Friday, 28 January 2011

Zeitgeist and other conspiracy theories

I'm rather tired of hearing how this world is run by the Illuminati and how with George Bush, the Saudis, and the World Bank, they're planning to do such-evil-stuff-as-you-won't-believe-it. Frankly, judging from the mess that Iraq and Vietnam were, I doubt the Americans are capable of organising a world-wide conspiracy. Really. Watch the Hardly Boys episode of South Park, for crying out loud. People love conspiracy theories because they can't stand the idea of chaos, that the world is just random and that there's no plan. They want security. They want to know that even if Big Brother is evil, that at least there was a plan, and it was deliberate.

More on the Zeitgeist movie. As I recall, it ends with a section on the forthcoming single currency and single government - a world government. Funny, I thought we had that already - the UN? At any rate, it makes this prospect out to be scary. You know the type of thing. They're going to put RFID chips in your arm, etc. They go on about the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU) as if they were done deals, and proof that the world was heading towards, horror of horrors, a world government.

Firstly, the AU is a paper tiger. It does nothing except whimper a few complaints whenever a civil war breaks out in Africa, and occasionally sends a few troops - perhaps 1-2000. Woohoo. The members get together here in South Africa (Midrand, a few km from where I live), to talk and achieve nothing. So even if the AU signified any such trend, they're certainly nothing scary. The same applies to the EU. It is more of a trade and passport arrangement. Some members, eg., the UK, don't even use the Euro currency. Effectively it was an economic move, succeeding the EEU economic bloc. It has little to do with centralised government. They tried to vote on a constitution, like the Americans have one, but it wasn't passed - too many countries disagreed on it. So the EU is pretty far from being a centralised government, too.

Secondly, so what? How did this not happen in America and Europe anyway? Germany has only been a single country for a few years. From the 40s to the fall of the wall in 1989, Germany was two countries. And in the 1800s and before, it was a whole load of separate kingdoms or principalities, not even one country. The same applies to France, England, etc. England and Scotland have only been officially one country since the 1600s, and even so, Ireland has pulled out of the deal and Scotland wants to pull out as well. So much for unity! But let's look at the American case. Do you not think, perhaps, that the States were originally separate countries? What were they, if not? They certainly were not beholden to the Washington government until the civil war. And prior to that, each state belonged to a colonial power, eg., Louisiana was French, New York was British, and before that, Dutch. So what? Why are these "one government, woo scary" paranoid people not worried about the fact that their own country - the USA - is just such an example? How is that not a terrifying thing to them? They've clearly glossed over their own history.

What is the worst that could happen from a world government? This debate reminds me of an article I read by a British Imperialist, Sir John Glubb, when I was at school. He was arguing that the British Empire was a good thing. Why? Because it unified trade relations, opened trade doors, unified currency, unified language, and in so doing, broke down a whole load of barriers to commerce and prosperity. I am sympathetic to this view. It makes sense to me. Obviously, the problem is that the British Empire, like all attempts at national unity, or the creation of a single political body from a number of smaller bodies, is that it involved violence, and killing people who opposed it. Whether we're talking about King Alfred unifying England, or King James unifying England and Scotland, or Abraham Lincoln unifying America, the story is the same: people are going to die in the process, because for some obscure reason, people want "own rule".

We have a similar example in South Africa. The Afrikaner far Right want their own state - Orania - in which they can have own rule and "the right to self-determination". And when the Afrikaner far Right occupied government in South Africa, under the Nationalists (1948-1994), they promoted a similar system. The idea was that every person who belonged to a certain social group or nation, as they called it, would live in a country of their own, called their homeland. And these homelands would have their own governments, and the right to self-determination. They called the system Apartheid (apartness). How is this different to nationalism, or the cries of people who are scared of world governments? Did you know that one of Hitler's chief hobby-horses was "the right to self-determination"? He didn't want Germany beholden to the international laws laid down by the allies at the end of WWI.

