On free will at Talking Philosophy

Quite a debate going on at Talking Philosophy, where I created a thread about free will and Sam Harris. I continue to be amazed at the way we get individuals making stuff up from their armchairs about what the folk think free will is - without any evidence from actual studies of what they think, or any study of how free will and related subjects have been understood historically by philosophers, or any study of how such themes seem to be/have been treated in myth, literary narrative, and popular culture.

All of those would seem to me to be reasonable sources of evidence of what kinds of things are really being bugging ordinary people - and have bugged them historically - when they think about free will and related ideas (such as fate, determinism, and moral responsibility). We might also get into some good old-fashioned conceptual analysis comparing our theories to our intuitions about examples. That's a good start to refining how we must be conceiving of some idea, though it has its limitations. But instead, it seems that some of my interlocutors (and Sam Harris is also rather guilty of this) just know the answers to these questions, apparently based on their own idiosyncratic life experience and whatever intutions it has given them about how other people must think.

Sunday Supervillainy - meet the new Nick Fury

Fans of the recent Marvel universe movies up to and including The Avengers will be familiar with the character Nick Fury - played by Samuel L. Jackson. The trouble is, Nick Fury in the main Marvel universe is a white guy who doesn't look much like Samuel L. Jackson at all (though he does have an eyepatch, like the movie character, and his personality is similar enough to that of movie-Fury).

By now, though - and certainly once The Avengers is finally released in the US - the general public will immediately think of Samuel L. Jackson when it hears the name "Nick Fury" ... which creates a small problem for selling comics (hey, who's this frakking white guy?).

In fact, Marvel used the likeness of Jackson for the alternative Ultimate Universe version of the character some years ago, before any of these movies were made. But that doesn't help make the main "616" universe accessible to new readers who might wander into a comics shop after watching some of the movies.

Enter a new character, Marcus Johnson, who turns out to be the orginal Nick Fury's illegitimate son. Johnson was, in fact, named by his (obviously black) mother "Nicholas Fury, Jr.", and the "Marcus Johnson" name was to protect his true identity. He's now reverted to his real name, shaved his head, grown a beard, and ended up looking like ... well, Samuel L. Jackson. So, Marvel now has a new Nick Fury character, with Nick Fury, Sr., being shunted gracefully into semi-retirement (like many of Marvel's characters, he's incredibly old anyway, though until now he's been kept fit and relatively young by a special life-extending chemical formula).

We're told that Nick Fury, Sr., will still have a role now and then, so his dwindling number of middle-aged fans don't lose out entirely (it's nice that they didn't kill simply him off). But commercial reality evidently rules here. I'm good with it, but there it is.

Sun-Herald review of The Avengers

At this stage, I seem to be about the only person (at least of those expressing opinions on-line) who has any reservations about The Avengers. The reviewer at the Sun-Herald, Leigh Paatsch, apparently loved it without reservations:

It is not often you can say this, but The Avengers is one $200 million-plus event flick where not a single cent has been wasted.

The special-effects work is spectacular, especially during two truly awesome set-piece battle sequences.

The first, aboard an airborne weapons carrier, is brilliant enough.

The second, an all-stops-out skirmish on the streets of a busy city, will leave viewers gasping.

Overall, The Avengers is a fist-pumping cause for celebration for comic-book hard-liners and action fans alike.

Responding to Sam Harris on free will

I have a long response - I say "response" because it's more than a "review" - to Free Will by Sam Harris ... over on the ABC Religion and Ethics Portal. Do I agree with Harris that there is no libertarian freedom of the will? Yes. Do I think Harris knows what he is talking about when he discusses compatibilist theories and accuses compatibilists of "changing the subject"? No.

On the Krauss brouhaha re philosophers

This Atheist Examiner piece - with relevant links in case you don't know what I'm talking about - reports an apology from Lawrence Krauss for his incautious words about philosophers recently. Just as well, because I met Krauss briefly when I was in Melbourne and kind of liked the guy. I have yet to read his new book, A Universe From Nothing, however, and I'll be looking at it dispassionately.

