I’m trying to get back to songwriting. This was in response to a challenge on writing a song involving listening to the wind. I started playing around with the theme of “winds of change” and how everything is always changing. So often we don’t hear the first whispers and, when we do, we try to fight it instead of accepting it and going with the flow. The changes can be physical (I can’t stop getting older), they can be cultural, they can be economic or environment or scientific or lots of other things.

Someone once said “Things were simpler when we were younger” and the response was “No, we were simpler”. We can’t go back to the naïveté of our younger days, but we can reset how we engage with life, the universe and others.

For those of you who care, this was actually written in an open D minor tuning.

A peer-reviewed study found Christians hold more animosity towards atheists than atheists hold toward them. The going in assumption of the researchers was that both groups would be more favorable to their own in-group but it is actually asymmetric. The atheists do not really view Christians any worse than they view other atheists. On the other hand, Christians view atheists as worse than Muslims or convicted criminals. Unlike some other studies, this one took a cross section of the American population rather than just getting samples from atheist organizations and samples from Christian churches.

I’m really only posting this so I can find the word again. Sonder - from the urban dictionary: The realization that there aren’t any main characters in the world and everyone has a complex life, thoughts, crushes, relatives, dreams and mind just as your own. Essentially while you’re the main character in your life, you’re also a background character in someone else’s. Coined in 2012 by John Koenig, whose project, The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows, aims to come up with new words for emotions that currently lack words.

I occasionally run into people who complain that I am tolerant of X, but I am not tolerant of them, so if I claim to be “tolerant”, I need to be tolerant of everything. NO I DON’T. I am tolerant of people whose actions do not adversely affect others. I do not pretend to be tolerant of people whose actions and beliefs do affect others. Two gay people getting married does not adversely impact anyone else.

I’ve been reading some of the attempts on the anti-abortion side to avoid tying themselves into knots with respect to the definition of when something is a person. This is similar, but not exactly the same as the Cartesian duality question of whether mind and body are separate. In a religious sense it also seems to touch on when a soul is attached to a body. Obviously they can’t say “soul” in the United States due to separation of church and state, but they can use “personhood” as a substitute.

The first principle of the Unitarian Universalist Church is “to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person.” I find this easy to apply as a default position and more difficult to apply in specific instances. If I don’t know you, I start with an assumption that you are honest and are competent in what you present to the world as your current function when I meet you. From that standpoint, it doesn’t matter whether you are a President, CEO, policeperson, waiter, roofer, farmer or internet influencer, regardless of race, creed, etc - I start with the same baseline of respect for your inherent worth and dignity.

Just a collection of quotes from the British author Terry Pratchett that people have found useful for various contexts: Give a man a fire and he’ll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life. In ancient times, cats were worshipped as gods. They have not forgotten this. Personal’s not the same as important. People just think it is.

This post is Part 1s with the topics being Well Being, Wittgenstein and Values in Science. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1r with the topics being Rational Disagreement, Moral Principles and Gender Categories. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1q with the topics being Consciousness, Mind Uploading and The Hard Problem of Consciousness. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1p with the topics being Analysis of Knowledge, Arguments for Theism and Morality. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1o with the topics being “Chinese Room”, “Possible Worlds” and “Human Genetic Engineering”. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.

This post is Part 1n with the topics being “Other Minds”, “Ought Implies Can” and “Newcombe’s Problem”. I recently came across the 2020 Philosopher Papers Survey of 7,685 academic philosophers around the world. (I think < 1,800 actually responded). I then ran into my first problem - uhh, what do those answers mean? It reminded me of tax lawyers writing for other tax lawyers. One piece of advice I used to give younger tax lawyers when they were writing for a business audience - drop the nuance.