A quick thought on the idea of human soul

A lot of hubbub surrounds the concept of the soul. To give the idea legitimacy in the modern world, theists put the soul in the category of "fundamentally unknowable things" by declaring that it cannot be measured or observed in any significant manner. What I think they don't realize is that this is more or less a concession that admits that there is no soul, as it is traditionally thought of. If the soul is not a product of the brain then it is meaningless, because the mind is easily demonstrated to be a product of the brain. Even if the soul is said the be the thing responsible for subjective experience, what good is a soul without a mind? What good is a continued subjective experience left after death if thoughts, feelings, memories, and senses are all absent?

For purpose of illustration, imagine that after the rest of you died, your pinky finger continued (somehow) to live, taking in energy and replacing dead cells, doing all the things it did while you were alive. Few people would consider this to be "eternal life" because the part of them that survives is not an essential part of themselves. Similarly, there's not much "self" left for any theoretical soul to have because the vast majority of the self is confirmed to be part of the body and brain. So even if our "soul" lived on, there would still be no "afterlife" as most people see it.

Way Out There

Looking back at things I've written here and eslewhere, I've realized my writting is really terrible. I guess I'll blame the (alleged) bane to literacy that is text-mesaging. I've grown so used to trying to fit ideas into such a tiny number of characters that I have difficultly talking about things in a more drawn-out and detailed way. Hrm.

Anyway, I was on the xkdc forums the other day, and I came accross a point that really irks me. Lots of people believe in extraterrestrial life, which in itself is fine, but many (those who are scientifically-minded and intelligent included) seem to think it is rationally superior to the belief that extraterrestrial does not exists. The idea is that the sheer scale of the Universe makes life elsewhere almost a certainty, because with all the trillions upon trillions of stars (and potentially planets) the odds are pretty good that life also developed somewhere besides here, right?

To lazily quote my post from the forums:

The reasoning behind this argument is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't matter how incomprehensably many planets may exist, since we don't have any clue as to what the likelihood of life developing on any given planet is. Let's say n is the total number of planets that have existed or will exist at any point in time for all eternity or until the Universe ends. I think everyone can agree that's a pretty large number. But what if the probability of life developing on a planet at any point in the planet's lifetime is 1:2n? If that's the case, then we're actually pretty lucky that any life in the Universe developed at all. Sure, with those odds maybe one or two other planets will develope life at some point in the history of the Universe, but what are the odds that they also have intelligent life, that the life forms existed at the same time as us, they have developed communications technology that we will be able to interpret and find meaningful, and they live close enough to us that such communication is possible? Nil, I'd say.

But that's just the half of it. What if the likelihood of life developing on a planet at any point in the planet's lifetime is actually 1:n²? If that's the case then we're extrodinarily lucky that we exist, the winning ten different lotteries a million times in a row kind of lucky. If this is the case then it's not just useless looking for extra-terrestrial intelligence, it's downright irrational.

Now, to be fair, maybe those numbers are all wrong. Maybe the number's more like 1:10, but that's not the point. The point is that we don't know what the numbers are. The belief that there isn't any life outside Earth is just as rational as the belief that there is. They're both just guesses at this point.

Aloo and Webcomics

I love Indian food. Last night though, I found out that at the local Maharaja Palace restaurant, there is a very big difference between "spicy" and "very spicy." It was as good as ever, but I drank just short of two full pitchers of water.

Unrelated to that in every way, I love webcomics. Unfortunately, webcomics are like anime and poetry. That is to say, there are a few priceless gems among a vast, endless sea of horrifying crap. So, as a public service for all of the internet, I will take my extensive experience drudging through thousands of unfunny, terribly drawn insults to the human mind, to bring you a list of webcomics I find to be of the utmost quality (read: I think they are funny.)

http://xkcd.com/ (for nerds)

http://www.smbc-comics.com/

http://pbfcomics.com/

http://www.thebookofbiff.com/

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php (for gamers/nerds)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/ (for gamers/nerds)

http://stock-pics.net/

http://www.rockpapercynic.com/index.php

Okay, so, a fair number of those a pretty reasonably well-known and you're probably already aware of at least a few of them if you're into webcomics, but hopefully there are some you haven't read and enjoy as well. Here are a few more that aren't quite as consistently funny as the ones above, but I enjoy nonetheless:

http://www.partiallyclips.com/http://thisisindexed.com/

http://dragonandtiger.blogspot.com/ (from 44 onwards they are not as good as earlier ones)

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php (for nerds)

http://www.bigfatwhale.com/ (for far-left liberals)

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/ (for gamers/nerds)

http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php (contains terrible art, and some pretty lame jokes, but is intermittently very funny if you're familiar with some of the conventions used in MMOs. Also, it's best to read it from the beginning to make sense of what's going on)

Mourning what could have been

One of the greatest musical tragedies of the modern era has to be the death of Jimi Hendrix in his prime. Plenty of rock stars die young, but Jimi Hendrix was much more than a rock star. His music had an artistic integrity and showcased a level of musicianship that outshines many other popular performers, from his own era (which was arguably one of the most fruitful periods in popular music) and afterwards. Not to mention we was an intelligent, thoughtful, and introspective person who displayed a admirable sense of humility even after achieving mainstream success.

Probably the biggest musical loss, in my mind, was that he never collaborated with Miles Davis. the two were apparently pretty good friends and had been talking about doing a project together for a couple of years preceding Jimi's death. Now, there's a lot of Miles Davis' repertoire that I really don't like, but there's almost as much that I do. Though he's not really among my personal favorite trumpet players or composers, he was certainly a talented musician and was constantly redefining his sound.

The idea of hearing these two giants of music play together is made even more tantalizing by the knowledge that it almost happened. Just think of what it could have been.


Jimi Hendrix, playing the hard rock "Machine Gun"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVvtIS2YGVI

Jimi Hendrix, playing "Hear My Train A Comin'" on a 12-string acoustic(!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCQBbgb_Lvo

Miles Davis playing some fusion chart (I don't know which particularly, fusion was never really my thing and the video description doesn't clarify... )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMg95l_qBpg

Miles Davis playing "So What"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjwVwASlVn4

World of Warcrack

The other day I made the decision to start playing World of Warcraft again. It was an unfortunate and regrettable decision.