Luky Says Baton Bob Knows His Stuff!

Luky loves living in Midtown. I have always assumed it was his appreciation of being close to his academic friends. But more and more I get the feeling that it has as much to do with his enjoyment of close Midtown friends.

I recently learned that he has been holding secret meetings with the Ambassador Of Mirth (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ambassadorofmirth/). "Baton Bob," as most folks know him, is apparently an expert in humorous philosophies - at least that's what Luky says. Anyway, I'll take his word for it as always - and that's no joke!

Day After Thanksgiving

It's the day after Thanksgiving - it used to be called "Black Friday," but Luky says retailers are trying to get that term changed to "Green Friday," just to avoid the negative connotation attendant to "black"-anything. Of course, Luky has almost zero interest in the term or the day since he does not consider himself a mall shopper at all. He does suggest that the whole Black versus Green thing has to be solely retailer inspired since, clearly, the consumer purchaser is the party actually suffering all the cost and would not likely be trying to rename the day simply to make it sound nicer.

There's a new day and title, according to Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(shopping)], "Cyber Monday," has been promoted by online retailers to recognize the Monday following Thanksgiving because, according to them, that day has seen a statistically significant increase in online shopping activity. Luky looks off to the side when I mention that - it's a dead giveaway that not only is it true, but he's been participating in the ritual himself! He doesn't want to admit it, I'm sure. Some months back he swore he was not going to make any online purchases until his original wolf pack gets its e-commerce site up. Yeah, right!!!

He wrote two posts yesterday - or coaxed me into taking his dictation as is usually the case - but it was a big day. This entire morning has been for napping punctuated by the twitching amidst wolf dreams as a result of yesterday's strenuous busyness. Thanksgiving Day started with a long walk (more than an hour) in the Piedmont Park [www.piedmontpark.org], which has a super-special off-leash dog section [http://www.piedmontpark.org/do/dogpark.html]. We met and made new friends, as always. Then, after the walk we immediately sped into errand-running . . . Luky was backseat driving as usual (he's brilliant but he's never figured out that the best way to offer directions is NOT with your head out the window - he might as well be talking to drivers in other cars). We stopped by Kiki's house. We went to the grocery. We shared a Baby Ruth candy bar. It was a very big day.

And if that weren't enough, he was invited to join us at Thanksgiving dinner with friends in Buckhead. Luky was a superior guest, minding his manners, going easy on the wine and hor d'oeuvres. He was the hit of the evening, as usual.

We're all moving pretty slow today. Too much good food! Luky thinks he represented Malamutes well and probably inspired a few people to adopt some of his brethren down the road. I don't want to heap on the flattery, but he's probably right.

So, it's Friday . . . Black, Green, Red . . . who cares? Time to get back to work!

Just-As Luky's Day Off ?!?

It took me forever to study Luky's ideas on belief, believing, etc. (http://philosopherdog.blogspot.com/2005/11/believe-what.html), but it was a pretty complex concept. I asked him the other day if that was the most complex thing he ever thought through . . . NOT the best question to ask Luky if you want to avoid a day-long dissertation. I should have stopped when he bluntly said, "No."

"Well, I guess you know better," I said. "You're the one who thinks about God, belief, knowledge, meaning, Meaning Of Life, and all that heavy stuff."

"Yes, those are all tough concepts," he said, "and each of them requires its own careful analysis, but I think the hardest concept is 'justice'."

He said that so matter-of-factly that I hardly understood him - at least initially. Then my mind caught up with my ears.

"Justice," I asked with every inquisitive tone I could muster. "Why justice? Isn't that the simplest concept? Or at least ONE of the simplest? It seems to me that justice would be a pretty easy measurement in the first place - and then on top of that we have laws to help us keep the idea straight."

"That's what most humans think as long as they aren't thinking," Luky was talking through his whiskers again which tends to muffle his words and somehow cushions his most diagnostic digs.

Luky shook his head the way wolves do when they're getting ready to share great insights among the pack. That's a lot different shake of the head than the typical domestic canine shake . . . that is, the sort Tom Hanks shares during a stakeout in his role as Detective Scott Turner taking advice from Hooch - otherwise known as "Beasley the Dog" (a Bullmastiff - http://www.akc.org/breeds/bullmastiff/index.cfm) - in the movie, Turner & Hooch (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098536/fullcredits).

