Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, 8/12: Is life a mistake?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet in two weeks, Thursday, August 12, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Is life a mistake?"

The suggested topics for the upcoming meeting and their votes:

1. Limitations of science (4, 2)
2. Is love a passion or an emotion? (1)
3. Is truth dead? (4, 3)
4. What's up with dog people? (3)
5. Optimism vs. pessimism (4, 3)
6. Is life a mistake? (4, 5)
7. Can education or experience change the way we think? (3)
8. What motivates a desire for education? (2)
9. Can we be young forever? (2)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant, but is spending the summer in France, as usual.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City this week, Thursday, 7/29: Is beauty only subjective?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet this week, Thursday, July 29, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Is beauty only subjective?"

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant, but is now in France for the summer.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Pub for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cap and trade seems too hokey to be truly viable

Schemes for emissions trading such as cap and trade have been around for awhile and thought out rather rigorously, but the bottom line for me is that the entire concept still seems too hokey and too much of a gimmick to be truly viable for dramatically lowering emissions. The bottom line is that if it is really as simple and easy as its proponents suggest, then it really does fall in the category of "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true." I personally am all in favor of improving energy technology, enhancing air quality to reduce negative health impacts, improving energy efficiency, reducing energy costs, and generally reducing our environmental footprint, but cap and trade just doesn't seem to "click" for me. I am not sure exactly why, but that's the way it is. The bottom line is that if the proponents of cap and trade want my support, they are going to be a lot more forthright and transparent about the "fine print" of cap and trade and what its potential downsides really are.

Just the "cute" title of "cap and trade" causes a red flag in my mind. It smacks of "bait and switch." Sign up for "cap and trade" and who knows what you will really get five or ten or twenty years down the road.

It even reminds me of the old street scam here in New York City, "Three-card Monte", which was once played with cards and then switched to plastic bottle caps and a bean. Around and around the carbon credits flow, where they stop and who ends up holding the bag is unclear.

Maybe that is the real point: Cap and trade sounds as if it is all cheap and easy and nobody is really paying much at all for any or all of it, when reality tells us that ultimately somebody or a big collection of somebody's will have to pay an arm and a leg to wean ourselves off traditional fossil fuels. To me, cap and trade is basically a fraud, a scam.

My preference, over cap and trade, is to just ride the technology curve and focus on assuring that there is a large enough pool of capital for both private and public technology development and a sufficiently light rein on government over-regulation so that a partnership of the public and private sectors can push hard and fast enough on that technology curve to actually deliver on the instant gratification that cap and trade purports to promise us. Another tool is to specifically target a quota of government energy and transportation usage every year for new technology, even if it happens that it is less economical in the short run, since such a subsidy can have a long run advantage by seeding nascent markets for new technology.

There are plenty of potential strategies for achieving greener energy technologies, but cap and trade is not one of them. Just say "No" to such gimmicks, and that includes carbon credits and carbon taxes.

-- Jack Krupansky

Refutations for 36 arguments for the existence of God

A very interesting and exhausting (if not exhaustive) treatment of arguments in favor of the existence of God can be found in an appendix to 36 Arguments for the Existence of God by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. This is from a work of fiction, but the appendix itself is nonfiction. It gives each of the 36 arguments and then provides detailed refutations.

Just as one example:

21. The Argument from the Consensus of Humanity

1. Every culture in every epoch has had theistic beliefs.

2. When peoples, widely separated by both space and time, hold similar beliefs, the best explanation is that those beliefs are true.

3. The best explanation for why every culture has had theistic beliefs is that those beliefs are true.

4. God exists.

FLAW: 2 is false. Widely separated people could very well come up with the same false beliefs.  Human nature is universal, and thus prone to universal illusions and shortcomings of perception, memory, reasoning, and objectivity. Also , many of the needs and terrors and dependencies of the human condition (such as the knowledge of our own mortality, and the attendant desire not to die) are universal.   Our beliefs don't arise only from well-evaluated reasoning, but from wishful thinking, self-deception, self-aggrandizement, gullibility, false memories, visual illusions, and other mental glitches. Well-grounded beliefs may be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to psychologically fraught beliefs, which tend to bypass rational grounding and spring instead from unexamined emotions.  The fallacy of arguing that if an idea is universally held then it must be true was labeled by the ancient logicians consensus gentium.

Other arguments include:

1. The Cosmological Argument (Everything that exists must have a cause)
4. The Argument from The Big Bang (Something outside the universe, including outside its physical laws, must have brought the universe into existence)
5. The Arguments from the Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants
36. The Argument from The Abundance of Arguments

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, 7/29: Is beauty only subjective?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet in two weeks, Thursday, July 29, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Is beauty only subjective?"

The suggested topics for the upcoming meeting and their votes:

1. Is religion a viable position? (3)
2. Can we be ethical without God? (4)
3. Optimism vs. Pessimism (3)
4. Is truth dead? (2)
5. Is beauty only subjective? (6)
6. Is dueling essential in a democratic society? (2)
7. Is it possible to think and analyze events independent of passion? (4)
8. Can art be truthful to a cause? (3)
9. Can we really separate private from public behavior? (3)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant.