So this brings up the final point: Why would someone be scared of a world government? The only reason can be a fear that the world government would impose laws unacceptable to the people in the relevant territory. So, in the case of Nazi Germany, Hitler didn't want to respect the human rights of the Jews. So he didn't want to be beholden to the international community. He wanted to arm up and find Lebensraum for the German people, at the cost of the Poles. The same applies to the Afrikaner far Right in South Africa. They wanted to have the right to continue to impose the other laws that applied under Apartheid, such as Christian National Education, enforced racial segregation, prohibition on mixed marriages, etc. In other words, the only reason one might have for objecting to a world government, is that one might wish to have or persist in having laws which run contrary to the edicts of that world government.

This is a rational concern. The world government might very well impose inhumane or unjust laws. It just depends on who the world government is. Given the present liberal tendencies of the EU, the AU, and the UN, it seems to me that such a world government would be benevolent and humane, and impose things like rule of law, the human rights charter, etc., on recalcitrant states. So the worst such a world government would be likely to do is impose a better life on other people who may not want such a better life. The Americans claim that that is precisely what they're doing in Iraq - "bringing democracy". Now, if our conspiracy theorists have the view that world governments are bad, they should call for a retraction of American troops from Iraq and other occupied territories. But if they did that, contrary to their reactionary views, they'd be called traitors by their own kind. Ironic.

I for one look forward to a UN government. I hope I live to see the day where no petty dictators and theocrats are tolerated anywhere on earth. That's what a world government is most likely to do. As for RFID chips - I really don't care. It will save me carrying an ID book, and a credit card, and proof of residence, and so on. And if they want to watch me on a satellite and see where I go and violate my privacy, again, I don't care. If the government is benevolent, and does not impose prohibitions on me that go against my moral views, I have nothing to fear. You only want to hide mischief if what you're doing is indeed mischief. And mischief is anything that the government disallows. But if the government is a westernised liberal UN-based entity, it's not going to impose anything particularly onerous. Its yoke will be light. I'm not afraid.

The only reason to fear a world government is if it comes from a retrospective/retrograde culture, which still allows human rights violations. I doubt any such thing could come to pass without a major world war first.

Anyway, so this is how you check out statements made by conspiracy theorists such as the Zeitgeist guy (who is he again? A Stanford prof in Economics, well-published? I don't think so.)

Interpreting and Choosing Sources

The most important thing is to use reputable, recognised, accurate sources. There is a lot of information on Internet which is of questionable provenance. In particular, you should avoid making the following mistakes:

    * Do not assume that because a page is online, its content is worth referencing. The content may be completely inaccurate, false, misleading, biased, or sensationalist. You can find anything you want on Internet that would agree with a view you may have, no matter how outrageous the view is. So, for example, there are Holocaust Denial sites, there are conspiracy theory sites, and there are sites that post misinformation deliberately - either because the author mistakenly believes that his prejudices are true (e.g., racial supremacist sites), or because the sites are tongue-in-cheek humour or satire sites. Learn to recognise these sites and avoid using their material (unless you're specifically doing a study of crackpot sites).

    * Do not only use one source for your information. Many web sites just copy and paste from each other without citing the source of the information. If you find a passage cited on two different websites, and the wording is identical, you must assume that the wording originates elsewhere. Try find out where it comes from, originally, by looking until you find a quote of the paragraph which cites the reference. If you cannot find a reference for a quote, do not use it, no matter how good it is.

    * Double-check all assertions against reputable sites. If you see some statement made on a dot-com, or dot-net, or dot-org site, you need to be careful. These are often sites set up by private citizens, whose views may be uneducated, biased, or even worse, bigoted. That's not to say that authors on reputable sites cannot ever be guilty of the same things, but just that they're less likely. You should consider university sites in the First World (i.e., .edu,,,, and so on), to be reliable. You can also generally trust sites of academic journals, which will often be .org sites. Use your discretion. NGO sites, which are also often .org sites, can sometimes be trusted, as long as they have statistical studies to back up their claims. Some NGOs are fear-mongerers and sensationalists. I won't say who, but you should be conservative whenever you hear a strong opinion.

    * Assume that the truth in any debate is somewhere in-between two strong opinions. Remember: if two professors disagree, and neither are idiots (because they're professors), then there must be some misunderstanding, linguistic or conceptual obstacle, or an honest mistake - e.g., misapplication of statistical methods, etc. The job of academic research is first and foremost to try resolve disputes between strong opinions, and arrive at a reasonable, well-attested opinion (note: opinion).

