h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Too vague. I'll explain below.

1. Know God's Word.

How? By listening to a local authority on God? By reading a tome about God? By having God speak to you? And which authorities/tomes are acceptable for this purpose? Obviously, there is quite a lot of disagreement here.

2. Believe God's Word.

Now, this goes without saying. But if you've taken the wrong step above, aren't you believing entirely the wrong things? Isn't most of the religious violence in the world centered round some people believing things a little too steadfastly, whilst other people believe in somewhat contradictory things with the same lunatic verve? And if so, to what extent must you believe and to what extent are you allowed to doubt your belief for the purposes of avoiding war?

3. Ignore any sensory input (what you see/hear/etc..) which contradicts God's Word.

This here is exactly the problem. For years, churches in the Southern US insisted on tall metal steeples despite increasing evidence that these attract lightning. But of course, whenever a church was struck down by lightning, the other side said this was divine retribution for believing the wrong things. Others said the same a generation ago when white men in sheets burned down black churches and Jewish synagogues. Is ignoring evidence of real social problems part of "ignoring sensory input" which might contradict your beliefs? I can point to some Southerners who think so. But clearly, there are better ways to run a society. To what extent is ignorant bliss, and what extent is it plainly stupid?

So, here's some real advice.

1> Know yourself. This is a lot harder than it sounds, and can often produce some painful revelations when you realize that you don't like yourself very much.

2> Believe in nothing. Faith is naive narcissism. The universe is almost infinitely empty, cold, and black... keep this in mind and you won't expect so much from it. (Buddha's revelation)

3> Ignore all sensory input, period. At the very least, regularly enhance your perceptions with mind-altering substances and hallucinagens.

compare to:

"dear jesus, i'm sorry that i'm such a lousy screw-up. please kick my ass the next time i go and do something stupid like try to use logic, reason, science, or my brain in general"

"dear god, you are so very big and powerful. please don't hurt me. I'll do anything you want... anything... just please... don't hurt me..."

One of the appealing attributes about authoritive religion is the nice cozy feeling when its not your responsibility to think for yourself. If you surrender this to someone or something else, then you are released from any personal responsibilty. If you can blame it on a higher power, it ain't EVER your fault.

You know this doesn't just apply to god in whatever manifestation you imagine. This can apply to any authority structure. As long as you are not the guy at the top, there is always someone to pass the buck. Blaming something uncool on "Company Policy" is as much a cop-out as blaming it on "God's Will" IMOSHO.

That AIN'T just the way it is baby, let me introduce you to personal responsibility.

I just finished up a guide entry called "A Practical Definition of Pagan" and was wondering what you folks would think of it:

http://www.h2g2.com/A347708

Comments & Criticism are strongly encouraged.

But the main question is: Should I submit it for approval???

I thought the entry was absotively marvelous. I'm certainly no Pagan, but I felt the article was fair and balanced.

However, I do have a few nitpicks. First, I would delete the following from the first paragraph:

"The meaning of this word is dependent on many factors. Namely, who is saying the word, and to whom the word is being applied."

I think we understand this implicitly based on the rest of the entry. And anyway, I felt an awkward pause at the beginning because I knew where you were going but got a tad bored waiting to reach the meat of the entry.

I would also ask you to break up the large paragraph under "When Good Words Go Bad" into at least two paragraphs. It's easier to get lost in long paragraphs, and I noticed I had to restart that one twice.

And finally, I feel a footnote describing Animist beliefs (mentioned near the bottom of the entry) would probably be wise. Many casual readers will have no idea what you are talking about.

That's it. Consider how picky I am, you got off very light! Good job.

Very nice article, and one that is certain to generate controversy (and isn't that what we're here to do? ). Given the kind of crap that occasionally makes the homepage, your article should make it without too much difficulty. The only possible rejection reason they might give is that it is too argumentative, but I don't think this will be the case... you mostly stick to facts, and it has veery little in the way of speculation. I'll put up a link on the FFFF page when its next maintenance period comes due, which should be fairly shortly.

Fragilis, thank you for the wonderful criticism! The introductory paragraph was there as much for the writer as the reader. I use the introduction to help keep me "on track" or else I may ramble on and on and on as I tend to do in conversation. I can understand your objections to it, but I think I will leave it in for now. It allows someone who is mildly interested in the subject to decide wether it is worth her or his time to read the whole thing. I know it starts out like a high-school public speaking class assignment but I just can't bring myself to part with the introduction. Maybe an editor will have an easier time. (Its a running joke with writers to purposely leave things in their work for the editors to fix so the editor will like it better after he or she 'fixes' it. The analogy used is that an editor likes the soup better after he has pissed in it.)

The first paragraph of the good words go bad section is a bit on the long side. I will try to rework it into something a little easier on the mind-eye connection.