I must admit that a lot of philosophy seems like pretty crazy stuff to me - as does most theology. But, once again, I'm not referring to, say, Peter Singer, or Daniel Dennett, or A.C. Grayling.

For any wild idea you care to imagine, you'll probably find a philosopher to take it up. That may not be a bad thing. Perhaps more importantly, for every piece of common sense, you'll find a philosopher to doubt it. But then again, I'm sometimes one of those who do the doubting. For example, I doubt (to say the least) that there are objective moral truths of the sort: "X-ing is morally wrong." I doubt lots of other things that are widely believed. I dispute the existence (and even intelligibility) of libertarian free will (though I also doubt that this is the folk conception of free will ... and it's not the philosophical meaning of "free will"). I dispute the existence of gods, which was an unthinkable position in the West only a few hundred years ago.  The sceptical doubts of philosophers have been of enormous value to our culture, and I'm glad to be in that tradition.

However, I do agree with Krauss that philosophers generally do best to follow the science where it leads. Scientific arguments are, of course, always open to criticism on the basis of the soundness of their logic. Still, we generally have to rely on what science reports back to us about the empirical facts of the universe, rather than thinking we can do better in our armchairs.

Avengers movie

I've just seen The Avengers, so let me say a few not-very-spoilerish things about it while it's fresh in my mind. First, it's a lot of fun - all the main characters are cast well, and their personalities, powers, and skills are displayed vividly. As a showcase for the movie versions of this particular Avengers roster (plus the various S.H.I.E.L.D agents led by Nick Fury, plus Loki as the villain), it's successful - probably worth seeing for this alone, at least if you're a fan of the characters. Robert Downey, Jr. (as Iron Man/Tony Stark), Samuel L. Jackson (as Nick Fury), and Tom Hiddleston (as Loki) are impressive, and I was especially pleased that Scarlett Johansson put in a more than creditable performance as The Black Widow - a character who might well have been overshadowed by the male superheroes but actually kicked butt throughout. The settings were magnificent, particularly the huge S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier, which is the location for the middle part of the action.

So, that's the good news.

But second ... well, I was a bit disappointed. Despite the great cast and high production values, and despite the engagement of Joss Whedon to direct the action and write the script, The Avengers falls a bit flat. We want to see big fights between the heroes and the villains, and between the heroes and each other ... but even for a superhero movie, much too much consisted of fighting, with buildings, military platforms, and whatever else being demolished spectacularly. Too little of it actually advanced the plot, and too little depth was given to the relationships (though Iron Man and Pepper Potts, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, were touching). Worse, the villains, other than Loki himself, who was shown as powerful and dangerous, scheming and mad, were incompetent to the point of absurdity - it seemed that they were just there to be smashed up by the heroes. Honestly, these guys (they all seemed coded as male) made the Star Wars Imperial Stormtroopers look like badass tactical geniuses.

At the end of the initial set of closing credits (don't bother staying for the full credits to roll to the end) there's a scene that suggests what villain we're going to be treated to in a future Avengers movie, and it will gladden many hearts.

All in all, though ... see this one if you're a fan of the characters, or just for the spectacle. Enjoy your Coke and popcorn. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

Loki pulled some clever tricks, and some dirty ones, and always seemed formidable (though he stuffs up big-time at one point that I won't say anything more about). Most of the time, however, the heroes never really seemed in any danger. Also, as with a lot of modern action movies, it could probably have been improved by being half an hour shorter - which could have been accomplished, I suspect, just by editing down the fight scenes.

Would I watch The Avengers again? Maybe, but only because I like some of these characters quite a lot - and, to repeat, they were well-presented, and with a pleasing balance among them. Apart from that, not so much.