We will probably continue to meet during the summer, although Bernard will be off, as usual, in the south of France.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Made my seventh payment to pay down the public debt of the U.S. government

I just made my seventh monthly payment to pay down the public debt of the U.S. government. Not much, just another $25, but it is a matter of principle, albeit mostly symbolic. It may take me another 44 billion years to pay it all down all by myself at this rate, but, as I said, it is matter of principle.

According to the U.S. Treasury web site, the total public debt outstanding was $13,199,290,856,204.30, as of July 13, 2010. It was $13,038,877,263,966.78, as of June 17, 2010, for an increase of about $160 billion over a four-week period, about $6.2 billion a day.

What I wrote back in January when I made my first donation/gift/contribution/payment:

Everybody is whining and complaining about the ballooning debt of the U.S. government, but who is actually doing anything about it? Well, for starters, ME! Yes, that's right, I, Jack Krupansky, just did something to reduce the U.S. government debt. Really. No kidding. I actually paid down a small slice of this debt. Granted, it was a rather small slice, but a slice nonetheless. Okay, sure, it was only $20, but the point is that at least I am one of the very few people willing to stand up and DO something about the problem, rather than be one of the whiners and complainers who refuse to acknowledge that it is their debt and their problem, not just the fault of mindless politicians in Washington, D.C. After all, every politician ultimately answers to voters and most of the so-called wasteful spending of the U.S. government is simply politicians responding to the demands of their consistituents (voters.) Maybe my one small contribution to paying down the debt won't really make any difference to any of those whiners and complainers, but for me it is a matter of principle. I consciously choose action rather than the inaction and lack of responsibility of the whiners and complainers.

If you have any sense of principle, you too can pay down a slice of the U.S. government debt yourself at Pay.gov. You can pay via credit card or debit transfer from a bank account.

So do the right thing and show all those whiners and complainers (including so-called "tax protesters") how mindless and spineless they really are. PAY DOWN THE DEBT! And that has to start at the grass roots with us individuals before politicians will ever pick up the lead.

For the record, the only real way out of the deficit is not to merely cut expenditures or raise taxes or some combination of the two, but through economic growth, which includes a healthy amount of immigration. Sure, we need to manage the federal budget more carefully as well, but the big focus has to be on achieving sustainable economic growth.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City this week, Thursday, 7/15: Is atheism a viable position?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet this week, Thursday, July 15, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Is atheism a viable position?"

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant.

We will probably continue to meet during the summer, although Bernard will be off, as usual, in the south of France.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, 7/15: Is atheism a viable position?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet in two weeks, Thursday, July 15, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Is atheism a viable position?"

The suggested topics for the upcoming meeting and their votes:

1. Optimism vs. pessimism (4, 3)
2. Is there a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? (3)
3. Why are we so poor at seeing the obvious? (4, 2)
4. What's wrong with our government? (2)
5. Is stupidity hardwired? (3)
6. Immigration (4, 1)
7. Does determinism entail predestination? (1)
8. Is atheism a viable position? (4, 4)
9. Is life a mistake? (2)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant.

We will probably continue to meet during the summer, although Bernard will be off, as usual, in the south of France.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City tonight, Thursday, 7/1: How will technology change the human species?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet tonight, Thursday, July 1, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "How will technology change the human species?" The topic was suggested by Frank Biebert.

An article about Stephen Hawking's view on current and future human evolution:

Stephen Hawking: "The Human Species Has Entered a New Stage of Evolution"

In the last ten thousand years the human species has  been in what Hawking calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. "But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage," Hawking says, "has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes."

Interesting lecture entitled "The Future of the Human Species" by Dr. Brent Waters:

If a number of pundits are correct, we have already taken some initial steps toward creating a posthuman future. The goal of this project is nothing less than the perfection of the human species. Specifically, human performance will be enhanced and longevity extended through anticipated advances in pharmacology, biotechnology, and bionics. Drugs, for example, can lessen the need for sleep; genetic engineering will slow the aging process; artificial limbs will enhance strength and agility; and brain implants will enhance the speed of interacting with computers. The cyborg becomes the next stage of human evolution. Some visionaries foresee a day when, with the aid of artificial intelligence and robotics, endless lives might be achieved. The underlying binary information constituting one's personality would be uploaded into a computer and then downloaded into robotic bodies or virtual reality programs. With sufficient and reliable memory storage, the process could, in principle, be repeated indefinitely, thereby achieving virtual immortality. In the posthuman future, humans become self-perfected artifacts by blurring, if not eliminating, the line separating the natural from the artificial.

The promise of the posthuman project is the creation of beings that live healthy, productive, and happy lives, and most importantly beings that live for very long time—perhaps forever. The ultimate promise is immortality. The accompanying peril, however, is that the cost is exorbitant. The price of perfecting humankind is its destruction, for in becoming posthuman humans cease being human. The peril of the posthuman project, in short, is that its optimism disguises an underlying death-wish for the human species.

Also consider Ray Kurzweil's singularity concept and book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, which posits that:

The Singularity is an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today -- the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity.

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant.

We will probably continue to meet during the summer, although Bernard will be off, as usual, in the south of France.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky