Talking About Suicide

Some people think that talking about suicide will cause more suicide. I doubt it. The thing that causes more suicides is indifference, hate, and physiology. Abuse and neglect. Biological abnormalities and shitty luck cause suicides. Talking about suicide or joking about suicide doesn't cause suicide. Not any more than talking about violence causes violence. Talking about something removes the burden of trying to ignore it. Maybe talking about why we don't talk about suicide from more angles will help us see it more clearly. Here are some angles.

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they are superstitious. They think that talking about something makes it occur. I suppose there is a kernel of truth in the idea that concepts can influence behavior but the idea that saying a word would cause the universe to focus on persecuting you is irrational. The universe doesn't have you in mind because it is not conscious and you are not that special.

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they are afraid of their own thoughts of suicide and they are trying to suppress them.

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they have known someone who committed suicide and they are traumatized by the experience. Now the word brings up terror and they can not engage in a nonemotional conversation about suicide. The whole concept is tainted with direct personal experience. I'm not sure but I think if someone can accept and get past having someone close commit suicide the person might be able to communicate to others how devastating it is and how if someone is thinking about committing suicide they should not dismiss the effect it might have on others. Many people care more about those around them than themselves and if they were truly alone they might kill themself but it's knowing that others care enough to cry at your loss that you feel that you might be able to handle another day.

Maybe people don't want to talk about suicide because they can empathize with those that have contemplated it and also with those that have attempted it or I suppose succeeded in it but can you sympathize with a dead person? I think you can if you know anything about them. Knowing something about a person can help you create a story around the person. One that you can identify with and allows you to place them in your worldview. This also allows you to make value judgments on the person, whether accurate or not. Maybe empathizing too much makes you think about killing yourself, which is disturbing and therefore you do not want to entertain the idea of suicide.

(Can you sympathize with random unknown people that you know nothing about? Maybe you can empathize with them as what they have done is modeled in the mind and mirror neurons mimic the perceived emotional and physiological state of the person, but I'm not sure if that is sympathy.)

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because most people have had only a small amount of suicidal thoughts and it is only a small proportion of people who have severe enough thoughts to actually do it. This might cause people to dismiss the issue as not significant. There are plenty of other things to talk about than suicide, which is mostly unpleasant to contemplate anyway. Why talk about unpleasant topics?

If we all accepted that a great deal of the population has varying levels of suicidal thoughts then maybe we could be more open about our personal thoughts about suicide and then maybe we could talk about suicide enough that it becomes less taboo and easier to talk about in general. By lessening the stigma it might become easier to ask for help.

Maybe people think if we don't talk about it it will go away.

Maybe people think that if someone they know commits suicide it might be their fault? Maybe they think that the way they treated that person could have been better or they were cruel to that person and so talking about suicide means admitting their own feelings of guilt. Maybe people secretly wish for the suicide of someone else and they feel guilty about it. Or they secretly feel comradery with the suicidal person but condemn it outwardly in order to hide their shame. 

Maybe people are afraid to talk about suicide because they are simply afraid of death in general. To these people maybe any contemplation of death is too hard to cope with and suicide adds a layer of horror. The fear of death is certainly pervasive but it is such an unknown that I would rather concentrate on life, even when life is hard to handle. 

I remember when I found out that Robin Williams committed suicide and my first thought was not one of sadness or scorn but instead I imagined a man that finally took control over his life and made a decision that was his to make. I appreciate Robin Williams very much as an entertainer and I look up to him as a role model for comedic self-expression but I didn't know him personally and my projection onto his suicide was just a reaction. It didn't involve much thought about what his suicide would do to his family and how much the world would miss out on without him around to entertain us. It was only later that I cried thinking about how sad he must have been to commit suicide and how much I loved his presence in my life. 

It is selfish to commit suicide but it is also selfish to keep someone from doing it for the sake of your own desire to enjoy their company or not feel sad. Ultimately people are responsible for their own bodies and life and it is up to them to decide what they do with it. It is also up to those around you to choose to help when you are feeling terrible. You can't always convince someone they are loved and you can't always convince yourself that others love you. Depression is a very powerful psychological state that can not always be turned around with love and drugs.

Suicide is something that I have contemplated in my life and I have had people around me that have attempted it. To live in a world where suicide exists can seem confusing and cruel but it is not a new phenomenon and it is not going away anytime soon. If someone wants to kill themself they can. It isn't that hard. Humans are squishy meat sacks full of blood that are constantly on the precipice of death. Every time you get into a car or step into the shower you risk the wrath of entropy and the chaos of uncertainty and ultimately death finds you. You already face death every day so why should suicide be so scary or so obscure? 

Maybe if we talk about it enough we'll find it's not that interesting?

 

Questions about Panpsychism

Click here to get more!

After listening to Sean Carol debate Philip Goff about panpsychism and materialism I had a few questions about panpsychism.

Are animals conscious? 

If so, how would we find out? 

Wouldn't we have to use external observation in the form of some material mechanism? 

Maybe one would think that animals could tell us what it is like to be them. Maybe we could interpret their languages and understand that they are experiencing what we are experiencing.

How would you explain to a foreign person that has never heard the word consciousness what consciousness is? How would a dolphin explain to us that it is conscious? How would we ask it? 

Saying that humans have consciousness is a fact and then postulating that that fact is an indicator that all things are conscious seems like a very big leap. If consciousness is at the root of all physical reality then many entities would experience the world in a similar way as humans and should at least experience some form of consciousness. 

How is consciousness defined? If the definition comes from the only thing we know is conscious then the definition must include the aspects that are linked to the human we experience of it. This means that it would include characteristics such as a self-concept or self-representation, a stream of present tense external and internal stimulus that includes some form of symbolic representation such as a language that interprets, analyses and integrates stimulus in a meaningful and expressible manner.

If the only way we know that something is conscious is to ask them and if we ask someone if they are conscious and they say yes why should we believe them? Why should we trust our own perception of consciousness? How, other than appealing to physical reality, would we ground our confidence that consciousness exists?

Philip also relies on the difference between quantity and quality but I didn't get a good definition of quality. Maybe it is just another term for subjective valuation and has no objective base. If that is true and "quality" can not be judged then there is no reason to study it as it can neither be wrong or right. So how does someone who thinks consciousness is only qualitative expect to study it?

Is there a way to evaluate quality in the form of quantity such as a degree of happiness, or a degree of redness? Also, I'm not sure if "redness" is a qualitative characteristic. Experiences can be quantified such as how many times one experiences something or the amount of hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical activity that exist before, during and after an experience.

If you care about science then you must care about the means in which we verify intuitions. Also, Philip repeats the idea that neuroscientists can only get at a correlation between brain activity and conscious accounts but that correlation does not disprove causation as much as it proves causation. Also, neuroscience is not the only science that studies consciousness. 

Philip keeps asking Sean to explain what a particle is as opposed to what it does but he doesn't explain how if everything is conscious how would we ever prove it if materialism or scientific methods or empiricism is on a different level as consciousness. It is a kind of unmoved mover kind of argument. It's not that physical reality includes consciousness it is that consciousness is what physical reality actually is and therefore cannot be explained by physical reality. Saying that what we do when we do math or science is just describe the behavior of consciousness doesn't explain consciousness or prove its existence at all. It is the same argument that God is before time and space and therefore one can not prove its existence using science. 

Why should consciousness be on a different ground than any other concept? It should not be held up higher than any other hypothesis or theory. We should be skeptical of our assumptions regardless of how real they feel and we should be skeptical of our willingness to separate things because they seem mysterious and miraculous. We should ask questions about what we are talking about when we use the word consciousness and why it's important.

I suppose what I mean is I should ask these questions and look into the subject more. 

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/11/04/71-philip-goff-on-consciousness-everywhere/

An Educational Miss

Click here to get more!

If kids can vote at 18 and everyone thinks they should vote then why is there essentially no formal education related to political philosophy? They should also be practiced in evaluating candidates and understanding the process and its consequences.