   * Do not just appeal to one authority. Make sure you compare and contrast two or more disagreeing authorities. Do not give your opinion: just cite at least one or more authorities that you side with, but be sure to give the opposing point of view and why you disagree with it, which said opposing point of view must be of equal status to the point of view you support. I.E. You can't compare a journal research article's view to a conspiracy site and then support the conspiracy site against the superior research.

    * Do not fall for the "I saw it on TV" explanation, or other appeals to authority which are not cited clearly. For example, references to YouTube videos, or TV shows, or Newspaper websites, particularly opinion pieces - should all be regarded with suspicion. Their aim (videos, newspapers) is to draw an audience, and audiences are best drawn by alarmist sensationalism. If the appeal to authority is made to a well-known and respected authority, i.e., a university professor or similar - then you can consider that opinion to be well-supported. Other than that, it's mere hearsay and should be treated with considerable circumspection and double-checking.

    * Do not trust books just because they are books - especially Ebooks - books that you can download. If the book was written any time in the last fifty years, it may just be a conspiracy theory written by some hack. (I say "in the last fifty years" because recent advances in technology have made knowledge production a very democratic exercise, no longer the preserve of ivory-tower academia.) You should therefore trust books primarily from academic or well-known publishers, e.g., Blackwell, Routledge, Oxford, Cambridge, Penguin, etc. Books published by obscure publishers should be regarded with suspicion. If you get a book from an obscure publisher, view its contents with the same degree of skepticism as any random website that you might find; in other words, check that it references all its claims, that its argument is balanced and not one-sided, and that its references are all to legitimate, respectable sources, rather than to conspiracy theorists or similar sites.

    * When you view a page, and it has references, check that those references are respectable, or from academic or scientific sites, articles, books, or journals. Do not assume that if someone has referenced something, that the source is credible.

    * Beware of anecdotal evidence. If a website talks about experiences of individuals and draws generalisations from that, you must discard that evidence. A statistical sample of one (or two) individuals does not warrant any generalisations being drawn. If, for example, you find a website that advertises a new diet, and you're researching diet efficacy, do not assume that because the site has pictures of smiling people quoted as saying that it worked for them, that it is in fact an efficacious diet. If, however, the company has an open paper that you can read, which shows that the diet worked for 95% of people in a sample of 1000 people, then it is more reliable.

    * Check who funded the research. If it is a medicine and the research was funded by the company that sells the medicine, regard it with suspicion. Of course they will say that their products work! You need to check their research by seeing if (a) it was published in a well-known peer-reviewed journal (i.e., an impartial judge had a look at it), and (b) what the critics in that peer-reviewed journal had to say. See if anyone else has run an independent study to see if they can replicate the findings of the study. If the study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and no critical follow-up studies were done, and no attempts at replicating the results were done, you cannot trust those results.

    * Beware of democratic claims - e.g., "A million people believe that P is the case" or "95% of Americans accept that Q is true". Just remember that 1000 years ago, 99.99% of people thought the world was flat.

    * Beware of unqualified generalisations - e.g., "The sky is blue." These remarks are dangerous because they sound superficially plausible until you realise that there are a whole load of other things that the truth of the remark depends on, e.g., the sky is not blue at night, the sky on Mars is not blue, the sky is not uniformly blue at sunset, the sky is not blue when the weather is overcast, etc. Whenever you see an unqualified interesting generalisation, e.g., "Men score higher on spatial skills," you need to not only check the research behind it, but also what the conditions were under which that statement was true. e.g., men would score lower on spatial skills while wearing a blindfold, or while suffering from myopia, or they might score lower in a different culture, etc.

    * Be careful of assuming that because something has statistical, mathematical, or scientific reasoning or evidence behind it, that it is true. Check that the experiment has been replicated - ie., whether someone else, apart from the researcher, has done the same experiment and achieved the same results. Check the mathematics. Ask yourself whether the statistical model applied was the right one, or whether the person used the wrong model. Ask questions about the sample population. Was it a representative population? Were the individuals involved biased in some way? e.g., if a study examines 1000 men and finds that 99% of them believe in white supremacy, and the study concludes that Americans are racist, you need to make sure first that the study did not only interview KKK members or neo-Nazis.