As to footnoting Animism, I think Animism would make a great entry, and I don't think a mere footnote would do it justice. If there is an entry on Aninism its a good spot for a hyperlink.

I think I got all your points, but your message is not in front of me since I replied to the good Colonel since I once got chastised for replying within a thread instead of at the end. (But does it matter now with the new layout? hmmmmmm)

Thanks for the upcoming link, Sellers. Yeah you know me, I try very hard not to be (overly) offensive. I'm just giving a defintion and the reasons behind it, the only argumentative aspect of the entry in my opinion is using it as a general derisive term by those who beleive they have "the one true way". (This is never said directly, but I hope its obviously implied)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I will be submitting it soon... maybe. In all honestly I'm fearful what the editorial process will shape it....

The editors will probably destroy it, but at least you'll get a dialogue started, and that's the important thing. I'll keep the link at the FFFF pointing to the old one if you like it better when all is said and done... I ended up doing the same with my Atheism article.

I think your article could benefit from good editing, because I did see a couple of grammatical mistakes, but nothing too serious. Still, good editing is an endangered species on H2G2.

Colonel Sellers, still fuming that his newest article made it through the sub-editor with a blatant misspelling and a sentence without a subject, among others.

Well I'm getting closer to hitting that 'submit' link. I made a few tweaks, added a footnote. Maybe I will wait a few more days to get more feedback...

Thinking about the Animist thing. It seems that entry and one other (titled Heretic written by someone WAY inactive) are the only two that contain the word. Haven't searched the forums yet though... hmm I guess it ain't a well known word after all...

Now the decision comes, should I write an entry on Animism?

Speaking of Animism, my wife and I have Animist leanings, and the thought of my son's Furby having a soul of some sort really disturbed me. I mean its "programmed" to get hungry, but am I causing suffering if I don't feed it?

Furbies cause human suffering.

But seriously, Furbies aside, there's always this question. What is a soul? Can a computer/toy/furby have a soul? Why or why not?

Souls belong only to those who are perfect, in their own minds. If a furby thinks it is perfect, it has a soul.

Sounds like a good idea to me, Zen. Especially since I know nothing about animism. After producing several projects on a wide variety of topics, I'll be working on a piece for this library as my next. The subject of that article will be Skepticism. I just read some good stuff from that Dan Barker book I mentioned a bit ago that I think should be known, and I'll flesh it out with some good history bits.

Oh wow...I guess that means I don't have a soul. Cool.

You're welcome for the criticism. Of course, feel free to keep your first paragraph if you feel better doing so. The glory of my criticism is I don't expect you to take it all.

I couldn't find anything at all on Animism at h2g2, but there is information on the internet as a whole if you look. I refuse to get involved regarding whether you should write an Animism entry.

I would submit it, now or later. It would make a nice addition.

I didn't edit for spelling and grammar, but I sometimes do that as well. I try to refrain unless the entry has been approved or I've been asked.

I have a standing offer for anyone who would like a fresh edit. I was an editor for a college newspaper, so I'm pretty good at the nitpicky stuff. This does not, however, guarantee that a real sub-editor won't introduce errors later.

I am as agnostic about souls as I am about God. I prefer to wonder whether something can be sentient. That, at least, is a scientific term we can come to some agreement about without resorting to dusty ancient tomes.

I don't think a Furby can be called sentient. It has no self-awareness, does not ponder its existence, and can't even propagate its own kind. It is just a tool, in this case a tool for amusement. I do think computers/robots may eventually be sentient. This would at the very least require the introduction of fuzzy logic, so that they could have personal preferences and individualistic quirks. Perhaps a computer mind will reach sentience the day it steps fully outside its programming parameters.

Pondering your existance doesn't make you sentient; it makes you a philosopher. I've come across MANY MANY humans who I am sure never used enough of their brain to ponder "who am I?".

Self-Awareness is a topic that has always fascinated me. Simply because I can only be certain of my own, but there is evidence out there that it also exists outside of myself.

The creatures in the animal kingdom that really flip that switch are elepahnts and cetaceans. Elephants because of there fascination with elephant bones. Its just trippy. Can dolphins and whales communicate with language? Proabably. Its all just very neato.

Fuzzy logic isn't really that incredible. Its still binary yes/no decision making only given ranges and weights to flip a bit instead of absolutes. From a purely scientific point of view a sentient machine (electronic computer or otherwise) may actually be possibe. I know of one theory that relates it to the number of interconnections in a neural network. Once we get to the point were we can build a neural network with the same number of interconnecections that are present in a human brain, this network should be able to perform the same functions of our biological network that sits between our ears.

