both

There's no requirement for human concepts to map onto reality: so they don't, but they do. 

In this sense both atheism and theism are correct. It's like the double slit experiment with light which shows it to be both a particle and a wave. Like Schrödinger's cat paradox, where the cat is neither alive nor dead until someone looks and collapses the wave function.

The atheist and the theist are both creating their own reality by mapping their concepts onto it. It doesn't matter that neither might be the case, the consequences follow whatever you do, so you can make either position real. This makes all Gods true and none of them.

Like Sherlock said..."when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

EDIT: This conceptual world curiously matches our real world. Schrödinger said, of the emerging quantum physics 'I don't like it, and I'm sorry I had anything to do with it,' - despite being one of the clever clogs that helped develop the math describing it. It seemed to be nonsensical and still does. It's mirrored in that the physics that describe the macroscopic and the microscopic refuses to be unified, just as the world views that inhabit the mental worlds of the theist and atheist stubbornly refuse to reconcile. Something has to give as the tension stretches to breaking point. Both arenas need a wraparound to unite them otherwise the polarisation will destroy us, eventually.

Another EDIT:  So, anyway, I don't believe that the universe is a place where for the big stuff you use Newton's laws and for the small stuff you use Quantummy equations (though we do). We are all made of the funny stuff and can be all over the place at the same time, just not so you'd notice. If you twang a string hard and fast enough it looks like it's in two places at once, but the frequency is so fast you only see it existing at two points in the oscillation, because that's all we're capable of seeing. To unite the two worlds needs some further insights into what time and space actually are. It's beginning to feel like we're standing in a forest going 'where the %^&* are all the trees?' Something that simple, like opening our eyes on a different perception.... after which you go 'how did I not see that?'

DOING THE IMPOSSIBLE

Bakewell Tarts

Bakewell Day of Dance

We're playing here on 29th June. Tral la.

relativity

Einstein was right:  weight is relative to age.

the eightfold chiks

All eight eggs hatched out successfully.  Mum is busy teaching them how to forage.  I think that brings the total to 15 new chiks this year, so far.

raison de marvin

People say believe half of what you see
And none of what you hear.

I bet you wondered how I knew?

Well, I heard it through the grape vine.

finished

The new path is made from Kellet quarry tailings. It's the stuff the big contractors don't want: full of dust and fluff. So what's going to bind that path when a decent flood pours down it? Nothing really, and it's only a couple inches thick, if that. That is why I'm not optimistic about the job lasting. We'll see.

gravelty

The pile is going down down down......










.....and almost reached clod's plot.

but there is still a lot to do...

....and what bright spark laid the water supply pipe 2" below the surface along the line of the path?

Oh....and please don't run over my compost bin which is parked legally.

in the greenhouse

Stuff....growing....in a greenhouse.  Always good, that.

the path of least resistance

In the long wet winters, the allotment paths turn into a quagmire of mud 1/2 way up yer wellies.

Every morning you have to squelch through it to get down to feed the chikkins.  It's like being at Glastonbury in a bad year without the music. Sometimes your arse gets intimately aquainted with the mud.

When the fiftieth person had gone over, teh committee eventually decided to fix it by laying some paths.  That was a looooong time ago, before the flood of Noah.  However, work did start this week: the first order of business, obviously, was to dump all the hardcore at the allotment gate so no one could get in.

The next thing is to scrape a bit off the top...about the thickness of a turf.










After that you roll out a bit of weed-proof Axminster and bung an inch of hardcore on top and Bob the builder's yer uncle.

Does anyone think that'll be enough? I haz me doubts...

clodhoppering

It's been a long time coming this year but, at long last, clodhoppers is beginning to look like it might actually be productive.  Most of the crops are in.  There's some work to do fettling the greenhouse....but it can wait until I get a round tuit.

terwitt terwoo

Then again.....if this was the kind of owl in the beautiful pea-green boat, my advice would be to leg it, no matter what size stoat you were or what variety of martial arts training you'd had.

It's a grey owl in the Kielder forest.

Sixnets

 Awww.

Cygnet Ring

Unusual to get this close without mum or dad showing the least sign of being at all bothered.  I must look like a pushover or a gentle soul.

The Owl and the Pussycat

The Owl and the Pussycat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat
They took some honey and plenty of money
But their biggest mistake was the Stoat

What Pryce Justice?

It's too easy to join in the tsk-tsking and dismissal of the first set of jurors in the Vicky Pryce case as a bunch of incompetent nitwits incapable of understanding basic judicial guidance.  But is that really the case or is there more to it under the bonnet?  So I looked at the questions that the jurors put to the judge, here they are:

Q1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion on page 5 of the jury bundle and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand on the definition, provide examples of what may fall within the defence, specifically ‘will was overborne’ and does the defence require violence or physical threat?

Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.”

Q2. In the scenario that the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be, not guilty or unable or not safe to bring a verdict?

Answer: “Turning to page three of my written directions, the direction is combining the burden and standard of proof with the need for a majority verdict. If, having carefully considered all of the evidence, at least 10 of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if after careful consideration at least 10 of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. And so it follows that if at least 10 of you are not sure, the appropriate verdict is one of not guilty.”

Q3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so can inferences/speculation be drawn on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so?

Answer: “The drawing of an inference is a permissible process. Speculation is not. In this case the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed, and where you are willing to draw inferences from that is entirely a matter for you.”

Q4. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Answer: “The prosecution must make you feel sure beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with, beyond the written directions [he had already given them]“.

