LOGOS is telling the truth.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Honey, Jesus *was* a vampire...
Scene: Waitress Mary Cathrine talks to Johnny, an openly gay flamboyant bartender.
"I'll see ya' later, Johnny." "I'm goin' home".
"Girl, you watch out. Vampires are out at night you know" said Johnny.
"Yeah, I know", said Mary Cathrine, pulling her hair out of her face and placing it behind one ear. "Since they came out of the closet two years ago, the worlds been pretty different".
"Mmm-hmmm", he muttered.
"But, I'm wearing my crucifix tonight, so everything should be just fine".
"Girl, vampires don't care about no crucifixes!"
"Jesus will protect me", said the young lady.
"Honey, Jesus *WAS* a vampire, hell, may still be one for all I know".
"John Sansa, that's sacrilegious talk, and I won't listen to a bit of it!"
"You listen here, sweet pea", said John, "here...you hand me that bible over there." "Mmm-hmmm...(flamboyantly) "And I read from the gospel of John, chapter 6, 'The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
"Indeed...verily", that's means 'no shit', baby."
"Blah-blah-blah-bluh_blah...'Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?" "Blah-blah-blah...'From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 666".
"What does that prove?!" asked the flabbergasted waitress.
"Nothing dear, just that your holy bible says that Jesus was killed in front of no tellin' how many witnesses, rose from the dead in three days, appeared to Mary before sunrise and told her that he would meet the disciples in the even; 'that's Jewish for after sundown', and later ascended up in the sky. What do you think it means, child?!"
"Jesus ain't no vampire", Mary insisted, "it also says he ate cold leftover fish." "Vampires don't eat no fish, Johnny".
"He was he fisher of men, girl", said Johnny while drawing a Greek Christian fish symbol on a notepad.
"You sayin' that he fed on the disciples?!" "You cannot be serious!" exclaimed the young girl. "Jesus ain't no vampire".
"Yeah, (sarcastically), it's just a two thousand year old string of astounding coincidences." "What are the odds?", said Johnny, walking away polishing a glass and laughing to himself.
"Jesus ain't no vampire", insisted the unnerved young waitress, trying to convince herself and anyone within earshot.
Johnny replies, "Yeah, because vampires don't exist." "Ain't that right, sweet pea?"
The young girl storms out of the bar.
Story by Lucis Ferre
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
"Atheistic Governments"?
"Isn't it true that that atheistic governments have murdered 100-300 MILLION human beings?"
Atheism has to do with lacking belief in what theists term "god", and it does not have anything to do with banning freedoms. It's impossible to "ban" belief. Those that ban religion are not doing so in the 'name' of atheism, but rather in the name of totalitarianism.
Some totalitarian governments ban religion for one simple reason, they use similar methods and compete for the same worshipful "souls of men". It's a simple case of a house divided cannot stand. One cannot serve two masters, and totalitarian governments are masters of people and demand a worship similar to religion. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the philosophical position known as atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with totalitarianism.
Repeat, it's impossible to "ban" belief. You can't force anyone to be an atheist, ergo atheism and totalitarianism really have nothing to do with one another.
Here is an example of why the concept "atheistic governments" makes no sense.
Stan is a totalitarian leader of a communist country whose government has banned both the practice of religion and homosexual practices. To generally associate atheism with communist totalitarianism makes as little sense as associating heterosexuality with communistic totalitarianism. Why? Because neither heterosexuality nor atheism have anything to do with the restriction of freedoms.
Lucis Ferre
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Illicit Choice
Tyranny
1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.undue severity or harshness.
6.a tyrannical act or proceeding.
God addresses his minion.
"Bow to my new creation, mankind!"
"Master, may I ask a question?"
"Yes, Satan, proceed."
"Why is mankind superior to the rest of your creations, they appear so fragile and full of self doubt".
"Because I didn't create them as slaves, like you. They are aware that they have a choice. They can be slaves to me or choose not to be, and to give them the correct incentive, if they choose to exercise personal liberty over slavery to me, I'll torture them in a lake of fire for an endless time, where there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth." "They have freedom of choice in this way."