    * Be careful of assuming that because a professor or PhD researcher says something is true, that they're right. Remember that most issues in academia are still under debate. Facts that are not under debate have already been given to the chemists and engineers (that's not to say that there's no research in chemistry and engineering! It just means, established facts have been handed over for commercial implementation). You should make a point of finding at least one researcher who disagrees with the person whose view you prefer. Find someone's view that annoys you, especially if they come from a credible academic background, and see for yourself whether their view is plausible. Make sure you mention their view in your research and explain why you still disagree with it. Don't be one-sided or biased, in other words. Show both sides of the argument. In particular, don't keep going to the same sites, and sites that link you over to related sites with similar content. That's called "preaching to the choir". Challenge your own assumptions and beliefs by looking at what the opposing point of view says.

    * Do not assume that because someone is a bad person that their argument is bad. This is called the "fallacy of ad hominem" - "to the man" - or "a personal attack". A lousy researcher with a dubious past may still produce an oustanding piece of work.

    * Do not assume that because a view is a minority view, that it is wrong, or that a view that is a majority view is right, even in academia. For hundreds of years, Newton's formulae were the majority view. One man, Einstein, overturned those equations. He was the minority. But he was right, and Newton was less-right. Question orthodoxy, but not to the point of paranoia (i.e., to the point of becoming a conspiracy theorist).

    * Look carefully at the site you're examining. If it's a dot-com, and it has large font sizes, bad design, bright colours, lots of adverts, flashing banners, and sensational claims, you can be pretty sure it's a conspiracy site, and that they have put sensational claims on that site to draw advertising revenue. You should ignore its claims and find a proper source.

    * Plagiarism. Plagiarism, in my definition, is: the quoting or usage of any original creative or academic material without stating where it came from. If you want to use someone else's work, you can save yourself from the accusation of plagiarism, and possibly disciplinary action (e.g., lawsuits or expulsion from university), by doing two very simple things: (a) put quotation marks on either side of the quoted paragraph, and/or (b) putting, immediately after it, a reference. (In other words, in parentheses or a footnote, saying where you got it from. For the most part, the author name, date, and page number is adequate, provided that the full reference appears in your bibliography or reference list at the end of your research. If you don't have a bibliography, cite the entire reference.)

      The following is considered plagiarism:

            I think that the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

      Chances are, someone, somewhere, has already said that. Find out who they are, and quote them. The following is NOT considered plagiarism:

            I think, in agreement with Smith, that "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." (Smith, 2009, p60).

      Notice that in both cases, you've used the same wording, but the first is not permissable, and the second is perfectly correct. Remember: you're not the only person who knows how to use Google. If a critic reads your research and Googles your paragraphs, especially ones that are well-written, and he finds that it is a direct quote of another source, but that you have not referenced it, you will be, by default, guilty of plagiarism. Journalists can be fired for this, students can be expelled for this. All it takes to solve the problem is quote marks.

Reputable Sources

You should avoid getting material from sites who do not have a known reputation for good academic content. The following is a list of sites that I regard to be reputable or largely reliable:


    * Any university site, e.g.,,

    * Any journal article site, e.g.,,, etc.

Sources that are not considered reputable are:

    * Most .com sites

    * People you know

    * Yourself

    * Hearsay

    * TV, DVDs, and other entertainment media.

Regarding newspaper sites and newspapers, you can cite these sources and quote from them provided that you make it clear that it is a newspaper that is being cited, and that therefore (a) the informative content is suspect, and (b) the opinion stated is merely an opinion, and is not considered authoritative, and (c) that the article may contain misrepresentations, hype, sensationalism, or other exaggerations. Generally, citing newspapers is primarily useful only for discourse analysis - i.e., showing the sort of discourse that is/was prevalent in society at the time. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, unless, for example, you find 1000 newspaper articles, all with very similar content (that can be shown, formally, syntactically and semantically, to be similar), and you then apply a statistical mathematical analysis to the prevalence of the key concepts contained therein.