There seems to be a gap between whose role it is to teach life skills and job skills. Formal education was originally a supplemental experience that would prepare one with a means to know how to do something valuable. Something that would ensure they get a skill-based job. I'm sure that it all originated with apprenticeships and other on the job training and then, in time, turned into more and more of an institutionally based endeavor. Education, it seems, has become bastardized by laziness, bureaucracy,  and politics. (Yet another example of how the government corrupts a good idea.)

More and more people started sending their children to school. This allowed them to get a head start on reading, writing, and math, which was becoming more and more of a necessity in industrialized nations. As occupations went away from farming, parents spent less and less time at home and needed somewhere for their children to be during the day. Soon, and with the help of the efficiency born of the factory, schools started taking up more and more of the role that parents once held.

Life skills were traditionally taught by parents by both modeling and direct teaching. Parents would teach their children about household duties, sex, religion, politics, and all the things that are involved in navigating once's culture. It was the role of the parent to truly prepare their children for the outside world and it was the role of the school to prepare their mind for fundamental cognitive abilities that would become financially viable.

Throughout much of American history, mothers stayed home and took care of household maintenance and fathers went off to work somewhere for most of the day. As women started joining the workforce and the government decreased the value of money through inflation in an effort to increase tax revenue children became more and more neglected. Now we have a situation where the vast majority of citizens live in the working class, which means that they typically need a two household income in order to pay bills. This means that there is less time to teach their children life skills and with schools teaching nearly everything under the sun, parents don't know what their children are missing. Also, because they were never formally taught modern life skills they assume that their children will learn as they did, just by doing it.

I think that we would all be better off defining the roles of both parents and educational systems. I think that the government's "free" schools should either provide life skills or not. If they are going to take on the role of educating the youth to create effective, successful and productive adults then they should teach the things necessary to accomplish this. This includes teaching skills such as sex education, finances, political philosophy, cooking, health, computers, typing, etc. If this was the case then this would be on the top of the goals list of teaching children job skills as well, such as math, science, geography, English and the like. This is a lot of work for the government and it seems that they are already in charge of much of this and yet don't seem to have a clear goal in mind. If you are going to take on the task of educating the future entirely then you should do it well.

If the government is not the right choice for the job of educating children in life skills then it would fall to either the parents or a private agency such as a private school. The nuclear family seems to be falling apart and one thing that is helpful about the nuclear family is it relieves the parents of some of the burden and allows for a more stable, nurturing and ultimately healthy environment for the development of a child's capacities. As single-parent households rise parents are more stressed, less attentive and more absent in their children's lives, leaving less room to teach life skills. Also, because the parent is struggling it does not provide a hopeful example for the child either. Why would a child listen to the advice of someone who is barely making it? They won't. They will go somewhere else.

Where do children go to learn life skills? Now, it's the internet. If they want to learn about sex they look it up online. Not just porn but articles about how to be in relationships. Or they just watch porn. Only the more intelligent look deeply into their own potential and seek out experts. Many just do as others do and will end up just like their parents even though they despise them. They look to celebrities and emulate their personalities in a naive attempt to become someone important instead of becoming themselves.

The world is becoming more and more complicated and young people have more possibilities ahead of them than ever. Even if parents take the time to teach their children they are most likely unaware of the current considerations that young people should be made aware of. Every year there are new technologies, industries, laws, and cultural mores that parents can't keep up with and therefore cannot educate their children in a way that will be relevant for them in the future. The government takes so long to update their curriculum and continually changes their standards that they cannot educate the youth in a way that prepares them for our complex and rapidly changing world. It makes sense that so many young adults (and many not so young adults) find themselves scrambling to understand the world that they are thrust into when they turn 18.

Waiting for people to "figure it out" on their own is terribly inefficient and wastes so much potential. Well before someone graduates, they should be immersed in the real economic world. Diverse and extensive job experiences before the age of 18 would help transition the young into the world that they are already a part of but are separated from partly out of necessity and partly out of fear. People learn from doing and so if you want people to understand the world they must experience it. For children, this is facilitated by adults and for teens, mentors can help transition them into the world. If parents don't take the time to mentor and educate their children then there will exist a gap between the real world and the insulated world of children. On the other hand, some children are thrust into the real world too early and are forced to engage in adult activities before they understand them.

