free will and determinism part II

I haven't reached any conclusion about whether free will exists. (Or, rather, whether I think free will exists). But one thing has been tilting me back in favor of free will lately. I was falling asleep and I got a muscle twitch in my leg that woke me up. It was completely involuntary. How did I know? Because I know what it feels like to voluntarily move my leg, and it wasn't that. If free will entails volitional action, and I think it does, then this suggests that some actions are freer than others.

Also, I've noticed that sometimes I get out of bed without ever deciding to get out of bed. The important thing is that this is in contrast with another experience, that of deciding to get out of bed. If free will is an illusion, why is it just an illusion some of the time?

should he play?

So Michael Vick is going to play for the Eagles. Ideally, the NFL, and every other facet of life, would be populated by saints and poets. But it turns out that people have flaws and people need jobs. Hence imperfect people populate all jobs, including the NFL. The NFL has very carefully crafted an image of itself as being a group of very upstanding and professional men. It's not. In fact you have a lot nastier characters in the NFL than in most lines of work. These are tough, violent men. What Vick did was wrong, but he is not an outlier. Dogfighting, bullfighting, and cockfighting have long histories. He shouldn't teach elementary school, but he should be able to play a violent sport.


People are going to expect him to do some do-gooder kind of stuff. I hope he doesn't pick a pro-animal cause. It would just be too transparent. He's obviously not sensitive to the suffering of animals. It would be like asking the guy who works in the slaughterhouse to act like he is concerned about a cow's feelings. And a person hardly comes out of prison softened. Vick should pick a human charity that he really does care about. The more miserable the people he tries to help, the more sincere his attempt at redemption will be. It will also marginalize the PETA crowd. He should help starving children in Africa or something. That would look much more genuine and would embarrass PETA for protesting him when he finally does play again.

Thoughts on Facebook

I have been on Facebook for a couple of months. It's totally fun. I think the best thing has been to connect with long-lost friends. The second best thing is having friends with funny or smart status updates. FB also makes staying in touch with friends and family easy. Horray Facebook.

Here are my Facebook pet peeves:

1) Why is the default setting such that you can't see a person's profile? Why don't people change the default setting so that people can see their status? Are people really that afraid of someone seeing their face? "I got a Facebook profile, but I'll be damned if anyone is going to see it." It's not that I'm really dying to see anyone's profile, I just think Americans have an exaggerated fear of cyberspace. There is this perception that evil is just around the corner if you are on the internet. I think it's silly. No one is going to stalk you...in a malicious way. If someone is bothering you, just block them.

2) It's not a place for religion and politics. Obviously I have political opinions, but FB isn't the place to air them out. That's why God invented Blogs. I hide the feed of people who constantly post partisan rants; ditto religious manifestos.

3) It's not the place to talk about private matters. If your child ran away from home, don't post that on FB. In fact, that's a sign maybe your need to spend less time on the internet and more time with your child. (Yes, this was recently posted by a FB friend). If you or your child has an illness, don't cram as many symptoms as possible into your status. Eww.

4) 1,000,000 strong for (insert lame cause here).

5) Why does everyone hold an alcoholic beverage in profile pictures? I think the message is: "No really, I'm fun. Just look!"

Why am i buying your car?

"Cash for clunkers" is the kind of thing the media and politians love. It seemingly only has benefits: It stimulates the economy, people use less gas, etc. It's easy to see the benefits when the costs are hidden. The hidden cost is that everyone who is not buying a car under this program is paying for people who do buy a car. It's really, really unfair.



I watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS because it is the best news on TV. They did a totally uncritical piece on it with two proponents of the plan. Not a hint of criticism. Not a question about whether it's fair to force some people to buy cars for other people under the guise of stimulating the economy. and some crap about saving the planet.



I can't afford to buy myself a new car, but, apparently, I can afford to buy you one. You're welcome.

market volatility = down with america!

It is amazing to hear people talk about the recent economic problems as evidence that free markets don't work. worse, they seem to act as if it's OBVIOUS that free markets are terribly flawed.

how about some context?

One hundred years ago life expectancy in the US was 47, 14% of homes had a bathtub, and 8% of homes had a phone. The average wage was $.22 per hour, but a 3-minute phone call from Denver to New York was $11.00. Six percent of the population had graduated from high school, and the population of Las Vegas was 30. it seems to me that free markets have been very good to this country.

but the stock market dips, and people conclude that the system is irredeemable. that's pretty short-sighted.