Are you familiar with the Turing Test? ( quick check .. ah! there is an entry on it http://www.h2g2.com/A168365 ) In short its a test to determine if a machine is intelligent or not. The test is whether a machine can have a conversation with a human (through text) without the human being able to tell he or she is talking with a machine. If a machine can convince you that it is intelligent, then it is.

I know this test was actually given a few years ago in Massachusetts but the topics of conversation were limited to a single topic. The progam "Whimsical Conversation" actually passed the test. One odd note however is that a human being actually failed. She was a Shakespeare scholar, and her topic was Shakespeare. Apperantly the human particiapants (average folk visiting the museum where this was being done I presume) thought that only a COMPUTER could know so much about Shakespear. The professor's reaction was something like "GEEZ! READ PEOPLE!!!"

Now, how about this Monkey wrench: What if a machine can't convince a human that it is intelligent but it CAN convince itself?

Surely every human must ask "who am I" at some point. Perhaps they answer the question with a very simply, "I'm me!" And perhaps they never revisit the issue after age four. But wouldn't we get confused if we didn't ask the question?

Dolphins and elephants are very good at seeming sentient. So are dogs at cats, in their own way. And oddly enough, so are pigs. It's kind of odd, when you consider that we eat pigs.

I am familiar with the Turing test. I'm a bit of a Turing fan, in fact. Thanks for the reference, though. I've heard of the recent tests and had heard of a limited success or two. I didn't know a human had failed! LOL!

I don't like the "number of interconnections" theory. You could create a computer that does nothing but predict where grains of sand in a planetary sandstorm will be two years from now. It might have enough connections, but I doubt it would become sentient unless it was given a range of programs to think about.

It doesn't take much for a computer to convince itself that it's intelligent, either. You just have to create a program that acts as a cheap self-fulfilling prophecy. The logic statements might even have a lot in common with many religions...

There is this joke I heard lately, conected with the Computers/inteligance/soul problem. (Anybody know, if jokes have a creator? They always seem to me they´ve been hanging around since whenever and were just waiting to be told)

Bill Gates wanted to know if there was a god. So he asked his computer:
"Is there a god?"

Reply: Not enough capacity to answer the question.

Bill goes and conects all the computers in his home, reasks the question. Reply: Not enough capacity to answer the question.

Bill links all the computers at Microsoft. Asks the question Reply: Not enough capacity to answer the question.

Bill links all american computers available. Asks the question. Reply: Not enough capacity to answer the question.

Bill links the internet and all available computers . He asks again and the computer replies:

"Now there is a god!"

So we also come to the question if a God would have to be inteligent? Would a dim God still be able to be a God? Or is "God being dim" just the reason, why christians are able to believe in anything of the sort?

Self-awareness does not imply sentience. My CPU can work out if its too hot and slow down, but that isn't sentience - its just a feedback loop.

Sentience does not imply self-awareness. Plenty of people have brain damage such that they cannot recognise themselves in a mirror, yet they are clearly still sentient.

Reproduction has nothing to do with sentience either - or we'd all become non-sentient when we became impotent.

And why exactly can't dolphins be sentient. Seem pretty clever to me. Just cause they haven't gone around building weapons of mass destruction, and inventing new plagues, and torturing and taxing and sueing each other....

Thought for the Day: would you pass a turing test in Hungary? I know I wouldn't.

re : Turing...

Have you heard of the American philosopher John Searle's 'Chinese room' analogy? It's a very simple argument, and it comprehensively demolishes the Turing Test, in my opinion. I just posted a quick gloss on the subject @ http://www.h2g2.com/A399549 for anyone who's not familiar with Searle's argument.

The question of whether or not most human beings are capable of showing independent intelligence is, of course - as ZenMondo suggests above - at best an open question... And, obviously, not many people walk down the high street pondering Descartes, discussing existentialist philosophy, or whatever. But even on the most everyday level a human being shows the ability to consciously organise his or her thoughts, form opinions about events that are going on in the world around them, and generally 'make sense' of their life in terms of a reasonably coherent personal 'narrative'... and we reserve the right to disagree with elements of our social 'programming' and suggest possible alternatives.

A computer, however (at present), simply cannot do this. To suggest otherwise is fantasy. It can do no more than act out a series of instructions that it has been programmed to carry out. It has no ability to 'disagree' with this programming - to decide, for example, that the rules it has been given are not good enough, and suggest changes.

It is, of course, possible in principle that one day we will make machines that can satisfy a more complex, less 'behaviourist', understanding of what it means to 'think'. But the brain is far more than merely a series of neural points connected to one another - it is also an organic entity that evolves over the course of a lifetime in response to environmental conditions. Maybe one day we will develop a machine with such a dynamic, self-organising capacity. But it's not going to happen in our lifetimes, no way - we're still in the Dark Ages when it comes to understanding the human brain...