Maybe companies like Youtube, Kahn Academy, Udemy and others will bridge the gap that exists but children don't know what they don't know and if they don't actively engage in educating themselves then they will go through the growing pains that most of us deal with when we have to fend for ourselves. While people make due and some will be very successful and some will fail miserably with the majority somewhere in between the world could be improved by taking education more seriously, not for the sake of the state but for the sake of humanity and freedom.

The Walking Dead: Ranting (Spoilers)

Click here to join my mailing list and stay up to date!

I stopped watching The Walking Dead before the last couple of episodes of season 6. I became bored, apathetic and uninterested so I stopped watching. Recently the entire show through season 8 is on Netflix and I decided to re-watch it and see how far I get this time.

After watching it again I both appreciate it more and hate it more. And I realized that I actually love to hate it. I like the way that it engages my mind in critical thinking and scrutiny over how these people deal with their circumstances.

The following should clarify my hatred for this show but it also reveals my love.


SPEARS!

Why the fuck don't they utilize spears? Or at least more swords, machetes, and other less loud options? If the walkers smell then how were they able to hide under the busses in season two when all the herd walks by? It doesn't make sense that they can only smell themselves which is why putting their stench on you makes you invisible to them. If sounds attract walkers then why you would ever just start shooting them? Just walk the fuck away or around them as they are slow as fuck. They can not run so if you go at a steady jogging pace you should be fairly safe. Or you could quickly kill them by thrusting a sharp spear into their heads one at a time.

It is not hard to learn how to use a spear and a sword for simple purposes and is manageable by even the simpler humans. But no, they go off and start shooting just for fun, wasting precious bullets. I imagine that in a world where the majority of the population is no longer capable of owning property that with a moderate amount of searching you could find all the melee weapons imaginable. Even if 10% of the population has a decent melee weapon in their house and most of the houses are already raided you would find something longer than a knife to kill the easily killed walkers.

Also, there are dozens and dozens of stores and building with ready-made melee weapons or opportunities to fashion makeshift weapons with ease. Also, why don't they manufacture body protection for bites? A little armor for the arms and neck and such would ensure less of a chance for a fatal encounter with a walker.  This can not be that hard to come up with on the fly. A thick enough leather coat would at least help the situation but during all their downtime and salvaging runs they can't figure this out?

What about trenches? Why not reinforce an area by manipulating the environment to your advantage? Such as digging fucking trenches for the walkers to fall into. Or make the trenches wide enough and fill it partially with water. Or take down trees around the fort and lay them down as obstacles.

What about motherfucking distractions? They learn nearly immediately that walkers are attracted by noise so why not always carry about little noise making devices? Kids toys, electronics that still work, firecrackers would be the best or just use a fucking rock and hide. Walkers are really fucking stupid and if you could combine this tactic with getting their stench on you more regularly you would never have to deal with walkers.

Why not train everyone in your tribe to utilize all the weapons? And train them in basic medical and walker specific medical practices. And train them to avoid and defeat walkers.

How is it that after a month or two people would still be soft? After a month or two of being without a citie's transportation, communication, electrical and emergency infrastructure would render most people dead just from starvation so to have lived for that long subsisting off the leftovers and land and fighting walkers and dealing with desperate people and witnessing horrific deaths and transformations you would be either dead or hard as fuck. At least hard enough not to whimper, whine and cry when a walker came at you.

Carl died because be tried to use a knife instead of a fucking spear! Why get close when you have long sticks all around you to stab walkers with.

It is probably deliberate but there are nearly no cultural references about the past. People would talk more or less the same as they did and they would randomly bring up references and metaphors.

I realize that this show is a drama first and realistic last. It does a great job of creating suspense and drama and the action is a lot of fun. I just can't help myself from criticizing the logic and pragmatics. It reminds of Sons of Anarchy because it is a soap opera geared toward the male audience and it does a good job of getting you hooked on the characters, no matter how flawed and annoying they can be.  It is a fun exercise to think about what I might do in such situations and pretend that I might do well.

