Övervakning och demokrati.

Debatten om massövervakning fortsätter, men många förstår inte innebörden av det och förblir därför passivt accepterande av att övervakningen fortgår.
"Har man inte gjort något fel, så behöver man inte oroa sig!"
Vi pratar inte om en övervakning begränsad till brottslighet. (Politiska åsikter, ekonomiskt spionage, online-spelande...)
Argumentet blir snabbt absurt när man tar hänsyn till utvecklingen som pågår i takt med en ökande övervakning.
När begår man ett politiskt åsiktsbrott, som bör granskas extra med militära medel?
Någon "fri marknad" blir omöjlig med sådana instrument hos enskilda parter. Vart är de inbitna anhängarna av Chicago-skolans raseri över detta?
Lust att ventilera efter en utdragen raid? Var väl medveten om vem som lyssnar.

Men något jag saknar i debatten är effekten det har på människor relaterat till demokratin.
Vem beter sig genuint med vetskapen om att ens beteende övervakas?
Vem röstar utan rädsla för repressalier när vissa åsikter är icke-önskvärda i makthavarnas ögon?

Det behöver inte ens pågå någon övervakning för dessa effekter att bita sig fast hos en befolkning och möjliggöra styrning av den i en generell riktning.

Återigen, övervakningen är inte riktad mot terrorism, brottslighet eller nationell säkerhet. Den är ett verktyg som möjliggör att hålla koll på potentiella rivaler till makten, vare sig inom offentlig eller privat sektor, t.ex hur och var motstånd till nuvarande system växer.

Broken logic?

I'm listening to Jan Björklund speaking on the Swedish "Folkpartiet" (Peoples' party) national convention, or what they chose to call this abomination...

I found myself not being able to follow the reasoning on how a liberal economy would produce a fair and equal society, since that is not what anyone could deduce as the result of liberalised economies throughout the world.
How robbing a nations' natural resources in favor of foreign investors is ever going to produce that, is beyond me.

Expansion and discovery.

I'm still roaming this world, alive and well, but I admit I haven't been active in sharing my story with You.

So, what have I been up to lately, You might ask...

• Studied Classical mechanics and International relationships at edX.
• Met the Little Red Riding Hood, trying not to dress up as her grandmother. We'll see about that...
• Come to grips with the difficulties that I have ignored for so long.
• Completely given up on all forms of self-medication, even non-alcoholic beverages.

I'll try to fit this blog into my current schedule.

Be a good human, 

/exit

Cheat-sheet for winning!

Goals for all of us?

This will be somewhat of a plea, rather than an argument.

I was thinking about what everyone can invest in and profit from, something that would put the meaningless suffering we humans inflict on each other and the rest of the animal kingdom.That would trump the ignorance- and greed-driven atrocities as a unifying goal, not a command from higher authorities, for everyone.

It is so obvious, maybe too obvious to be considered?

Education, free of charge. This will increase welfare and profits, even for the most egocentric of us.

Health care, free of charge. Same here, the whole population gains from keeping everyone safe and sound.

Implementing science in all aspects of society. Why should the whims of politicians decide what outcome is predicted by their policies? 

The scientific method eliminates biases, and what area has more need of that than how the government works?

Increasing freedom for individuals to chose what they want to do with their lives by giving guidance and massive amounts of opportunities to increase their standards of living.

This might sound like some socialist/communist/fascist scheme, but freedom of choice is depending on what opportunities is given from the rest of us, which is part of how I define my liberalism. 
If you want people to "pull themselves up" instead of mooching off of "your societal benefits", the best way would be to give people opportunities to do that - in which science can help us by determining which method is most likely to achieve the goal of a population where everyone contributes to a collective increase in well-being and a goal of one day reaching the stars, which I think is pretty much indisputable as awesome for everyone to be part of.
But hey, the goal is what everyone agrees that it should be - not what I personally dictate that it should be.

What do you think? Is this impossible, improbable or achievable?

Argumentation är kul.

Nedbrytning av argument - Doddy-style.

Jag börjar bli trött på den storm av påståenden vi får slängda i ansiktet varje dag. Speciellt oärliga, luddigt definierade eller laddade sådana.

Så jag tar mig an utmaningen att göra livet för alla dessa "tyckare" lite mer frustrerande...