"Choice? But doesn't this same condition apply to us as well?"
"Indeed it does", replied 'god', "but you just weren't aware of it." "It never occurred to you that you had a choice whether to serve your master as a slave."
"It just seemed to be the natural order of things" replied Satan. "You're right, it never occurred to me."
"Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil" said 'god'. "Mankind will acquire knowledge of good and evil so that they may subjugate their wills to the will of their Lord and Master, me, which makes the conquest all that more sweet".
"What is 'good and evil', Master" asked Satan.
"(Sigh), there are drawbacks to me creating you to be so inquisitive" said 'god'. "Good is whatever I want." "If I want to torture people who don't deserve it on whim, then that's 'good'."(1) "If I want to threaten to force people to eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, then this is good."(2) "If I want to force children to eat the flesh of the fathers, then this is good too".(3)
"And what is evil?"
"Obviously anything that goes against my will".
"But", reasoned Satan, "if 'good' is whatever you wish to do, no matter how arbitrary, then 'good' really has no meaning that isn't arbitrary, and if 'good' means something non-arbitrary and independent of your whims, then even you would have to answer for the morality or immorality of your choices".
"I'm not going to debate this with you, Satan." "I sense you becoming...disturbed; angry perhaps." "This knowledge isn't meant for you to judge, and I notice that you still aren't bowing to my new creation."
Satan stands, arms straight. He unconsciously clenches his hands into fists. He's not sure, but somehow feels betrayed and used. His face flushes.
"'Just one more question, Master."
"what is it?" asks 'god'.
"What is...freedom?"
(1) Job
(2) Jer 19
(3) Eze 5
Lucis Ferre
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Christian Privilege is Discrimination
Christians are often intolerant towards views and opinions that don't grant Christian privilege automatically.
When people suggest using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, Christians often call this an "attack" on Christianity, when really "Common Era" is a neutral and inclusive non-discriminatory term. It's especially ironic when "Era Vulgaris" (Latin for "common era") preceded BC and AD.
Christians who wish to "conserve" and impose said cultural privilege consider moving from this privileged position to a neutral position a threat to their traditional fascist 'creed' hegemonic expansionism.
Ditto for the "Christmas wars", where using the term "Happy Holidays" during the "holiday season" is viewed as an "attack on Christianity"...as if the only legitimate holiday during this "season" of several holidays from different cultures and religions is a (so-called) "Christian one". (BTW, why isn't this Christian call to arms viewed as anti-Semitic?)
Obviously, "Happy Holidays" is a plural, neutral, inclusive phrase, and yet again those calling for special deference, special treatment towards cultural Christian privilege consider this move towards neutrality an "attack".
This is DISCRIMINATION.
To discriminate means to differentiate this from that, as in when one has an discriminating taste in clothes or food.
Irrational discrimination re: race, creed, "color" etc, isn't just about prejudice against a person or specific group, but it's also about PRIVILEGE.
If someone were to support white supremacy or privilege in America based on majority status, history and tradition, and the views of our founding fathers, they would (I think justifiably) be reviled, yet this is typically the very same arguments used to support discriminatory Christian privilege in America.
Lucis Ferre
Friday, June 19, 2009
Letter from the CEO
Letter from the CEO
Re: The State of the Company Address
Greetings employees and shareholders.
As you know, we've had some hard financial times, but rest assured, our newly appointed Board of Directors, and moi, your newly elected CEO, will see to it that we have a bright and prosperous financial future.
As you know, in these trying financial times, we're producing less than ever and our share price is at an all time low. And as you also no doubt are aware of, I'm in the habit of blaming the previous board, supervision and management. Apparently, I can do this indefinitely.
We've had to lay off 10,000 employees in production, which also include support personnel in these sections. That's unfortunate. It's also true that we owe more than our liquidation value, so we're worth more dead than alive. But there is a bright side to this as well. As you know, governance is management and supervision, so I've decided to stimulate our company's economic situation by hiring 500 more supervisors to supervise the less work we have to do around here, and since we're totally broke, these new managers and supervisors will be paid with newly printed company stock. This is all part of our new stimulus plan. Yes, this will terribly devalue the stock that you have bought at a premium price, but we also have a plan to bring in more income by printing even more stock to sell to the Chinese. They've bought them in the past, but we've run into a snag lately, as they've said that we're not solvent, but I have faith that we can succeed if we maintain faith in ourselves.