Ditmar Awards ballot

The 2012 ballot is as follows: Best Novel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Shattered City (Creature Court 2), Tansy Rayner Roberts (HarperCollins)
* Burn Bright, Marianne de Pierres (Random House Australia)
* Mistification, Kaaron Warren (Angry Robot Books)
* The Courier's New Bicycle, Kim Westwood (HarperCollins)
* Debris (The Veiled Worlds 1), Jo Anderton (Angry Robot Books)

Best Novella or Novelette
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "The Sleeping and the Dead", Cat Sparks, in Ishtar (Gilgamesh Press)
* "Above", Stephanie Campisi, in Above/Below (Twelfth Planet Press)
* "The Past is a Bridge Best Left Burnt", Paul Haines, in The Last Days of Kali Yuga (Brimstone Press)
* "And the Dead Shall Outnumber the Living", Deborah Biancotti, in Ishtar (Gilgamesh Press)
* "Julia Agrippina's Secret Family Bestiary", Tansy Rayner Roberts, in Love and Romanpunk (Twelfth Planet Press)
* "Below", Ben Peek, in Above/Below (Twelfth Planet Press)

Best Short Story
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Breaking the Ice", Thoraiya Dyer, in Cosmos 37
* "Alchemy", Lucy Sussex, in Thief of Lives (Twelfth Planet Press)
* "The Last Gig of Jimmy Rucker", Martin Livings and Talie Helene, in More Scary Kisses (Ticonderoga Publications)
* "All You Can Do Is Breathe", Kaaron Warren, in Blood and Other Cravings (Tor)
* "Bad Power", Deborah Biancotti, in Bad Power (Twelfth Planet Press)
* "The Patrician", Tansy Rayner Roberts, in Love and Romanpunk (Twelfth Planet Press)

Best Collected Work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Last Days of Kali Yuga by Paul Haines, edited by Angela Challis (Brimstone Press)
* Nightsiders by Sue Isle, edited by Alisa Krasnostein (Twelfth Planet Press)
* Bad Power by Deborah Biancotti, edited by Alisa Krasnostein (Twelfth Planet Press)
* Love and Romanpunk by Tansy Rayner Roberts, edited by Alisa Krasnostein (Twelfth Planet Press)
* Ishtar, edited by Amanda Pillar and K. V. Taylor (Gilgamesh Press)

Best Artwork
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Finishing School", Kathleen Jennings, in Steampunk!: An Anthology of Fantastically Rich and Strange Stories (Candlewick Press)
* Cover art, Kathleen Jennings, for The Freedom Maze (Small Beer Press)

Best Fan Writer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tansy Rayner Roberts, for body of work including reviews in Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus! and Not If You Were The Last Short Story On Earth
* Alexandra Pierce, for body of work including reviews in Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus!, Not If You Were The Last Short Story On Earth, and Randomly Yours, Alex
* Robin Pen, for "The Ballad of the Unrequited Ditmar" * Sean Wright, for body of work including "Authors and Social Media" series in Adventures of a Bookonaut
* Bruce Gillespie, for body of work including "The Golden Age of Fanzines is Now", and SF Commentary 81 & 82

Best Fan Artist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Rebecca Ing, for work in Scape
* Lisa Rye, for "Steampunk Portal" series
* Dick Jenssen, for body of work including work in IRS, Steam Engine Time, SF Commentary and Scratchpad
* Kathleen Jennings, for work in Errantry (tanaudel.wordpress.com) including "The Dalek Game"
* Rhianna Williams, for work in Nullas Anxietas Convention Programme Book

Best Fan Publication in Any Medium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SF Commentary, edited by Bruce Gillespie
* The Writer and the Critic, Kirstyn McDermott and Ian Mond
* The Coode Street Podcast, Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe
* Galactic Chat, Alisa Krasnostein, Tansy Rayner Roberts and Sean Wright
* Galactic Suburbia, Alisa Krasnostein, Tansy Rayner Roberts, and Alex
Pierce

