At last, a books post!

"Then you will have to make the choice. How much are you willing to gamble? Let's say you have a feeling about which door is the right one, a sort of gut instinct. Can you trust that instinct?

"Tough, isn't it?

"But the story ends when you open the door. It doesn't matter if you managed to guess which room is mine, which door I closed behind me. You put your hand on the door handle, you knock, it's all over. End of story. By choosing one, you chose the other, too. Do you understand why? These consequences are joined at the hip, they're Siamese twins. Even if you picked the door with the lady behind it--all questions answered, all explanations given, your life solved for you--it's still true you gave the tiger permission to jump. You gave your assent to catastrophe, you invited tragedy and horror to walk right in. You just got lucky, that's all."

-- a character in Peter Straub's A Dark Matter

 I doubt I will surprise anyone if I mention that I am a voracious reader. I honestly don't know how many books I have read this year, or last year, or the year before, but I can say with certainty that I enjoy reading. And when I enjoy a book, I often wish to share it with others. Some of this desire to share is unselfish, merely wanting other people to enjoy something that I enjoyed, while another part of the desire to share comes from a more selfish need to discuss what I have read. And a third need, which gives rise to this post, is the need to infect other minds with the seeds of the same thoughts which have been planted in my brain.

Of course, like all advice, recommendations are dangerous. And the darker, more viscously-potent a brew, the more dangerous its recommendation. The nervous feeling that comes with recommending something you like ("what if he doesn't like it as much as I do?") goes off the charts when applied to a great work you still aren't sure that you like ("what if he doesn't understand that I don't exactly like this?").

So today I will discuss books which I consider among my favorites (though I'm not sure I like all of them), but do not recommend to people. Not that I recommend against them--I privately believe that many people should read many of these books--I simply do not want the liability of having recommended them. If you read these books, read at your own risk. Please do not somehow forever associate them with me.

Gregory's List of Books He Doesn't Quite Recommend

 No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy
If you have seen the movie, you can probably understand why this book is on this particular list. I saw the movie before reading the book. I watched it one night with my father and brother. When it ended, we sat a bit stunned for a few seconds, and then said something like "that was...". I have now read the book (twice), and I still don't really have a word for it. I guess I would go with "Brutal", if someone held a captive-bolt pistol to my head and demanded a word. But a close second to "Brutal" would be some word like "Profound". One reason I hesitate to recommend the movie (aside from the gory brutality, of course), is the way in which the Horror/Slasher genre has desensitized people to brutality. When I hear people speak of No Country for Old Men as though it belonged in the same genre as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I know they did not (and possibly could not) "Get it". The makers of the film (the always excellent Coen brothers) definitely got "it", and they did a great job of presenting it, but in some ways a movie just cannot live up to a book. I do not exactly recommend this book, but I consider it well worth reading. One other warning (aside from the brutality, which I believe I have mentioned enough), McCarthy uses somewhat unconventional grammar and punctuation; if you are like me, you will have to work to repress your inner editor until you have gotten into the flow of the book.

Sample quotation:
“You think when you wake up in the mornin yesterday dont count. But yesterday is all that does count. What else is there? Your life is made out of the days it's made out of. Nothin else. You might think you could run away and change your name and I dont know what all. Start over. And then one mornin you wake up and look at the ceilin and guess who's layin there?”

A Dark Matter by Peter Straub
 This book is weird. It's not quite Stephen-King-on-mescaline weird, but it's still weird. It seems to have a lot of very deep things to say about the nature of morality and reality, but it also always feels like this seeming is not backed up by anything concrete (and this is very in line with the plot of the novel). This weirdness is one of the reasons I don't recommend this book (though I think it's great), the other is the author himself. Straub has produced a very mixed library. I very much recommend his horror novel Ghost Story. A Dark Matter, as I have mentioned, is in the complicated category of "not recommended (but great)". I very strongly recommend that you not read Mr. X, it is not just needlessly disturbing, but it's really not that good either.


Sample quotation: You've already had one.


THIS POST TO BE CONTINUED (it's suppertime here at Seeds West)

Seeing my apartment complex's "Courtesy Officer" set me to thinking... (and writing a rambling post)

About gun control?