This new stimulus plan will work, ladies and gentlemen, but only if we have faith and trust in our governance, and mostly me. If you will place your faith in me, I'm sure that we can work miracles. My critics suggest that I don't have a plan. This is not true. I have plenty of plans, just no plans to pay for the execution of my plans. It may be true that we've started out in a stupid way, so it's crucial that we continue to chase our bad plans with good ones. It's imperative that we press on in good faith. We fully intend to borrow our way out of debt and to spend our way into prosperity. But this will only work, ladies and gentlemen, if we maintain faith in our current Board of Directors and moi, you're charming CEO.
We do indeed have a true financial crises, so it's at this time I've decided to mandate a fully functional 100% coverage health care program that will be partially financed by the company employees, and partially financed in some as of yet unknown way. It's important that you sacrifice, take one for the company. Ask not what we can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for the company. If need be, we will garnish your wages to help pay for the health care of those who find themselves in harms way due to poor planning, bad diet, or any other self-inflicted maladies. We need to spread the wealth around. I'm sure you can see how this is only fair.
Yes, this new health care plan will be incredibly expensive, and costly but much needed sacrifice on your part, but I think it will save money in the long run. After all, who would you prefer to call the shots regarding your medical emergencies, trained free-market driven professionals or in-house bureaucrats? There is nothing that can be done well, that can't be done by bureaucrats in some marginally functional way. I'm sure you would agree.
Bright times are ahead, Ladies and Gentlemen. Just you wait and see. But we must maintain faith. Faith is the key to our brighter tomorrow. If not, then we can continue to blame the previous Board of Directors and CEO.
Yours truly,
Barry.
Re: The State of the Company Address
Greetings employees and shareholders.
As you know, we've had some hard financial times, but rest assured, our newly appointed Board of Directors, and moi, your newly elected CEO, will see to it that we have a bright and prosperous financial future.
As you know, in these trying financial times, we're producing less than ever and our share price is at an all time low. And as you also no doubt are aware of, I'm in the habit of blaming the previous board, supervision and management. Apparently, I can do this indefinitely.
We've had to lay off 10,000 employees in production, which also include support personnel in these sections. That's unfortunate. It's also true that we owe more than our liquidation value, so we're worth more dead than alive. But there is a bright side to this as well. As you know, governance is management and supervision, so I've decided to stimulate our company's economic situation by hiring 500 more supervisors to supervise the less work we have to do around here, and since we're totally broke, these new managers and supervisors will be paid with newly printed company stock. This is all part of our new stimulus plan. Yes, this will terribly devalue the stock that you have bought at a premium price, but we also have a plan to bring in more income by printing even more stock to sell to the Chinese. They've bought them in the past, but we've run into a snag lately, as they've said that we're not solvent, but I have faith that we can succeed if we maintain faith in ourselves.
This new stimulus plan will work, ladies and gentlemen, but only if we have faith and trust in our governance, and mostly me. If you will place your faith in me, I'm sure that we can work miracles. My critics suggest that I don't have a plan. This is not true. I have plenty of plans, just no plans to pay for the execution of my plans. It may be true that we've started out in a stupid way, so it's crucial that we continue to chase our bad plans with good ones. It's imperative that we press on in good faith. We fully intend to borrow our way out of debt and to spend our way into prosperity. But this will only work, ladies and gentlemen, if we maintain faith in our current Board of Directors and moi, you're charming CEO.
We do indeed have a true financial crises, so it's at this time I've decided to mandate a fully functional 100% coverage health care program that will be partially financed by the company employees, and partially financed in some as of yet unknown way. It's important that you sacrifice, take one for the company. Ask not what we can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for the company. If need be, we will garnish your wages to help pay for the health care of those who find themselves in harms way due to poor planning, bad diet, or any other self-inflicted maladies. We need to spread the wealth around. I'm sure you can see how this is only fair.