I decided to write a couple of fan fiction stories. Check out the links below and let me know what you think about them.

https://joesnotesblog.com/blog/2018/10/7/30-days-of-fiction-day-25

https://joesnotesblog.com/blog/30-days-of-fiction-day-26

Immortality in the age of YouTube

From the days of ancient Egypt humans have been seeking immortality. While we work on medical advancements in this direction true immortality remains illusive. There is another type of immortality and it is the kind that you get when your image and personality is etched into long lasting media. From rocks and paper to hard drives we record our likeness for the world to remember. When everyone is immortal who will be remembered?

Unless the internet changes massively or ceases to exist the activity of individuals will be continue to be uploaded in mass. It has become so easy for anyone to create semi-permanent reflections of their lives that the value of each reflection, while long lasting, is reduced. We are no longer limited to the ruling class as the sole representative of humanities achievements and record keeping. The statues and memoirs of long past rulers will not be the only record past on. But with such access to the future minds of humans the lasting impressions we leave online are increasingly trivial.

Forums such as YouTube help us immortalize our thoughts and visages for the world to see and with more views comes more notoriety and "fame". While some people will be remembered by more people it is only the truly revolutionary, visionary and repugnant that will that live on in the minds of future humans. This kind of immortality can not be gained by simply talking into a camera on YouTube. To be truly immortal one must be immense.

But why do we seek immortality? I think it is a relative of the need to reproduce. The ultimate driving force for humans is the need to reproduce our genes and if done successfully the genes are what become immortal. So it seems that our lust for immortality is born from our deepest primordial desires. Although it is a lofty goal that moves many to great deeds both good and bad it is really an illusion and when we actually die we no longer care about how many views our YouTube channels acquire.

So what's the point? The point, may be, that people are motivated by those who came before them that made lasting impressions which gives them the notion that they too can live on in the records and memories passed down. We are frantic to create lasting copies of ourselves and the more copies we make the harder it is for the world to erase our mark. Our children, art, businesses, and work all lead to nothing if nothing remains after we die, and we all die. The Buddhists believe pain comes from desire but so does greatness and mediocrity.

Religious rants and the word god.

Religious rants and the word god.

 I am a poor Buddhist because I fear the quietness in my mind.

I am a poor Christian because I do not believe in old stories.

I am a horrible Muslim because I do not believe in old stories.

I am a horrible Mormon because I don’t trust white leaders.

I will never be a catholic because gold is gaudy and ridiculous.

I am not an atheist even though I do not believe in god. I actually have a problem with the word god. I don’t think it means anything and I think it can mean anything so it is useless. When someone thinks that they do not believe in god they are saying they do not believe in a word that has no real meaning. When you acknowledge that the word is blindingly ambiguous you can acquire better knowledge of what you are talking about.

Before there was a word god there was a concept of god. And that concept had a clear meaning the people using that word. But when they said it they did not say god. They said the word for god in their language and it was understood before anyone had to write it down. If you have a religion you think that you know what the word god means. You go to church and read books about your god but you do not know what that word means.

The concept of god came at a time when people had very few words and the word god was powerful and deep. In each culture a new concept would emerge that described important and powerful things and soon the concept turned into worship and adoration. Some people built statues and monuments to celebrate their gods; their concepts. To some, gods had to be named and organized and for some god is one thing and for others god means everything or is it nothing and to some it means the earth and yet to some others it means the sun or moon or money or sex or fame or anything. Seriously it is a useless word.

So when someone asks if I believe in god what do I say? Do I say I do not believe in god when I do not know what that word means?  I have concepts of things and names for things and I can be content to not know things and name things that I do not know things I do not know. I do not desire to do anything more than to try to know what others mean when they say the words god or gods and try to understand why it matters. I think that there are more precise and creative ways to explain things than to continue to use this word GOD.

I am a poor agnostic because I am unsure that there is an answer to be unsure of. Maybe even the placing of a yes or no designation to the existence of something is the first mistake. Seeking is not the mistake but maybe inferior words and thinking lead to useless things.