life. So that's my history."

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

QUESTIONS

Which of the three girls is happier? Why?

How important is history?

Is it important for history to be true?

Will false history serve just as well as ‘true’ history?

Is it better to have a history, even false, than none at all?

 

ENDNOTE

The celebrated case of the ‘three identical strangers’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Identical_Strangers) provides a factual - even historical - basis for this thought-story. These identical triplets separated at birth are pictured at the right.

 

The image at the top of this post shows the Levesque triplets: https://levesquetriplets.com/  

A psychokinetic paradox?

Professor Cecily P Science is confident that people can know the outcomes of future random events, a so-called 'psi' effect.

The study of 'psi' or the power of mind over matter, of consciousness over the physical world, has been explored at length in psychology, often within a sub-field known as para-psychology. One of most famous labs studying psi is PEAR: Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research.

Cecily is keen to run an experiment to show that people can predict outcomes of coin tosses at a rate better than chance.

She explains her hypothesis to a graduate student, Laizee Bumm, and asks him to conduct the study for her. However, Laizee is a research assistant with other priorities. He does what she asks, but makes up the data to save himself time.

He generates random data for 100 people guessing a thousand coin tosses each. The results from the random-number generator "show" that 50% of the guesses (of the fake respondents) are right, and 50% are wrong.

In actual fact though, the results from the random-number generator happen to show that people correctly guess 501 out of 1000 coin tosses.

This result it should be noted, happens to be in line with previously reported studies of the psi effect: 'The effects that the volunteers accomplish are very small, but amazing. The operators are roughly altering one bit in 1,000,' explains Michael Ibison, a British mathematical physicist who has come to work for a year at PEAR after stints at Siemens, IBM, and Agfa. 'That means if you had a coin toss, psychokinesis could affect one of those coin tosses if you tossed a thousand times.'  Van Bakel 1994, Wired

QUESTIONS

Do the final results of this study by Cecily and Laizee provide evidence of a psychokinetic effect? 

Why? Why not?

If Laizee's data are fabricated using a random number generator, doesn't this mean the observed results were the outcomes of random events?

If Cecily's expectations were supported, doesn't this mean that she has proved her point that people can know the outcomes of future events? Didn't she got the result she expected?

Tough lessons for trainers & teachers

TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with 'I'.

MILLIE: I is..

TEACHER: No, Millie..... Always say, 'I am.'

MILLIE: Alright, I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.

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

TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested? 

HAROLD: A teacher.

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