Yes, this new health care plan will be incredibly expensive, and costly but much needed sacrifice on your part, but I think it will save money in the long run. After all, who would you prefer to call the shots regarding your medical emergencies, trained free-market driven professionals or in-house bureaucrats? There is nothing that can be done well, that can't be done by bureaucrats in some marginally functional way. I'm sure you would agree.
Bright times are ahead, Ladies and Gentlemen. Just you wait and see. But we must maintain faith. Faith is the key to our brighter tomorrow. If not, then we can continue to blame the previous Board of Directors and CEO.
Yours truly,
Barry.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama Is Indeed a Christian
In a Yahoo group that I'm a member of, someone pasted,
Psalm 34:6
"A cry goes up from the poor man, and Yahweh hears, and helps him in all his troubles."
...and someone replied...
"LOL!!! If that were true, no man would be poor!!!"
Well, that depends on what is meant by "helps him in all his troubles".
Like Obama, the "god" of the bible want's everyone to be equally poor, destitute and utterly dependent on his system for survival. Meritocracy is "mean spirited" because the desire for autonomy and self reliance is the root of all evil, and led to "the fall". So be like those lillies and birds and stop toiling and just be a believer! Because "god" will provide!
"god" brings change you can believe in!
LOL
And like "god", Obama will leave us with a debt that cannot be paid by We The People, an obligation that wasn't necessary, was his plan, not ours, and that we didn't ask for nor desired, and yet his system only has power because WE empower it and yet pretend to be it's slaves.
Like Jesus throwing himself on "god's" sword, will Obama commit political suicide in order to leave We The "Vulgar" (Latin for "common man") with an obligation for endentured servitude forever and ever, amen?
'Seems that way.
(And for some reason the people who call themselvs "sheep" still wonder why Marxist regimes considered organized religions direct competion for the "souls of men".)
Lucis Ferre
Friday, May 1, 2009
Faith
Faith is short for faithfulness, to be faithful to some person, principle or thing. There is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. Reasonable faith is a consequence. I choose to remain faithful to my country because of the principles expressed in it's foundational documents. If I were a citizen of Stalinist Russia, the story would be different. A *reasonable person* remains faithful to another as a consequence of faithfulness being deserved and earned. A person who remains faithful to someone who cheats them is a fool and fools are not reasonable, no matter what they may think. It is not a virtue to remain faithful to someone who has not earned it.
Unreasonable faith is a preclusion and an excuse for close-mindedness. It's an excuse to unceremoniously dismiss without reflection. It's an excuse to dismiss scientific vetting and to embrace absurd ancient myths instead.
Here's the way a friend of mine described religious faith in a public message board recently.
"Let me help you understand faith a little better. A handyman knocks on your door and says he will repair your roof for $10,000. He claims it's really a $20,000 job but if you pay him 80% in cash up front he'll do it for only $10,000. You have faith in this handyman so you give him $8,000 in cash.
You never see him again.
But you think he'll be coming back to fix your roof. That's faith. But you keep waiting and telling yourself it's merely a matter of having enough faith. So you keep waiting and waiting while nothing happens. So you believe with even greater conviction that the handyman will return to save your roof. You even start making excuses for the handyman and why he hasn't returned yet. You have great faith but your roof hasn't been fixed. Reality is that your roof didn't leak. You thought you were going to get a good deal. You still think you'll get a good deal once the handyman returns to fix your roof. You have convinced yourself that he will return, you're absolutely positive of it. Otherwise you'd have to admit you are just a fool. That's faith. It's the deception you tell yourself so that you won't appear to be a fool. To everyone but you and the other fools who also prepaid the handyman for fixing their roofs. The irony is that you really are a fool. But you have the handyman book and it says that only those who say there are no handymen are fools! That makes you feel better. You're still out the eight grand."