Best New Talent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Steve Cameron
* Alan Baxter
* Joanne Anderton

William Atheling Jr Award for Criticism or Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Liz Grzyb and Talie Helene, for "2010: The Year in Review", in The Year's Best Australian Fantasy and Horror 2010 (Ticonderoga Publications)
* Damien Broderick and Van Ikin, for editing Warriors of the Tao: The Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature (Borgo Press)
* David McDonald, Tansy Rayner Roberts and Tehani Wessely for "Reviewing New Who" series, in A Conversational Life
* Alexandra Pierce and Tehani Wessely, for reviews of Vorkosigan Saga, in Randomly Yours, Alex
* Russell Blackford, for "Currently reading: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke", in Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
---

The official ballot paper, including postal address information, may be downloaded as a PDF format file from:

http://ditmars.sf.org.au/2012/2012_Ditmar_ballot.pdf

Once voting opens, votes will be accepted via email to:

ditmars@sf.org.au

However, if possible, please vote online at:

http://ditmars.sf.org.au/2012

Alexander Aan case - I urge you to write

I am in the process of sending a letter in the following terms to the Indonesian authorities. It should be self-explanatory. If you want to send something similar, go here. I have somewhat modified the suggested text provided. I encourage you to use your own words to whatever extent you think appropriate.
====

Name of victim: Alexander Aan
Names of alleged perpetrators: Police officers of Pulau Punjung Sub-District Police Station, prosecutors of Sijunjung District Prosecutors Office, potentially the panel of judges at the Muaro Sijunjung District Court involved in examining Mr Aan's case.
Date of incident: 18 January 2012 - present (ongoing)
Place of incident: Dharmasraya, Padang, West Sumatra

I am writing to voice my concern regarding the case of Alexander Aan, an atheist civil servant in Dharmasraya, Padang, West Sumatra. Mr Aan was arrested, charged and tried for posting a status on Facebook questioning the existence of God. He is also alleged to have disseminated religious hatred on the internet by posting a note and comic on Facebook entitled "The Prophet Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law" and "The Prophet Muhammad had been sleeping with his wife's maid."

Mr Aan's postings were an exercise of free expression on matters relating to religious beliefs, and Indonesia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion. His posts did not incite, condone, or glorify violence or persecution of anyone, Muslim or otherwise. Though some have found his posts insulting, there is no human right to freedom from feeling offended.

According to the prosecutor's Letter of Indictment, Mr Aan's actions have insulted Islam as well as caused outcry in the community. His posts are also considered as persuading others to embrace atheism, which is a crime under article 156a (b) of the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP). In addition to this, Alex is also charged with article 28 (2) of the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Law for disseminating religious hatred on the internet and article 156a (a) of the KUHP on religious defamation.

I deplore the fact that the KUHP criminalises activities pertaining to persuading other people to embrace atheism. Article 156a (b) of KUHP is not only open to arbitrary interpretation, but it also contradicts the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. I would like to remind you that Indonesia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which guarantees these rights.

According to the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 22, freedom of religion also includes the freedom to have and adopt atheistic belief. Mr Aan's Facebook status questioning the existence of god is merely an expression of this belief, which should not be punished.

Furthermore, Mr Aan's posts on Facebook should be seen as an exercise of his freedom of expression. While I am aware that such freedom might be subjected to restrictions, I would like to emphasise that these restrictions apply only when it is necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security, public order, health, or morals. In this case, Mr Aan's action do not pose a threat to any of those; neither do they amount to an advocacy of religious hatred, incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

I would like to draw to your attention the Joint Declaration on Defamation of Religion which was issued in 2008 by the representatives of various human rights bodies who deal with the issue of freedom of expression (UN, OSCE, OAS and ACHPR). According to this declaration, "the concept of 'defamation of religions' does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own". The Declaration also establishes that "restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the prediction of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones".