"It turns out that 'justice' is actually complicated by its social and legal contexts. The reason it is probably the most difficult concept is because we try to apply it while respecting very different kinds of principles. On the one hand, we - at least those of us who have inherited the deeper, lupine sense - retain a day-to-day understanding of ultimate good and evil . . . a template of the karmic supreme, if you will. We recognize the idea of wrong, even when it's just a thought. All the while the law, along with various contextual rules of the game, motivate us to look at 'justice' as necessarily action in the real world. Justice, then, loses its ideal status and becomes a function of compromise and practicality."

"I knew I shouldn't have pushed this subject." I said exactly what came to my mind.

"Well, we don't have to burden ourselves with all of it right now, but I think it's a good exercise for you." (Note, "you" is the plural pronoun Luky regularly uses to mean "humans.")

"Yes," I readily agreed, "after all, it is Thanksgiving and we can afford to take a day off of philosophically heavy discussions . . . right?"

"Sure," he whispered, "we can shut our minds down for the day while we thank the Creator for the bounty of our lives, the blessings of freedom, the miracles of our respective cellular forms, the fact that generations of stars were needed to coalesce the atoms and molecules required to make our hearts beat, our synapses fire and our minds cogitate . . ."

"What? What are you saying?" I interjected.

"Just that I'm in agreement . . . we can limit our thoughts to the simple things for a day of Thanks."

Happy, Restful Thanksgiving!

It's Thanksgiving Day and the Atlanta Marathon - which begins in a few minutes (7:30 a.m.) - runs right under Luky's office window. He's snorting and shuffling his long wolf nails across the hardwood floor to remind me that I'm not running it this year. Thanks! Like I already don't feel slothful enough . . .

Anyway, I've been busy this past week and I've neither trained as a runner, nor spent much time reviewing Luky's journal. That latter task will cost me because he's been writing like a madman (excuse me, Luky, of course I meant "mad dog").

More soon. And Luky says he wishes every reader a happy Thanksgiving.

Believe What??!!??

Luky has been driving me crazy with his theory on belief. He got me into this conversation with his "Believing Politicians" post back on the 10th (http://philosopherdog.blogspot.com/2005/11/believing-politicians.html), and he pretty much has not let up. People think Malamutes are just good observers of the world. You have to live with one to understand just how opinionated they can really be!

Anyway, here's what Luky says about belief. No, I'm corrected - it's not about belief, it's about how we use forms of the word, "belief," and just how little we can expect it to communicate. Oh well . . .

According to Luky, who ponders mankind's effort to find and relate to the ultimate creator - as in, you know, THE CREATOR of all things, one of the greatest challenges man encounters in his pursuit of "faith" (a uniquely human concept, Luky advises) is the loose and ambiguous way in which humans use words. In the contemplation of God and matters of the spiritual realm, man's efforts regularly involve reference to traditional logical and epistemological terms such as, "truth," "knowledge," "belief," "evidence," "faith," and so on. And according to Luky, at the most basic point of such contemplations, the heart of the contemplator does not matter - the spiritual skeptic, the atheist, the committed faithful, the recently saved - all of them must meet the same first challenge with regard to sharing their spiritual investigations with anyone, including themselves. They must understand the words they use, use those words correctly, and wherever possible and to the greatest possible extent (especially when attempting to communicate their thoughts to other parties) confirm that the audience has correctly understood what they intended to convey. This challenge, he says, never presents itself for wolves and wolf-kin (that is, dogs, of course).

Luky says that when we consider the uses and abuses of the word "belief," especially considering statements of belief which he calls "declarations of belief," (to be abbreviated as "DOB" or "DOBs"), we find that at their root ALL DOBs communicate the same thing.

In fact, he sites different DOB examples, such as . . .

1.) I believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;
2.) I believe I have forty cents in my pocket;
3.) I believe that our home team will win this weekend; and,
4.) I believe in the tooth fairy;

. . . and then he argues that if we think critically about what might possibly be expressed, and what might possibly be inferred, all these sentences are the same!