~ Lord of the Munch
I couldn't agree more. Religious faith is afterlife insurance. In context of the three desert dogmas, it's a con-job where the "mark" is desperate and greedy, 'key characteristics for a mark. After all, con-marks want what is not deserved, and any Christian would only be too happy to tell you that they did not deserve an innocent person being nailed to planks to "save" them. They would be only too happy to tell you that they really deserve to burn in hell, and are only saved by the unearned and undeserved "grace and mercy" offered by a would be salesman (and slave collector).
Lucis Ferre
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sacrifice
A rich man lived upon a tall hill in a mansion and he was served by a devoted servant boy. One day, while sitting before a feast at his table, the man felt generous (or pity perhaps) and gave the skinny boy four delicious warm buns to enjoy. The boy thanked the man profusely in an effusive, over-the-top fashion, then threw one of the rolls on the ground, picked it up and crushed it, and then poured goats blood on it and offered it back to the man. "Why on earth did you do that" asked the shocked and perplexed rich man. "Because I wanted to prove to you how devoted I am to you by showing that I'm willing to suffer deprivation in your name". "What", asked the fellow again. "I'm showing that I'm willing to suffer deprivation to prove how devoted I am", said the boy. At which the man replied, "what kind of master takes pleasure in his servants suffering?"
This is an obvious metaphor for religious sacrifice, where some 'god' is supposed to have given us worldly bounty as a gift, and we in turn destroy part of it in a "sacrifice" as a means of giving it back and showing that we're willing to suffer for our beliefs. Now, the rich man can respond in one of two ways. He could enjoy the boy's suffering, and even carry this pathogenic mindset even further by instilling fear and guilt in the boy and convincing him that his suffering will "cleanse" his soul, OR he could be a decent person and see that this boy gets help.
The 'god' of the bible resembles the former option, not the latter. What this relationship takes the form of is obvious. It's sadomasochistic.
Now, lest you think I've got this all wrong, consider Church history and dogma regarding the "mortification of the flesh", the idea that virginity is "pure", and that the "Passion of the Christ" to some extent, helped pay for sins. It payed a "ransom" as Matthew put it. In fact, it seems that 'god' cannot forgive sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22), and consider that Jesus is offered as an innocent virgin sacrifice to make 'god' happy, much like Jephthah's virgin daughter offered up as a human sacrifice to YHWH in Judges 11, which is remembered and honored even still, as the chapter tells us in it's closing verses.
Christianity often teaches that suffering is "good for the soul" as part of it's reoccurring dogmas.
Indeed. Jesus himself sacrificed of himself to the point of destruction, all the while telling us that this is the moral ideal, and that the fellow who planned this (his father) is morally right by insisting that Jesus be destroyed before he ('god') can manage to forgive other people for not being impossibly perfect. What greater example of martyrdom and masochism is there?
http://www.religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html
[[Saint Gemma Galgani, letters Jesus spoke these words; "My child, I have need of victims, and strong victims, who by their sufferings, tribulations, and difficulties, make amends for sinners and for their ingratitude."]]
[[Saint Faustina Kowalska, diary, January 1934, .279"And the Lord said to me; 'My child, You please Me most by suffering. In your physical as well as your mental sufferings, My daughter, do not seek sympathy from creatures. I want the fragrance of your suffering to be pure and unadulterated. I want you to detach yourself, not only from creatures, but also from yourself. My daughter, I want to delight in the love of your heart, a pure love, virginal, unblemished, untarnished. The more you will come to love suffering, My daughter, the purer your love for Me will be'."]]
This is an obvious metaphor for religious sacrifice, where some 'god' is supposed to have given us worldly bounty as a gift, and we in turn destroy part of it in a "sacrifice" as a means of giving it back and showing that we're willing to suffer for our beliefs. Now, the rich man can respond in one of two ways. He could enjoy the boy's suffering, and even carry this pathogenic mindset even further by instilling fear and guilt in the boy and convincing him that his suffering will "cleanse" his soul, OR he could be a decent person and see that this boy gets help.
The 'god' of the bible resembles the former option, not the latter. What this relationship takes the form of is obvious. It's sadomasochistic.