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

Answer: “The answer to that question is a firm no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”

Q6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn’t bring witnesses from the time of the offence, such as the au pair or neighbours?

Answer: “You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said or draw inferences from their absence. Her evidence is that no one else, other than Mr Huhne, was present when she signed the form.”

Q7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?

Answer: “There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence and there is no burden on her to prove anything at all. The defendant does not have an obligation to present a defence, in this case the defendant has given evidence and it is for you to judge the evidence from her in the same way you would any other witness.”

Q8. Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind when she sent the form?

Answer: “The answer to that is an equally firm no. The position in a criminal is that no one must speculate. There is a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inference, which is the drawing of common-sense conclusions from the facts of which you are also sure. Speculation is guesswork. That is not the same as inference at all.”

Q9. The jury is considering the facts provided but is continuing to ask the questions raised by the police. Given that the case has come to court without answers to these questions please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury should count on to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.

Answer: “You must decide the case on the evidence [put before the court]. It is for you to decide which you consider to be important, truthful and reliable then decide what common-sense conclusions you can safely draw. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not. That is a matter for you to decide.”

Q10. ”Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

Answer: “This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.”

Mr Justice Sweeney went on: “I want to repeat the absolutely vital importance of your following my directions of law to the letter and the fact that it is an equally important part of each of your individual duties to ensure that all of you do follow my directions of law to the letter.

“Without doing so, you are simply not in a position to reach a true verdict according to the evidence one way or the other.

“It is essential that each of you ensure that my directions of law are faithfully applied by all of you. If, for whatever reason, any one or more of you feel you do not understand my directions, then it would be wholly wrong to reach a verdict one way or the other.

Well, do those seem entirely 'unreasonable' questions to you? Some, possibly.  But really...what does 'reasonable doubt' actually mean?  Without corroborating evidence from witnesses, how can the prosecution possibly 'prove' that Vicky Pryce's testimony of marital coercion is false, unless they rule it out by defining marital coercion in such a way that discounts the abuse of power in relationship?  

What does marital coercion mean exactly? In the judges words: 

"A wife’s will would not have been overborne if, for example, she was persuaded by force of argument to choose (albeit reluctantly) to commit the offence rather than to take another course, or if she was persuaded (albeit reluctantly) to commit the offence out of love for, or loyalty to, her husband or family, or to avoid inconvenience (whether to herself or others). Her will must have been overborne in the sense that she was impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed that she had no real choice but to do so.

It is not, however, for the defendant to prove that Mr Huhne coerced her – rather it is for the prosecution to prove that he did not do so. The Prosecution may do that (as they seek to in this case) either by making you feel sure that Mr Huhne was not present when Ms Pryce committed the offence, or by making you feel sure that her will was not overborne (i.e. that she was not impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed that she had no real choice but to do so). 

Impelled? How impelled, argument, loyalty, emotional blackmail?  Certainly not, it seems, threat or violence?  No real choice?  What does that mean?

Sorry, but I don't think it fair for the media or the judiciary or whoever else to be blowing rasberries at that jury. There are legitimate questions to be asked about how jurors are given guidance, particularly when someones liberty and career are at stake.

   

LLAW EHT FFO RORRIM RORRIM

So I started the online philosophy course being run by Edinburgh University.  It's good, but I just can't keep up with all the discussion forums that have sprung up.  I just don't have the time to read all that stuff, and, even if I did, there would be no time left for drinking thinking.

There are a lot of students trying to answer some basic questions the lecturer has thrown out to get things going.  Questions like: What is the meaning of life? What is philosophy? Is it important?

In a way it seems so self indulgent, so petty: the chances of YOU existing are beyond calculation. YOU have already won the biggest lottery in the universe, ever ever, ever.

Imagine you don't exist, (it's not easy if you try). There can be no time and space, no cause and effect, no ups and downs, no singing and dancing, no music, no children, no cold beer. You are just not there. History tells you that stuff already happened while you weren't' around, but so what? It will go on happening after you've gone. Sooooo what?

Philosophy is the universe experiencing you, experiencing life. If you were not in it, it would probably cry. Get your tummy tickled! Say thanks!

That isn't very philosophical really.  I'm just going to posit that philosophy is life looking at itself in a mirror and trying to see a clear enough reflection to understand itself....but, like a babies eyes, they can't focus properly, or the mirror is dirty, or something like that.

Or maybe life is just so so gobsmacked/excited/obsessed/astounded/infatuated by seeing it's own reflection at all, that, like some love struck teenager, it's gazing at itself with moony eyes and stinking the bathroom out with Lynx deodorant.

Anyways... in my previous post, the one where I quoted Russell saying... "when you think, you think of something.... therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves."  Well, that might be problematic in the sense that you immediately create the duality by looking in the mirror and you see something... but it isn't real, it's a reflection...nevertheless, it's very compelling and very easy to get infatuated with it.  I'm really talking about the process involved in creating the idea of 'self' in consciousness and then seperating that out as something special, as something that, when its attention is directed towards itself...something funny happens. It starts to think that it has a core of identity that transcends the nuts and bolts of normal, everyday, bog standard conscious experiencing.  It also thinks that that core can somehow survive itself or that some sort of powerful external agency can grant that continuation.  It's too painful to think that the beautiful, if somewhat smelly, teenager can no longer BE somehow.

The other aspect to think about is: What consolidates this process of the creation of identity?  Is it memory?  Is that the factor?  If that's not it, what is the nature of the vessel that contains this 'I' notion? Does this reduce metaphysics to the explanation of experiencing?

Questions for another day.