Dagens offer? Låt oss kika på vad Healing Touch har att erbjuda i form av visdom!

"Healing Touch är en energibehandling, där terapeuten använder sina händer till att balansera klientens energisystem och på så sätt hjälpa denne att komma i bättre fysisk och psykisk balans. "

Energibehandling? Hmm... Kommer ni ihåg vad vi alla fick lära sig under fysik-lektionerna i grundskolan om vad energi är?

Det är ett mått på ett föremåls potentiella förmåga att utföra arbete, det vill säga: 

Joule, arbetet av en kraft på en newton över en meter: N·m 

eller uttryckt i grundenheter: m²·kg·s⁻²

Vad menar då denna påstådda behandlingsmetod?

Terapeutens händer påverkar Patientens energisystem, vilket kan skrivas som "Terapeuten lägger en kall hand på Patienten,

 Patientens kroppstemperatur sjunker,

 Terapeutens hand har blivit varmare."

Då Einstein visade att materia och energi är ekvivalenta så kanske de menar att Terapeutens händer och Patientens kropp genomgår en fusionsprocess?

Gammastrålning bildas då i enorma mängder (25g av bränsle räcker för en europés livstidsförbrukning av energi) och steriliserar förmodligen allt område inom synhåll.

Gammastrålning är dessutom elektromagnetisk strålning, så behandlingen kommer att ha ännu otrevligare effekter på våra kära el-allergiker.

Jag föreslår att terapeuten istället placeras i ett kraftverk, väl avskärmat från dessa effekter, och kopplas in i elnätet. 

50+ kg terapeut-bränsle som genomgår fusion lär ge oss väldigt låga elpriser framöver... 

Så, överge medicinen, kära terapeuter och fullfölj ert öde genom att ge resten av mänskligheten en ny energikälla!

Homeopathy works?!

So... Apparently this womans' experience turns science on its' head.
Let's all enjoy this - I mean... It's not a scam on gullible people or anything, right?
http://www.katrinz.se/ni-ar-sa-dumma-i-huvudet

I hope that she has simply been duped because then she's only ignorant.
If she knowingly promotes magic instead of proven medicine to those who are sick, though... Ugh.

She should stop promoting this nonsense and advocate to everyone that has trusted her... expert advice... to go to the hospital for testing and actual treatment.

"There is no such thing as "alternative medicine" - if it is demonstrated to work, it stops being "alternative" and becomes "medicine"."

Doddy, out.

Moral som vetenskap? Nja.

 "Vetenskapen behandlar hur världen är, medan moral handlar om hur det borde vara." - Någon känd person.

Hur något "borde vara" är inte en fundamental kategori av verkligheten. 
"A borde ha egenskapen av X" är inte vetenskapligt. 
Det kan dock formuleras annorlunda och bli vetenskapligt:
("för att få A i egenskap av X, utförs Y" eller "alla människor är överens om att A borde ha egenskapen X") - det är en liten, men viktig skillnad.
För att komma till föreskrivande (i motsats till beskrivande) påståenden/slutsatser, behöver du något mer än data - ett mål, ett antagande eller några föredragna egenskaper som du vill optimera eller maximera i ett system, och det är just det som vetenskap inte är. 

Många av argumenten tenderar att kretsa kring att människors välbefinnande är svårt att definiera noggrant, eller att kvantifiera, eller att enas om. Jag uppfattar att problemet hoppas över och diskussionen går från vetenskaplig till filosofisk.
Låt oss föreställa oss att en "människas välbefinnande" kan definieras exakt och att hela mänskligheten är överens om att den definitionen av välbefinnande skall maximeras och vad moral handlar om. 
I sådana fall skulle en moralisk kod utvecklas och implementeras - med hjälp av vetenskap - som skulle få oss närmare och närmare målet att nå maximalt välbefinnande. 
Men att vi "borde" göra det skulle fortfarande inte vara ett grundläggande faktum i universum.
Det kan summeras i skillnaden mellan dessa påståenden:

1.  "Det ett vetenskapligt faktum att alla människor är överens om att människors välbefinnande bör maximeras".
2.  "Det ett vetenskapligt faktum att människors välbefinnande bör maximeras".