No, (warning, I am lying. This is about gun control) this is not a post about gun politics. While I might someday choose to discuss my views regarding guns, that day will have to wait for a few years, until I can afford a nice AR, and a good camera so I can post lovely pictures of it. Okay, maybe I just made my views clear.

Moving on,

No, what came to mind is something I'm going to call "Badge Control".

See, the most striking object this "Courtesy officer" carries isn't his gun, but rather the badge he has stuck on his belt. I mean, lots of people carry guns. If you judged solely by the subreddit where people post pictures of what they carry around with them on a daily basis (lots of iphones, watches, and moleskine notebooks), half the software developers in the South are armed at all times. (If Moleskine made an iPhone cover that could fit on a standard accessory rail, they'd be set).

More than the gun, I think it is the badge that elevates him from a messenger (my only official interaction with him was when he brought me my copy of the lease) to an Authority. But this badge was not issued by a real authority. Even Target has badge-wearing "officers" who might very well just be untrained high school students. You don't even need the dubious authority of a retail store to get a badge. This website has them for about $10; you can even become a captain!

But why do we need these civilian-owned badges? Shouldn't badges just be for the police? Wouldn't the world be better if, whenever I saw a badge-wearing man, I knew I was dealing with a competent law enforcement officer? Shouldn't we at least check the backgrounds of people before allowing them to buy one?

I think there should be a law to mandate background checks for badge buyers. And certain badges, those of styles used by military and police, should be banned from civilian use entirely. I notice a lot of those civilian badges have shield, star, or eagle motifs; all of these are commonly used by police and military officers. These have no legitimate security use. If you can't secure a neighborhood using a "Security" t-shirt, you should go back to guard school. You can't possibly need a star-shaped badge; leave those for the US Marshals.

...I guess this turned into a gun control post after all.

Theology! (Or: Look how smart and pious I am!)

One of the most important parts of having a blog is showing off your own brilliance. Since I am both brilliant and lazy, I like to use things I have already written for other purposes as blog posts. This kills multiple avians with single projectiles (note my brainy use of words), and still makes me look smart.

Lately, an elder at my church has gotten me addicted to the writings of Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig (you can see his website at www.reasonablefaith.org). I have already read nearly all of Dr. Craig's website, and listened to most of his podcasts. I have even started buying his books (yes, like all addictions, it starts out free, but you may eventually have to spend $20-30!).

The time has clearly come to advance my celebrity-stalking to the next stage. No, not the sending him frightening pictures of his house stage... I mean the "contacting him through his website" stage.

Actually, Dr. Craig answers weekly questions. Many of his answers are great reads (though a few aren't because the questions are so boring). I decided to roll all my questions about his material up into one meta-question so I can hopefully get them all answered at once.

So you can all share my opinion that I am a really great (brainy yet respectful) asker of questions, behold the message I sent (I'll update if he answers).

Dear Dr. Craig,

Thank you for your ministry and especially your podcasts. I have taken to listening to your podcasts during my commute to work in the morning, and have found your defenders classes a great way to start my day.

Forgive me for submitting such a long question, I have divided it into three parts, and would be grateful if you answered any  part.

I have been working through the section "The Existence of God", and something you say has left me with some questions.

You say that the transcendent cause (or explanation) of/for the universe must either be:
1. an abstract object or
2. an unembodied mind.
and that (1) is not suitable because abstract objects cannot be causes. In the absence of alternatives, therefore, a personal transcendent creator (God) is the most reasonable choice.

I am a theist, so I agree that God exists, but I have three questions about areas I could see an atheist objecting to.

(1) First, must abstract objects be casually impotent?
Science fiction writer Neal Stephenson suggests in a narrative (and so non-rigorous) way that perhaps abstract objects can be causes, but only through 'second causes' or in cooperation with other, embodied, causes.
Language certainly seems to suggest that this is valid. For a realist, it seems that all sorts of mathematical or scientific statements ascribe casual powers to numbers, laws, functions, etc. Other abstract objects seem to cause as well; Tolkein writes "It was pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand". Clearly, if abstract objects do exist, then the abstract object Pity, in cooperation with the mental processes of an individual, can cause actions or inactions. I know you are not a realist, but (aside from denying realism) how do you answer the realist atheist who suggests an abstract object may exist which happens to spawn universes (It may be interesting to note that popular science fiction writer and historian Orson Scott Card proposes just this explanation for reality in his influential "Ender's Game" series of books).