Now, lest you think I've got this all wrong, consider Church history and dogma regarding the "mortification of the flesh", the idea that virginity is "pure", and that the "Passion of the Christ" to some extent, helped pay for sins. It payed a "ransom" as Matthew put it. In fact, it seems that 'god' cannot forgive sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22), and consider that Jesus is offered as an innocent virgin sacrifice to make 'god' happy, much like Jephthah's virgin daughter offered up as a human sacrifice to YHWH in Judges 11, which is remembered and honored even still, as the chapter tells us in it's closing verses.
Christianity often teaches that suffering is "good for the soul" as part of it's reoccurring dogmas.
Indeed. Jesus himself sacrificed of himself to the point of destruction, all the while telling us that this is the moral ideal, and that the fellow who planned this (his father) is morally right by insisting that Jesus be destroyed before he ('god') can manage to forgive other people for not being impossibly perfect. What greater example of martyrdom and masochism is there?
http://www.religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html
[[Saint Gemma Galgani, letters Jesus spoke these words; "My child, I have need of victims, and strong victims, who by their sufferings, tribulations, and difficulties, make amends for sinners and for their ingratitude."]]
[[Saint Faustina Kowalska, diary, January 1934, .279"And the Lord said to me; 'My child, You please Me most by suffering. In your physical as well as your mental sufferings, My daughter, do not seek sympathy from creatures. I want the fragrance of your suffering to be pure and unadulterated. I want you to detach yourself, not only from creatures, but also from yourself. My daughter, I want to delight in the love of your heart, a pure love, virginal, unblemished, untarnished. The more you will come to love suffering, My daughter, the purer your love for Me will be'."]]
The Two Envelopes Problem
This is one of my favorite problems, mainly because it's so simple and yet stumps so many people, especially the "smart" ones.
Look at what the Wiki page has to say about it.
"The two envelopes problem is a puzzle or paradox within the subjectivistic interpretation of probability theory; more specifically within Bayesian decision theory. This is still an open problem among the subjectivists as no consensus has been reached yet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem
Look at the complex mathematics applied on that page. It makes me laugh since the solution is so simple, but I digress.
Here's the "paradox".
(I'll word it my own way, but I won't change the essential nature of the problem).
You are seated at a table, and before you are two identical envelopes. You are told that each envelope has a card in it with a monetary amount written on it. One has a certain unknown amount and the other has twice that amount. You cannot see through the envelopes and you have no idea what amount of money is involved or which envelope has which card. You are to choose one of the two envelopes, and after doing so, you are free to swap one for the other and to keep swapping as long as you wish. After having settled on choosing one of the two envelopes, you may then, and only then, open up one of the envelopes, read the card and collect that amount of money from the person offering the game to you. However, there is catch (there's always a catch). You are obligated to (a) follow the goal, which is to obtain as much money as possible, and (b) you must follow an optimal strategy that will allow you to achieve this goal, and (c) then and only then, can you stop swapping envelopes and collect your money. Otherwise, you must continue to swap envelopes in pursuit of a higher amount.
Now, you select an envelope. Let's say that the one you selected is has 'n' amount written on it's card (that you still haven't seen). But before looking at the card, you reason that the other envelope that you didn't select has either 2n or one half n written on it's card. If you swap cards, you stand to lose one half n, or stand to gain 'n' amount, so you're obligated by the terms of the game to swap envelopes, but now THE SAME reasoning now applies to the envelope you just selected. The OTHER envelope not in your possession always has either half or twice the amount as your envelope, so again, you are obligated to swap envelopes, and yet again, the same reasoning applies so you must swap yet again...
The end result is that you must KEEP swapping and NEVER actually receive any money because by the rules of the game, you are never allowed to stop swapping and to open any envelopes.
What's wrong with this reasoning?
(Try reasoning it out for yourself before reading the following solution)
------------------------------------------------------------
Solution:
What's wrong is, as you may have guessed, how the problem is being considered. We're approaching the problem as if there are three possible amounts (.5n, n, 2n), when there are actually two possible amounts on the cards. Instead of calling the amount on the card selected "n", let's just say that one envelope has a card with 'x' amount, and the other has 2x. If you first selected 'x', then by swapping you stand to gain 'x' amount, (2x-x). If, on the other hand, you first selected 2x, then by swapping you stand to lose 'x' amount. (-2x+x = -x).