1 är vetenskapligt, 2 är inte det. Att människor "skall vara" på ett visst sätt är inte ett fundamentalt faktum i universum. Naturen bryr sig inte om hur människor skall vara - det är vi människor och andra varelser som gör det. Vi "vill vara" på ett visst sätt - och det kanske är ett vetenskapligt påstående.

Kommentera gärna och ge synpunkter!

Doddy out. (Sorry for the swedish language.)

Greedy people.

Why are they held up as 'hard working'?

I mean, we shun and laugh at 'hoarders' - except when they hoard money.

What is the difference?

There's no benefit for anyone if money is stored away in tax-paradises, not even for these hoarders.

I hereby declare my view of people with more money than they can spend in the bank:

"The kid that take the toys from the other kids and just sit on them to feel superior."

I hope this spreads. 

Doddy out.

Idiots with freedoms...

...are fucking dangerous for everyone.

But that is offensive and hateful. So I'll rephrase that.

"Everyone + ideas of unlimited freedoms = I stay inside"

That's better.

I have always identified myself as 'liberal' - which to me only meant that people should not be legislated to not behave in ways that does not harm anyone else - in a broad sence - but not absolute.

Freedom of Vaccination - dismissed.

Freedom of Ingestion - dismissed.

Freedom of Private Practice - dismissed.

Freedom of Conscience - dismissed.

Freedom of Thought - granted... No, wait. Dismissed.

My freedom of X should not infringe on your freedom of X or Y. Or harm you directly.

1. If I don't vaccinate myself, others will be at a higher risk of disease.
2. If I claim to heal you through my practice of 'alternative medicine', you will not go to a real doctor.
3. If my conscience is hurt by you having sex a certain way, I'm dictating who you should be, thus infringing on your freedom to be you.

My point is this: There is no such thing as absolute freedom, of any kind. At best, we have temporary priviliges granted by society.

So, for you idiots shouting "I have a freedom to do this!" 

- No, you do not. 

You may or may not have the approval of society to do X - live with it.

Doddy out.

Thoughts on morality.

-What is morality?

The definition is a bit blurry, since the term is used in different contexts by different people for different reasons - so I try to not use in arguments. The same goes for 'values' or 'core-values'.

What I would like to argue for is abandoning the 'moral absolutes' as some people depict their views as.

It's not confined to religions or groups, but individuals can form them aswell for other reasons.

 

The more 'principle' a person is, the more we trust them - it appears. That's more of an evolutionary topic, which I am not in any way an expert in, maybe those who are have an explanation.

Anyway.

For a diverse and multicultural civilization to function, there has to be a set of laws that everyone is treated equally under, that does not favor/disfavor only one part of that civilization.

A secular democracy is the system closest to fitting that description.

Now, what laws should all of us obey, regardless of who we are? We could have a vote, but then the majority decides what happens to the minority.

Which has never turned out well for everyone.

To avoid a complete inability to function, we leave all ideologies, feelings, personal beliefs and religious claims out of the process. This is simply secularism, not some sort of totalitarianism as it has been portrayed as.

Instead of trying to fit the world through our own "morality-lenses", we should work together. This is not an ideology, on the countrary, it is the best way to not exterminate ourselves, our species, from this planet.

It is okay to change your beliefs, your core-values and yourself - don't trap yourself in avoiding changes.

Take care!

Doddy out.

Q&A #1

There's no shame in asking questions.

Or being wrong...

Q: Why do you care what I personally believe?

A: That depends on your definition of 'belief', I guess. I care about humanity as a whole - and I would like all of us to increase the collective knowledge of the species.

If you 'believe' that the mind is separate from the brain, for example, you are not only ignoring parts of reality, but that 'belief' will most likely inform some of your decisions in life.

Q: You seem so devoid of feelings, why is that?

A: I have plenty of feelings. But I'm pretty awful at writing about them... Maybe I will in the future, though.

Q: Why are you not starting a business or something?

A: It's simply not appealing to me. Earning money is simply to 'get by' in my opinion. I would not be proud of myself if I had money on a Swiss bank account at old age.

Resources should be shared, not hoarded and kept in a vault.

Q: What is your opinion on drugs?

A: That's a good question. On one hand I dislike the thought of everyone clouding their view of the world. On the other hand I think that it's not my opinion that should dictate what other people want to ingest.