Yes, I asked him to explain that seemingly absurd conclusion and I had to sit through what follows.

The obvious and instinctive response is for us to try to distinguish between DOBs such as numbers 2 and 4, above. We might feel there ought to be enormous differences between a person's belief that he has forty cents in his pocket and his belief in the tooth fairy. Clearly, there are enormous differences in the subjects of those two DOBs. If we request it, the speaker might easily check and verify his forty cents; whereas, try as he might he would likely find it difficult to produce the tooth fairy. However, when the speaker expresses those two DOBs he is not telling us much about the forty cents or the tooth fairy. In other words, he is not telling us he has knowledge of either one: he is not telling us how many coins make up the forty cents, or if it's U.S. or Canadian currency; and likewise, he is not telling us if the tooth fairy is nearby, has curly hair, etc. Unless we push the speaker for greater detail, which may then inspire him to investigate further and acquire more information, or reveal to us that he already possesses more information but had not yet shared it, we are limited in the information we can take from any of his DOBs. In fact, the only thing his words really say is that he perceives himself to be in a state of some mental conviction regarding the proposition. And perhaps the worst part of such epistemological assertions is that we have no way to ascertain whether or not the speaker is lying! That is, his words may be saying that he perceives himself to be in a state of some mental conviction regarding the proposition, but we cannot even be certain he has communicated the true conviction of his mind.

Yes, after recognizing the enormous gaps of understanding that must exist between speakers of DOBs and their audiences simply on the basis of what their assertions really intend to convey - i.e., something about the speaker's state of mind - we have to recognize even that might be misleading and the speaker might actually have said, "I believe that our home team will win this weekend," purposely lying in order to avoid the anticipated ridicule or embarrassment of expressing negative opinions about the home team in front of an audience which he knows to be highly team-loyal.

This then is our problem, especially when we consider spiritual topics: when someone asserts a DOB like, "I believe in God," he is asserting no more and no less than he asserts when he says, "I believe in the tooth fairy," and, the same goes for his asserting something like, "I believe gas prices are too high." Regarding any analysis we might undertake of the speaker, it will not matter whether we agree or disagree with his assertion; nor will it matter whether we think he has good reasons for his statement. It will not even matter whether we judge him sane or insane. And further, since we have no ready means of determining whether or not the speaker is intending to be honest or not, the only thing we can conclude from any DOB whatsoever is that the speaker intends to convey to his audience that he possess a certain mental conviction regarding the subject.

Thus, by taking this time to consider just how little might actually be communicated by, and how little can be inferred from, DOBs, we can begin to grasp the scope of their ability to mislead. The fact is, DOBs are so lacking in their capacity to communicate reliable information it seems highly likely that we generally express them in order to intend, as well as hear them to interpret, far more than they really do! The truth is, DOBs are regularly used as part of selling products, justifying wars, establishing religions, ratifying countries, and so on. Man uses (abuses, as Luky insists) them for some pretty weighty objectives considering how little weight they may actually support.

Wolves, on the other hand, do not suffer from such ambiguities. They know what's what just by its smell!

Uncle Jack's Critique

Luky spoke with his Uncle Jack last night . . . well, to be more accurate, I spoke with Jack and Luky listened in taking notes. This is a short post because it's only here to honor what Luky calls "the most significant comment he's received yet" regarding his blog.

Jack suggested that the posting credit should probably go to Luky if Luky's doing all the thinking and philosophizing. Well, that was enough to inspire demands from the author! So, while I still get my initials referenced, the posting credit is closed by the name of you-know-who.

Luky says, "thanks to Uncle Jack."

Luky Loves His Uncle Jack!

We were debating belief all day today. Then in the middle of our discussion, Luky's "Uncle Jack" popped up in the emails giving us his spin.

Jack has read a lot more about time, philosophy, belief, aliens, and all sorts of other topics than I have, so it was good for me to be able to step aside and let Luky deal with Uncle's concepts for a little while. No, he was not swayed from his position. So I guess Uncle Jack will just have to come over one day soon and argue "mano-a-pata" (Luky says that means "hand-to-paw" in Spanish) - bueno!