Accordingly, I urge you to stop all legal proceedings against Alexander Aan as well as to release and provide him with adequate compensation. I strongly recommend that you withdraw any laws and provisions which are not in accordance with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Only by so doing can the Indonesian government comply with its international obligations concerning the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I was alerted to Alexander’s situation by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a nonprofit organization based in the U.S. that stands for science, reason, and secular values such as the separation of religion from government and the basic freedoms of thought, conscience, and speech. CFI has affiliate organizations and branches all over the world, and holds special consultive status at the United Nations under the UN Economic and Social Council.

I look forward to seeing swift action on this matter.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Russell Blackford
Australia

Harlan Ellison on paying the writer

Somehow I don't think Harlan Ellison would be paying out of his own pocket - in unpaid travel and accommodation expenses - for the privilege of turning up to speak at a conference.

Pay the Author! Or how writers get treated like dirt...

This page is from the website of the Australian Society of Authors; it contains suggested payment rates for authors for writing, public appearances, reimbursement of travel costs, etc.

Now, I actually don't have any complaints about my current book publishers - that isn't what the post will be about. Phew! You guys can sigh with relief. Nor do I expect to be paid for academic articles, whether in journals or chapters of academic books (the latter often involves at least some sort of free or discounted book offer, which is very welcome). That's a bit different. And there are many circumstances in which writing without a fee is appropriate if it's to help a cause that I believe in. I can consider it charity.

Okay. Okay. My gripe is actually with people who expect writers to turn up and speak at their events. So often, it's assumed that writers somehow don't deserve payment, despite the time and energy that has to go in. I'm sure the same people who ask writers to speak at their various forums pay their plumbers, lawyers, pest control people, caterers, etc., etc., but writers are expected to work for nothing.

Now, I realise that if we all demanded fees on all occasions many activities could not go ahead. So we often waive fees as a gesture of goodwill and with the comfort that at least we get some publicity and that it all helps to get the message across. We tend to be like that; we're reasonable that way. In fact, we realise that some organisations that ask us to speak can't even pay our full expenses ... and we may be prepared to cover some costs if asked nicely and with some reasonable attempt by the organisation to cover what they can. It all depends.

But it really can become a joke. Recently, a fairly prestigious organisation that cannot be totally without money asked me to attend a conference interstate and to speak on a panel. I said I'd be more than happy to do it, but I'd need my travel and accommodation expenses covered (it would have been impossible to do the job without staying interstate for at least one night, most conveniently at the hotel where the conference was taking place). I was fobbed off on the basis that the organisation is a not-for-profit one and therefore could not pay expenses.

Well, really - the fact that it is a not-for-profit organisation is irrelevant; it must still have some source of funding to conduct its activities, with some kind of annual budget. If it doesn't budget to cover such costs that is hardly my fault or the fault of other speakers. I will not be speaking at that conference.

What's more I find it downright insulting to be asked to speak at a conference interstate on the basis that I will not only not be given any payment for my time and trouble but will also have to pay for taxi and plane fares (several hundred dollars at least) and accommodation costs (probably another couple of hundred dollars) out of my own pocket.

Let's get this straight: you want me to do something for you, something that involves quite a bit of work on my part, plus taking time out to go to a conference that I was not otherwise planning to attend ... and then you want me to pay a thousand dollars or so out of my own pocket for the privilege of helping you out? What on earth are you thinking? The arrogance of this really boggles my mind.

Like other writers, I'm prepared to be very reasonable, depending on the circumstances of the people or organisations that ask me to speak. But there are limits. Why on earth should I, or anyone, agree to be treated in such a contemptuous way? Why wouldn't I take offence at this?

This sort of thing happens too often, and I think it's about time writers started to protest. We get treated like dirt, all too often, and I think we are too nice about it. Let's make some public fuss about the way we are so often treated. This post is my small contribution. I encourage other writers to speak up.