(2) My second question is: Must minds exist?
Clearly a "mind" is a sort of abstraction. We cannot see minds, measure them, etc. I have met atheists who are, I guess, non-realists about the concept of minds. One told me that:

"'Mind' is just a handy term for a whole bundle of distinct functions which are associated with human, biological, physical brains. A 'mind' is a synthesis of wholly biological processes, at least as far as any evidence shows us. The idea of a mind without a body is like the idea of sound without air. It seems coherent, but there is nothing behind the seeming"

This reminds me of your opinion of mathematical 'objects' like numbers, which I believe you call nominalism. Why believe minds to be immune from the nominalist objections? How would you respond?

(3) In one of your Q&A podcasts, you mentioned that atheists never seem to be able to articulate a third option (to the two options of abstract object and unembodied mind). I'm not an atheist, but I wonder what you will think about my proposal of a third option: an 'uncomputered' program.
I'm not a philosopher, but as a computer programmer I often encounter something that seems to be between abstract objects and minds: computer programs. Like a mind, a program seems to be something independent of its matieral form. The exact same program can be written in different programming languages, compiled into binary forms, interpreted as "byte code", and ported onto different computers using even very different sorts of hardware. In fact, a program can exist entirely in a human mind, in the settings of electrical switches, or even in complex mechanical arrangements.
If a mind is something more than neurons firing in a brain, why cannot a program be something other than electrons flipping in a chip? Like a mind, a program is not casually impotent, but unlike a mind, it lacks all freedom and personality. Could an eternal program substitute for God as a Creator? Is this a valid third option?

Thank you for your time and for considering my questions. Look forward to your future materials, and have just ordered a couple of your books, which I expect will teach me a lot.

Sincerely,
Gregory Seeds

Now aren't those just the bestest questions you've read today?

UPDATE: I just discovered Dr. Craig lives in Atlanta. Not only does this make the next step of my celebrity-stalking cheaper and easier, but it also means that... wait... no, that was all it means.

Let

Beginnings...

I have always found beginning to be the hardest part of writing. The blank page stares at you. The cursor winks mockingly. So this post serves to break the ice off of my frozen writing machinery. Please forgive the stream-of-consciousness style (though all writing represents, to some degree or other, a stream of consciousness, right?).

When some kinds of managers and teachers want to "break the ice", they force the group into meaningless and embarrassing activities. As an horrific manager of myself, I shall do the same:

(My answers will be of the sort I always wish I can give in these sessions, but always manage to restrain myself)

Question: If you could be any kind of animal, what kind would you be?
Answer: Well, I guess by most definitions, I would choose to be human. The rational animal. Maintaining my blog would be difficult without the complex brain and many digits of a human.

Question: Very funny. I suppose I will reword, if you could be any non-human animal, which would you choose?
Answer:  I don't suppose it would matter. "I" am a collection of thoughts and a perception of consciousness, possibly as part of a soul. No nonhuman animal is widely considered to have the necessary hardware to support "me", so why bother choosing a means of nonexistence?

Question: Just pick an animal, okay? Geez.
Answer: Golden eagles are awesome. In some parts of the world they hunt wolves! In some part of Scandinavia (I do not recall which), they have been known to prey on baby bears! Take that goldielocks!
Of course, I would probably find writing my blog too much of a challenge. See humorous post at Hyperbole and a Half (it's about a common typo, but there's a picture involving an eagle which I like alot).

Okay, enough of that.

So what you're probably wondering at this point is "Why in the world should I read this blog?"
Well, the most probable answer is "because you are my wife or my mother, and love every word I type".
But, supposing the above is false, well, maybe you just have a lot of free time.
Maybe you're like me and interested in math, computer science, physics, biology, and the intersection of these fields.
Maybe you have an interest in philosophy and theology
Maybe you want to haunt the comment section, having beautiful hours of meaningless and vociferous arguments with strangers.
Maybe you want to hear about geek culture stuff from a guy who was a nerd before it was cool (and doesn't worship Joss Whedon).
Or maybe you're just hoping I'll post pictures of my sexy wife (keep reading, someday I just might).

Well, you've let me bore you this long, so now it's your turn. Post in the comments your favorite (real, nonhuman) animal, and why you chose it.