Believing Politicians?

Luky doesn't bark. Malamutes generally don't. He talks, though, and man is he given me the "what for"!

He sometimes tries to type his own blog posts but he was particularly frustrated about a week ago when his big furry, bear-sized paw hit the "Insert" key instead of "Home." So he's always yelling at me to transcribe his journal notes.

I was trying to get him occupied with this week's Science Channel 25th anniversary airing of hour eight of Carl Sagan's original COSMOS series which dealt with Einstein's theory, the speed of light and time travel - one of Luky's favorite topics, of course - but it didn't work. This week his new passion is "belief" . . . that's right, the word "belief" and its various forms, and how we use these words.

Luky says the misuse of words like "belief" and "believe" constitutes one of humanity's greatest problems. He says our claims of knowledge are even worse, but there are enough humans who actually use words correctly, and therefore require that when people make claims of knowledge that the claim actually does describe a circumstance which is true - that is, a circumstance which can be verified or defined as true . . . because, as Luky says, "you can't KNOW untrue things."

"However," he says - and has liberally written about in his journal entries this week, "claims of belief are actually much more corrosive to understanding, truth, honesty, communication and 'the good' (whatever he means by that) than claims of knowledge."

I asked why, of course. At first blush it seems like a claim of knowledge is much stronger than a claim of belief.

"The problem," Luky says, "is that claims of belief are automatically perceived to be somewhat figurative, indeterminate references implying little or nothing about the object of the statement, and essentially, asserting only a rationale - like a certain condition of mental conviction."

"So, you're saying that people do harm when they make statements about their beliefs?"

Luky looked up. I suppose the tone of my response was reflecting a more-than-normal interest in his topic du jour.

"Absolutely! I've analyzed this pretty carefully and there seem to be only five and a half states of mind by which a human can host and assert a belief."

"I'm lost already, but go ahead."

"Okay," Luky cleared his throat - which can sound like a growl, so I was glad we were in the loft, "well, think about this . . . when a human makes a statement like, 'I believe in ghosts,' you tend NOT to challenge the speaker. Have you ever considered why? Anyway, even if you haven't, there's little criticism due since the speaker of such a statement is not really asserting something very bold and exciting - it's not important news that offers new information about ghosts. And the reason it's not is because it makes no attempt to promote a factual circumstance in the world. It only describes a condition about the speaker's state of mind, his mental conviction. And since you don't expect to be able to test his state of mind, you let the assertion stand."

"Ok, I think I see your point, but I don't get why that's so dangerous . . . and where are your five and half states?"

"Ok, well, the five and half states come from my analysis of the types of intention and conviction which might possibly exist when someone believes, or more accurately, says they believe, a thing - like, for example, 'in ghosts'."

"And . . . as if I need to ask . . . what are those five and a half states? And also, if I might be so bold, I was not familiar with the clinical studies on a Malamute's ability to read minds."

"It does not require reading or knowing the minds of others. It only requires logic. There are only certain conditions - like intentions or rationales - that can apply to support a human's declaration of belief. Just listen and I think you'll get it . . ." and then he added a slow snide "maybe" to which I feigned my usual pet-owner grin (that's the one where you pretend you're the boss because you control food distribution, but everyone in the room really knows you're faking it).

"The speaker," Luky began again, "declaring his belief of a thing must hold one of the following rationales, either he:

1.) truly believes for reasons that can be empirically experienced by others (i.e., verified); or,

2.) truly believes for purely personal reasons which HAVE no, and NEED no, relation to the world outside his mind; or,

3.) actually thinks, incorrectly, that he believes his statement (this circumstance often happens when the speakers interacts regularly with one community wherein he often makes such statements and hears others make such statements, and neither he nor the others ever get challenged on such statements, so declaring belief that way has always seemed acceptable and appropriate to the speaker and he's never had the inspiration or motivation to think critically about his state of mind); or,

4.) is joking (i.e., speaking falsely with no ill intent); or,

5.) is lying (i.e., speaking falsely with some ill intent)."