    * Always cite your references, no matter how trivial the statement is that you're making. The only statements that you do not have to reference are:

          o Your own opinions that you do not know anyone else to hold, e.g., "I believe that Smith is mistaken in his theory."

          o Opinions that follow logically from a previous argument, e.g., "Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal."

          o Logically necessary truths, e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried men," "1+1=2," etc.

          o Well-known facts which are beyond disputation, e.g., "The sky is blue most of the time during the day on earth," "analog clocks have twelve hour-marks," etc.

      Cite your reference immediately after each statement. For the most part, the author name, date, and page number is adequate, provided that the full reference appears in your bibliography or reference list at the end of your research. If you don't have a bibliography, cite the entire reference (in such cases, rather use footnotes than parentheses, as complete references get very long to read past). Note that you can use footnotes, exclusively, if you wish. Here are some examples of referencing:

      "Smith says that P is not the case." (Smith, 2009, p60).


      "Smith says that P is not the case." (2009: 60).


      "Smith says that P is not the case."1

            1 Smith, T. (2009). An analysis of fundamental logic. Oxford University: Oxford. p60.

      Anything suitably similar to these examples will count as acceptable or adequate referencing. Remember: the point of referencing is so that your reader can check up where you got your ideas from and make 100% sure you're not misrepresenting the person that you're quoting, or quoting them out of context. If your references do not check out, you completely lose credibility.

    * Note the following abbreviations:

          o et al. - "and others". Used when you've cited a long list of author names already, and don't want to re-type all of them. But you have to list them at least once. So, for example (Smith, J., Jones, T., 2009, p60) can become, on the second instance: (Smith et al., p60).

          o et seq. - "and following". Used when you've referred to an argument or evidence which goes on for a few pages. Eg.: (Smith, 2009, p100-200) can become: (Smith, 2009, p100 et seq.) Avoid using this; it means that you can't say exactly where you saw it, which looks sloppy.

          o cf. - "confer - compare". Used when you want the reader to read a similar argument or passage in another author that makes a similar point. Eg.: (cf. Smith, p90). I have seen this used for the same author, as well.

          o qv. - "which see". Same as cf., basically, but usually to refer the reader to another spot inside the same book or article.

          o ibid. - "in the same". This is used when the reference is the same as a previous one. Eg.: (Smith, 2009, p60), can thereafter be followed by: (ibid., p61), (ibid., p62). If, however, another author is cited, then you have to drop the "ibid" and go back to the full version again, at least once, otherwise you'll be saying that the reference belongs to the new author. I recommend you avoid using ibid, because when you edit your paragraphs and move them around, you might move a new author into an older author whose paragraph is littered with ibids.

          o op. cit. - "work already cited". Same as ibid., basically.

    * When referencing a web page, cite your references as you would for any journal article, except, instead of providing the publisher city, provide the URL. e.g.,

            Smith, T. (2009). An analysis of fundamental logic. Oxford University:

      Remember that if you cite something on the web, it is likely to disappear, because people do not tend to keep things on the web for very long, so you should probably save the article, preferably as a PDF so that the fonts and images are retained in one file. You should name the saved file something like this:


      so that it's easy for you to find the file again. You should save the URL into a file as well, eg.:


      so that you can cite the reference in your research paper at a later stage, without having to Google again.

    * If a file is likely to disappear off Internet, i.e., if it's not in Jstor, then you should probably consider printing it and attaching it as an appendix, if it's not too long, to prove that you didn't just make it up. Only do this for articles that are on questionable sites, or pages that are likely to disappear, e.g., pages on .com sites. You might also only do this if the article in question has not been published in a proper journal.

    * If an article has been published in a proper journal, then you MUST cite the journal version of the article, not the web version. Most reputable pages that contain a journal article will mention that the page is a journal article and that it has been put online "with permission" of the journal publisher. This is your hint to go and find the real thing, eg., on Jstor. Or just email the academic who wrote the paper. Most academics want to be cited by other researchers, so most academics are happy to email you copies of their papers. Just be polite and do not ask for more than one paper - that's greedy.

    * If you are citing a webpage and it doesn't have page numbers, because it is a continuous scrolling single document, then cite the paragraph number and/or section number.