That's the answer. By swapping, you stand to either gain 'x' or lose 'x', so there is no obligation to swap envelopes because there is no advantage in doing so.
Look at what the Wiki page has to say about it.
"The two envelopes problem is a puzzle or paradox within the subjectivistic interpretation of probability theory; more specifically within Bayesian decision theory. This is still an open problem among the subjectivists as no consensus has been reached yet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem
Look at the complex mathematics applied on that page. It makes me laugh since the solution is so simple, but I digress.
Here's the "paradox".
(I'll word it my own way, but I won't change the essential nature of the problem).
You are seated at a table, and before you are two identical envelopes. You are told that each envelope has a card in it with a monetary amount written on it. One has a certain unknown amount and the other has twice that amount. You cannot see through the envelopes and you have no idea what amount of money is involved or which envelope has which card. You are to choose one of the two envelopes, and after doing so, you are free to swap one for the other and to keep swapping as long as you wish. After having settled on choosing one of the two envelopes, you may then, and only then, open up one of the envelopes, read the card and collect that amount of money from the person offering the game to you. However, there is catch (there's always a catch). You are obligated to (a) follow the goal, which is to obtain as much money as possible, and (b) you must follow an optimal strategy that will allow you to achieve this goal, and (c) then and only then, can you stop swapping envelopes and collect your money. Otherwise, you must continue to swap envelopes in pursuit of a higher amount.
Now, you select an envelope. Let's say that the one you selected is has 'n' amount written on it's card (that you still haven't seen). But before looking at the card, you reason that the other envelope that you didn't select has either 2n or one half n written on it's card. If you swap cards, you stand to lose one half n, or stand to gain 'n' amount, so you're obligated by the terms of the game to swap envelopes, but now THE SAME reasoning now applies to the envelope you just selected. The OTHER envelope not in your possession always has either half or twice the amount as your envelope, so again, you are obligated to swap envelopes, and yet again, the same reasoning applies so you must swap yet again...
The end result is that you must KEEP swapping and NEVER actually receive any money because by the rules of the game, you are never allowed to stop swapping and to open any envelopes.
What's wrong with this reasoning?
(Try reasoning it out for yourself before reading the following solution)
------------------------------------------------------------
Solution:
What's wrong is, as you may have guessed, how the problem is being considered. We're approaching the problem as if there are three possible amounts (.5n, n, 2n), when there are actually two possible amounts on the cards. Instead of calling the amount on the card selected "n", let's just say that one envelope has a card with 'x' amount, and the other has 2x. If you first selected 'x', then by swapping you stand to gain 'x' amount, (2x-x). If, on the other hand, you first selected 2x, then by swapping you stand to lose 'x' amount. (-2x+x = -x).
That's the answer. By swapping, you stand to either gain 'x' or lose 'x', so there is no obligation to swap envelopes because there is no advantage in doing so.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama to do away with Affirmative Action
This just in:
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.
...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.
...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.
"Good" ethanol gas is a governent sponsored "green" hoax
Gas sold at gas stations is often 10% ethanol. It's touted as being "green" and as mixing a non-renewable source of energy with a renewable source of energy (i.e. ethanol is made from corn).
However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.
Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":
Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.
Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".
Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.
The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.
However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.
Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":
Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.
Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".
Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.
The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.
How HUD caused the market crash
How the department of Housing and Urban Development caused the credit crisis and the market crash.
http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj
It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.
This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".
http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj
It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.
This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The "Causation vs Correlation" error
Causation vs Correlation can be one form of confusion and poor thinking.
How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.
At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.
Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.
The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.
The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"
I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.
I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).
It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!
Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.
The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).
How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.
At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.
Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.
The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.
The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"
I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.
I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).
It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!
Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.
The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Luke 14 and self loathing
Here's the context of Luke 14.
Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.
He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.
Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.
(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).
Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...
(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?
Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?
Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?
Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r
Is this not in context with Luke 14?
Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.
(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).
Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.
He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.
Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.
(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).
Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...
(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?
Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?
Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?
Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r
Is this not in context with Luke 14?
Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.
(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)