"Ok, so I'm not real sure what I just heard except I know that you said five and a half, and I counted only five - so at least I know something's missing." I was pretty lost to tell the truth.

"Well, yes, I was considering adding a sixth condition of mind because I think there's room for insanity as a rationale for declaring a belief . . . but then I thought that if some human were truly insane his insanity might be manifest in one or more of the options I listed (especially numbers '2' '3' or '5'), so I decided to just refer to it as a half of a condition."

Sometimes Luky's explanations are more exhausting than my not understanding!

"And you're saying that no matter what somebody . . ."

Luky interrupted, "some HUMAN!" he emphasized as if I were parsing my responses to carefully protect my own species.

"Yeah, sure, I get it - but the point is, you're telling me that when anybody says they believe something, those are the only things that can be in their minds!?!"

"Yes." He was pretty definitive.

"But what about the ghosts?" I asked. "Where are they? Do they exist? Can we find out?"

"Again," he responded with his softest, lowest voice - his words puffed out through his white wolf whiskers as if he were trying to whistle, "I just need to have patience, I guess . . . it's like this . . . when humans say they believe something, there is no necessary relationship between their state of mind and the subject of their declaration. They can say they believe in ghosts, believe in God, believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq . . . it doesn't matter. Their statement may or may not be true - namely that they believe - but even if it's true that they believe, it means nothing regarding the facts about the subject."

"Oh, I think I get it now," I said. "But since you mentioned it as an example, what about when Dick Cheney says he 'KNOWS' there are weapons of mass destruction?"

"I was only talking about 'humans,'" Luky said with some increased gruffness, "not politicians!"

Luke-maninoff? Yeah, Right!

He's at it again. Luky says he wants to change his major! Now he insists he will study classical music and learn to compose and conduct . . . something about Vienna? Or chicks digging musicians?

Anyway, I'm sure it's a passing fancy and I know he has to start knuckling down if he expects his research on Quasars, Black Holes and Time Travel to get published!

Still, he demanded that I put up a pic of his favorite bumper sticker. There's a sidebar link (Canine Academy) that links to Canine Academy. He hasn't been there in months and I think he still owes them hours in detention!

The Fragility Of Time-Changing

Luky is quite comfortable with the relativity of time - that is, the Einsteinian relativity of time from the perspective of the observer, particularly when the observer is moving at speeds approaching that of light.

On the other hand, oddly, he has almost no concept of relativity when it comes to clocks. We change our clocks in compliance with daylight savings by an hour twice each year and it throws him into another dimension completely! (Recent changes in energy law have incorporated adjustments in DST, adding four weeks - two more on each end of the DST "season" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005.)

Sure, Luky writes and dictates all these amazingly deep thoughts - God, truth, love, justice - and then when the rubber meets the road (or, perhaps more appropriately, when the "hands meet the face") he just can't handle the Sunday after the one-hour change. For the next week he wants breakfast at by 4:00 a.m. and dinner before 3:30 in the afternoon. And believe me, he's all a-fluster if breakfast and dinner are an hour late!

"Relativity - I mean the relativity of clocks," I told him, "should be a lot easier for you to grasp . . . you, brilliant wolfen philosopher." I was speaking a bit more effusively than normal in deference to his obvious sensitivity to being clock-time dyslexic.

"I don't know why I don't get it," he said pitifully. "You mean when it's five o'clock, it's really four o'clock?"

"Well, it is for now - then, next Spring it will turn back, and four o'clock will be five o'clock." I said that as kindly and gently as I could, but apparently I just couldn't convey the calm and comfort I intended - especially given Luky's deductive aptitude.

"Oh God," he pronounced, "you mean that five o'clock will come and I will have missed breakfast and dinner altogether!?!"

Man, it was all I could do to keep from gloating. The shoe (claw) was on the other foot (paw) as it were. Normally he has ME at the intelligence disadvantage . . . but I just couldn't take the shot!

"Trust me, Buddy, I will never let you miss a meal!"

He looked at me as if I had opened the heavens and uncovered all the kibble in the universe - just for him. It made me smile - because, well, if I could I would!