    * Don't put words in peoples' mouths. If an author did not say something, or you have misinterpreted an author, you can't reference it to him or her. Your reader may know your subject area very well, and if you misattribute a reference to the wrong author, you might get caught out falsifying your references.

Writing Style, Grammar, Spelling

    * Make 100% sure your spelling is correct. Do not assume that a spellchecker on a word processor will get the spelling right. For example, if you use "their" instead of "there," or "hear" instead of "here," "discrete" instead of "discreet," a spellchecker will not pick it up, but it will ruin the meaning of your sentence. Bad spelling creates a bad impression. It is sloppy and unprofessional.

    * If you even have the slightest doubt about a word's meaning, check the meaning in the dictionary. For example, evince, evidence (verb), and posit, postulate, do not have quite the same meanings.

    * Make 100% sure your grammar is correct. For example, I've used "their" above as the neutral singular personal pronoun, instead of he/she. This is incorrect. If you don't like he/she, then alternate "he" and "she" in your examples. Similarly, make sure your sentences agree, e.g., if your object of your sentence is plural (the noun), then make sure that the verb is plural ("are"), etc. Don't worry too much about grammar checkers fussing about passive voice; passive voice is quite commonplace in academic writing. ("The man hit the ball" is active voice, "The ball was hit by the man" is passive voice.) Also learn the difference between whom and who.

    * Avoid using the word "I". You should give your opinion through the voice of whomever you're citing. So, instead of "I think that P is the case," rather say, "Smith thinks that P is the case" (Smith, 2009, p60). Or make it neutral: "It may seem that P is the case, considering the aforegoing argument."

    * Do not commit to a position as being a fact unless it is logically entailed (1+1=2) - i.e. unless it is a demonstrable fact. Rather say "it appears," "it seems," "it may be the case that". The only time you should commit to a position as a fact if you think that your argument does demonstrate something - in which case, say, "it is the opinion of this author that," or, "from the aforegoing reasoning, it must be the case that".

    * Check your writing style on a website that checks style for you, e.g.:

Monday, 24 January 2011

Do we know that the mind the activities of the brain?

I was asked this:

"Neuropsychologists have for a long time now known that the mind is just the activities of the brain."

 One of the atheists is quibbling about the use of the word "known" he's a little pedantic, suggests "suggested"


According to modern philosophers, to know means:
- to have a belief
- that is justified
- and that is true
- and that is not coincidentally true.

So, for example,

- you can't know that fish swim unless you believe it or have a belief that that is the case.
- you have to be justified in this belief; e.g. you have to have seen fish do it, or seen it reported in a biology journal. So you can't know that fish swim unless you have good reason to think so.
- you can't know that fish swim unless they do in fact swim. So even if you've seen one fish swim, it's not enough, it has to be true that all fish swim, for you to know it. Otherwise you just believe it. Take god as an example. If you say you 'know' he exists, you can't say that. You can only say you 'believe' he exists. For you to 'know', it's not enough that you believe it and have reason for it. There must also be a fact of the matter.
- It can't be a coincidence that you just saw one fish swimming. There has to be a regular causal link between your belief and the facts. Eg if you happen to look at a clock and it reads 9am, and you believe it is 9am, and it is true that it is 9am, you can't be said to know that it is 9am unless the clock is also working. It may have just happened to have stopped at 9am the previous day; in which case you accurately believe that it is 9am, but you don't know it, because the clock could have stopped at any time, in which case your belief would be wrong. So the link from your belief to the truth is coincidental, so you don't know that it is 9am, you only believe it, and it is coincidentally true.

This is the standard definition accepted universally.

Now, as for knowing that the mind is just the activities of the brain, there are several fields of thought.
a) Central State Materialists - they believe the mind is the activities of the brain, that the mind requires the brain, and that the mind is identical with those activities, and that we do have mental states. The mind cannot exist without the brain.  This is Armstrong's view.
b) Functionalists - the mind is the activities of A brain, but any brain that is functionally identical and produces neural states will also produce mental states. So if your brain was hydraulic rather than neural, it would still be OK. The mind cannot exist without some kind of brain, even a computer will do. This is my former supervisor's view, agreeing with Lewis.
c) Eliminativists - the mind is the activities of the brain but mental states are an illusion that do not exist. The mind cannot exist without the brain.  This is Churchland's view.
d) Dualists - the mind and brain are two different things. Cartesian dualists go further: the mind and brain can be separated and the mind survive without the brain. This is the 'soul' theory. This is Descartes' and the Bible's view.
e) Epiphenomenalists - the mind is a side-effect of the brain and has no causal role. The mind cannot exist without the brain. Mental states are real but powerless. This is my view and Dennett's view.