But if someone is depressed, should they be allowed to ingest cyanide? A line has to be drawn somewhere, but I do think that most drugs should be legalized - but regulated.

Q: What's your political views?

A: I don't fit very well in ideologies. I try to think more in terms of "What would be best for all of us in the future?" and go from there.

All ideologies have some things that I agree with. The key is to not be selfish, if I would suggest any rule of thumb.

Q: How can you dismiss alternative views on sciences?

A: Well... There's a nice quote that goes something like "If alternative medicine worked, it would be called medicine." 

I hope that cleared some misunderstandings up. If you want to ask me something, feel free to contact me at doddyswe@gmail.com

Have a nice weekend, all of you!

Doddy out.

Analogies and metaphores.

How to use an analogy effectively?

There is no simple answer, since it depends on how much information is understood from case to case.

One example of this is when trying to explain a complex system to someone who do not understand it,

but do understand another complex system.

Example: Why do some countries do better than others on an economic basis?

The analogy I like to make is to view the economy as a closed thermo-dynamic system.

This is obviously problematic, and you should never make arguments from analogies - but to convey an idea, they are efficient.

So, due to entropy in the system -

 if energy (money) is concentrated/increased in one part (company/country) of the system (global economy) ,

 the energy (money) must be taken from other parts (companies/countries) of the system (global economy).

It's pretty basic physics - energy can't be created or destroyed - only changed.

If the economy follows some equivalent rule, the analogy works.

But the Earth is not a thermo-dynamic, closed system - so the analogy is flawed if used in an argument or taken literally.

I can always use the excuse that it must be interpreted correctly, though... "Well, that part is just a metaphor..." but that would be pretty, fucking dishonest of me, would it not?

Also, I'm obviously not an expert in either area - perhaps not in any area, now that I think about it - so please don't make an argument from authority based on this. 

Or anything else, for that matter.

I'm trying to get some coherent answers from our beloved officials, but I seem to not understand their arguments - so that'll probably be my next topic.

Maybe you can help me decipher them?

Doddy out.

PS. Watch this.

Well, let's get a clue about the world, then...

A stable ground...

To get a better view of the state of affairs, I've had to abandon what I would've viewed as 'common sense' about subjects I don't understand perfectly.

It's very difficult to let go of indoctrinated opinions - but it's certainly not impossible. What helped me the most was healthy skepticism and a quote from Richard Feynmann.

"Remember, the easiest person to decieve, is yourself." (Or something like that.)

It pretty much boils down to actually talking to many experts and people who have another view than me - and letting go of stereotypical views of how they are as individuals - since that's being judgemental instead of challenging myself.

"Does my view, opinion, argument hold up to scrutiny?"

Why am I doing this, then?

To learn. A democracy is worthless if those who vote are not informed or educated.

And to find out if I can help.

It's been fascinating, depressing, frightening and strengthening to take a step back. Some take offense that I change opinions, others welcome that. But as easy as it is to brush of the trolls - I can't build on a foundation of compliments either.

It's very easy to jump to conclusions when searching for evidence - and that place is filled with conspiracy-theories and religions.

It's even easier to stop caring about finding out - and that's where PR, corporations, "alternative medicines" and such lurk and profit of peoples' ignorance.

There is harm to holding false beliefs, be they supernatural or not. And there's always someone profiting from yours.

The "finance-crisis" is a perfect example of this. Stop fighting amongst eachother and find out who is not sharing the misery - why are they not?

Humanity makes the most progress when we work together - not for eachother and certainly not when we work against eachother.

I'll comment on some subjects further on, I appreciate your criticism and pointing out where I'm wrong.

Doddy out.

Hej igen, ni vackra människor!

Har varit ett tag sedan jag skrev här, men jag kommer ta upp detta nöje igen.
Förmodligen så kommer jag att bredda innehållet till fler ämnen än teologi - förhoppningsvis har jag lite intressant att skriva om på andra områden.
Det är upp till er läsare att avgöra i kommentarsfältet eller via direkt kontakt med mig om vilka ämnen som intresserar Er!

Layouten skall jag göra om också, den är ingen vacker syn.

Fortsätt leva underbart och låt inte åsikter andra har förstöra er dag.

Peace goes in, peace goes out... You can't explain that!