Alright so, let's look at the definition of "mind" and "know" above, to answer the below.

Neuropsychologists tend to fall into one of the above camps except D. So for a neuropsychologist, some kind of brain is required to generate the mind. Whether the mind is causally efficacious is irrelevant. The point is: when the mind stops, the activity on the PET scan stops (Death). When certain regular things are thought of, regular areas of the brain light up under PET. Either this is a remarkable coincidence, and the activities of the brain just happen to always correlate with the activities of the mind, or, there is a causal relationship (Epiphenomenalism/Functionalism/Eliminativism), or, an identity relationship (Central State Materialism). Dualism can only survive in the light of this evidence by agreeing with say Searle who claims that the mind is a 'field' 'over the cortex' (Searle, 2000), and that that field might persist without a brain. I doubt it.

Let's see.

Neuropsychologists believe that the mind is the activities of the brain (Let's call this MB).
Neuropsychologists have reason to believe that MB, they have evidence that MB.
It is not coincidentally true that MB might be the case, since PET scans line up with thought.
But the last point is still up for debate: Is it true that MB? Philosophers will say "probably", and Neuropsychologists will probably say "yes", but some philosophers, certainly religious ones, deny that MB.

So do neuropsychologists "know" that the mind is the activities of the brain? I think he may be right, it's slightly strongly worded. It's probably best worded "have good reason to believe that" or "the evidence most strongly points to the view that".

 I however am more confident about this. I would say that since we've never encountered a disembodied mind (dualism), and since we've never encountered a thinking computer (functionalism), and since the mind ceases when the brain ceases, it's safe to say that the mind is the activities of the brain.

Thursday, 20 January 2011

The future of cash

Living in a crime-ridden society where it is not safe to carry cash, we in South Africa are moving more and more towards electronic transactions. Most people who are part of the formal economy carry at least an ATM/debit card, as well as a credit card. Many people in the formal economy also pay for things online - especially small things that involve media, such as books, DVDs, CDs, and so on.

But we have two substantial problems:

1. Cash is still the basic currency of our country, not the least of which reason is that most people are not part of the formal economy - that is, they are not formally employed, relying on hawking small goods. These people are not only vulnerable to casual thieves and muggers, but they also are "unbanked" - meaning that they will never be able to get credit from any of the major banks, because they do not have a credit record.

2. Cash in transit heists. Because large amounts of cash are transported in conspicuous vehicles, these vans are targeted by criminals.

These two problems can be easily solved using an already-existing technology, that even the poor and unbanked have access to: cellular telephones.

Think about it. A cellphone, even one on pay-as-you-go, is basically a bank account. Pay-as-you-go is equivalent to a savings account, because it has no credit facility, and it stops working when it's empty. A cellphone contract, on the other hand, is more like a credit card, because it allows you to work with it and use it indefinitely - you just have to pay it at the end of the month.

Furthermore, you can send airtime to your family members. For example, if a child's cellphone runs out of airtime, the parent can send the child airtime. How is that not an electronic funds transfer?

So here's the idea. Remove cash from our society altogether. Give the cellphone companies Authorised Financial Service Provider licenses. Allow the banks to sell cellphones. Link the cellphone account balance directly to the bank account balance - ie your airtime is your bank balance.

To pay at a shop, you simply ensure that each shop has a cellphone. When you want to pay for something, you simply send that shop airtime. The great advantage of this is that it will eliminate cash robbery. It will also enable the unbanked masses to get a credit record by the conduct of their accounts. Furthermore, street vendors would not need to have a card machine to accept card payments if cash were eliminated. To pay a street vendor, you'd simply ask them for their cellphone number and send them airtime.

Problem solved.

Here's a link to a similar idea:

Here's another: