Everything is Burning

As a word nerd, I love a beautiful arrangement of words, especially when they are as beautiful as they are meaningful or disturbing (or both). And today's post was inspired by a phrase I heard during my writing research. As I said in my post about Immortality I find immortality an interesting trope to play around with in fiction, and for a story about an immortal villain trapped in a coffin, I was wondering about what would or wouldn't survive over a long time. In my research, I discovered an article all about a project for a building a long-term project the Clock of the Long Now, all about building something to last 10,000 years.

The Long Now Foundation was trying to find the best materials to last such a long time, and when talking to materials scientists, an anonymous scientist was quoted as saying:

Everything is burning, just at different rates.

It appears that they were referring to the fact that "aging" of materials is related to oxidization. This scientist was being referred to second-hand, so I can't know exactly what they meant or how much they may disagree with my interpretation. But, I think I perceived something deeper from those words...
Because burning is, ultimately, a chemical reaction. And whilst I don't know that much about oxygenation, I do know about entropy.

Part of the reason I think I'm interpreting them wrong is because burning is about heat, and entropy is about dispersal of heat (i.e. cooling, kind of the opposite) but still, when I heard that it made me think about the fact that everything is slowly, but surely, decaying, some faster than others... the word of the day is: 'ENTROPY'

Entropy /entrəpi/n. 1. Thermodynamics. a) (on a macroscopic scale) A function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, and differing from energy in that energy is the ability to do work and entropy is a measure of how much energy is not available. The less work that is produced, the greater the entropy, so when a closed system is void of energy, the result is maximum entropy. b) (in statistical mechanics) A measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. 2. (in data transmission and information theory) A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message. 3. (in cosmology) A hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature heat death. 4. A state of disorder, or a tendency toward such a state; chaos. 5. A doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

When I was a kid, I experienced a moment that I feel like a lot of kids go through at some point. I was talking about the future with my father, and he mentioned that, at some point, the sun is going to explode.
I think he mentioned it as an example of intellectual curiosity, but as a child this was existentially horrifying. The very thing that we rely on for life, sitting innocently above us during each day, is going to kill us all. As a kid I came to the only conclusion that made any sense to me: Our goal, as humans, is to escape this calamity. I didn't fully understand the timescale, and when I finally did I felt slightly less horrified, but I still maintained my conclusion that at some point we need to get the fuck off this rock.

[Author's Note: I was a child at the time, and thus too naive to have the coarse language necessary to express the idea that accurately/succinctly].

For years, I lived with this ideal. At some point, we must escape the Earth, then we can create the inevitable Star Trek utopia and start fucking space babes.

[Author's Note: Again, as I was a child at the time, and thus too naive to recognize the necessary benefits of xenosexual intercourse].

However, this attitude shifted when I was a growing preteen and learned about entropy. For those of you who still haven't learnt this lesson, or don't fully recognize the reality of the situation, Entropy is a measure of chaos (or homogeneity) in a closed system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, over time, entropy must increase.
This is simply because matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed and it takes work to achieve order, including the "containment of energy" and thus energy, matter, and everything naturally starts to settle out and disperse.
Order is inherently unstable, everything naturally breaks down, slows, and cools as a result of matter and energy decaying, leading to inevitable heat death. And this principle is applicable on both the micro- and macroscopic scale. So, for the same reason that your hot cup of coffee eventually cools, the universe will also eventually cool. And since life relies on complex biochemistry and ordered organic matter, this also necessitates that all life must end.

As a preteen (and moody teenager), I decided "well, there's no fucking point then, is there? It's all going to end anyway."

Fuck me, I'm glad this is a Halloween blog post, because that's not exactly an uplifting conversation starter, is it?
It always bothers me when someone says "I don't like small talk", because I'm usually using it to ingratiate myself to them in a way that's socially acceptable, so I don't want to broach difficult topics unless I know them to be mentally prepared for them. That's why 'small talk' exists in the first place, but fuck it—next time someone says to you "I don't like small talk", say to them "okay then, so how do you feel knowing that the heat death of the universe will render all human achievement ultimately pointless?"
That's some big, fucking talk for you, you self-important goose.

I think one of the reasons why I like to use that phrase "everything is burning" to think about this concept is because, whilst mildly unsettling, at least it is a poetic way of seeing it and it makes it slightly more aesthetic.
But, it is still a bitter pill, isn't it? I've said my piece about personal death, I don't want to die myself, so expanding that to a cosmic scale isn't really something I'm keen on. But I want to talk about it.

Why? Well, because I have actually changed my mind back to my childhood position. I think that, in the next four billion years, we need to find a way to expand beyond this rock. Why? Well, because it would be FUCKING COOL.

I know that doesn't sound like the most sensible argument, but trust me it is. When the universe is over, nobody will be around to deal with it. But, if we can avoid the conflagration of our sun exploding, that gives us much more opportunity to do cool shit, experience life for just that bit longer. It is literally my same position on death, in general - life is better than death, so we shouldn't let the inevitability of death spoil the meaning in your life.
I do still believe that the heat death of the universe will render all life pointless, but I believe that such pointlessness will be post-mortem, it needn't bleed through into the moments preceding it. We should keep it in mind, to keep humanity in perspective. I think it serves as a cosmic slap in the face to the human ego to remind us that we are fragile, fallible and flammable.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and remember that Everything is Burning, you and I included. That doesn't mean you stop, it means that you are guaranteed to go out in a blaze of glory. So, enjoy it while you can.

Phobia File: Death

I have trouble sleeping. This is for two reasons, but both of those reasons have a common cause. The first reason is that I struggle with my time management. The activity which I like to do the most is write; do research for writing; watch movies and videos that can inspire my writing, and (of course) read, all of which are sedentary activities. So, when I am not doing anything, my mind tends to want to wander towards one of these things. Worst of all, if I do get an idea I want to write it down right now so I don't forget it and lose that inspiration. Or, if I have some vague idea that I want to develop, then I will get lost into research, or start watching some show or series about a related concept or trope and lose hours. On more than one occasion I've begun working on a project, only to turn and see the damning, faint-blue glow of the sunrise and realize that I have failed to sleep again.

The second reason is that when I let my mind wander, if I don't occupy my mind, I have intrusive thoughts. I can manage them, but for the longest time, the most persistent and intrusive thought (which always struck me as I was lying in bed and trying to drift off to sleep) was always the same: You're going to die.
Invariably, this thought would cause me to panic, because I struggled to cope with it.

The Word of the Day is: THANATOPHOBIA

Thanatophobia /thənatə'fōbeeə/ n. An irrational or disproportionate fear of death, especially one's own.

Almost everyone is scared of dying to some degree. It's a natural fear, a self-preservation mechanism, because if we're scared to die then we're more likely to do what it takes to stay alive. So, if you're scared to die, there's nothing wrong with that, it's healthy. The issue is the method or degree of that fear, and I'm sorry to say that I tick both of those boxes.

I am haunted by the inevitability of time. More often than not, I fear that I am wasting my time. Since my time is finite, limited by my lifespan, I fear that I'm wasting my lifetime which ultimately means that I am wasting my life. This sometimes can drive me to be productive. That alone may not seem like a negative thing, after all I'm being productive, aren't I? Well, the issue is that because I hate being unproductive so much that I even hate sleeping.

I recognize that this hatred is not entirely rational, but it's how I feel so irrational or not, it's in my head. This is the reason why I struggle with time management and a sleep "schedule". I see sleep as nothing more than a burden.

But, if I am lying in bed, trying to fall asleep, I can't escape the fact that all I'm doing is waiting. Waiting to fall asleep, waiting to stop being conscious. Waiting is one of the least productive things that a person can "do" that isn't doing nothing. It is the postponement of productivity, the anticipation of activity...
And so, when I try to stop thinking and to let my mind 'wander' and drift peacefully off into oblivion, the consideration of being bored inevitably wanders into my mind. Unfortunately, boredom tends to trigger my own anxieties about wasting time, which will itself trigger my anxiety that I am wasting my life, and that I am dying.

This is not some irrational fear that I am currently being killed... although I did know a man whose heart stopped and he was later revived. Because his heart had stopped, he lost consciousness, so whilst he recovered the feeling of losing consciousness became a trigger for his PTSD. He seems to be doing better now, but PTSD can be a hell of a thing.

But when I have the fear that I am dying, it's more conceptual. Life always ends in death and so, being alive is the process of dying. When I'm active, at least I am doing something productive, I'm dying and I'm learning. I'm dying and I'm writing. I'm dying and I'm being a good friend. But when you take that activity away, all that is left is the dying... 

I have had several panic attacks in my life because I have been lying in bed trying to sleep only to be flooded with adrenaline by these intrusive thoughts that all I am is dying and will inevitably be dead, and so I jumped out of bed as my body compels me into fight or flight. 

Sometimes, I've fled my room into the dark of the house. Sometimes I've thrown things and punched walls. Sometimes, I've sat up and screamed, not because I was startled, but because I was flooded with such anxiety that I couldn't resolve the tension any other way but to cry out. My panic attacks tend to make me violent, because I know I'm not very fast, so I inevitably try to break things and throw things. But, I am literally incapable of outrunning or fighting time itself...
so these panic attacks makes me feel even worse, even more vulnerable and even more lost. I've crawled up into a ball and wept, simply because it's an irrational fear and not a physical threat that I can handle.

Then, of course, I'm usually too wired up on adrenaline to get back to sleep and laying down and trying to sleep only triggers my memory of the attack I just had. So, inevitably, I abandon sleep altogether and try reading or doing anything else until I fall unconscious, or just spend the whole day feeling tired. Which makes me even more unproductive, welcome to the vicious cycle of anxiety.

This is how my thanatophobia tends to manifest. But, I'm not alone in this. The clinical term for it is Death Anxiety, and whilst that can come in many forms, my particular form is Existential Death Anxiety.

It's more common than you would think, both because of shame, and also because sufferers often don't want to burden someone else with this inescapable knowledge and reality, and feel like if they talk to someone else, they might cause them to be just as badly afflicted. But, the thing is, this is ridiculous.

If someone does suffer from existential death anxiety, then they probably already do feel like this, so it's not going to make them any worse, since having someone who can commiserate and help them understand their feelings will make people feel better - we are social creatures, after all.
Also, whilst this feels like an inevitable reality, a cold, evil truth that no one can escape... not everyone feels like this at all. My favourite example, which I like to listen to occasionally, is Griffin McElroy's parody of existential anxiety that he once expressed during an episode of the podcast My Brother, My Brother, & Me.

When I first heard that, I thought he was belittling it, because he was saying the exact kinds of things that my intrusive thoughts would say to me. But, over time I've come to realize that the only difference between his comedic interpretation of existential anxiety, and the triggers to my own panic attacks... is attitude.
He is capable of thinking these exact thoughts, but he simply doesn't think it's worrying. Because it is an irrational fear, and having someone rationally reiterate "yeah, I know this stuff, that doesn't mean I worry about it" helped a lot.

And, most importantly, it made me realize that the stigma that made me never want to talk about this publicly was just my own bias. I feel more comfortable talking about this because I've come to realize that by keeping it secret, I only hurt myself and my mental health. So, if you don't understand why I feel the way I do, I hope this helped you to understand; but, if you do understand and suffer from this yourself... know that you're not alone. Also, I have some advice for you that helps me. I can't guarantee that it will help you, but I want to share.

As I've made it clear, all life does end with death, you can't escape that... but, and if you'll forgive the visceral nature of this metaphor (and if you can't, I have a post you can read about it), all eating ends with shitting. Eating is an aspect of the process of digestion, and digestion consumes all the material, it goes through your body, then is expelled. It's inevitable, that everything you eat will become shit. Even if your body processes the nutrients, those nutrients will eventually be absorbed, processed and excreted. This is also an inescapable fact. But, I still enjoy eating good food, and I don't worry that it's all going to turn to shit, because the fact of the matter is, it tastes good right now. And most importantly, if you're eating food and worrying about the fact that you will be shitting a day or more later... then you're not really enjoying your meal, are you? 

Focusing on the outcome is an aspect of anxiety. Anxiety is very "anti-now". I've mentioned this before, but anxiety tends to make one dwell in the mistakes of the past, or worry about the dark potential of the future, and not embrace the current moment. My anxiety has stretched to the furthest moment of my life, the very end, and dwells there, because it's the one thing I can't rationalize my way around, so it's an effective, intrusive thought.
Often I try to centre myself with an exercise to anchor myself in the moment, but because when I'm trying to sleep that moment is boring (i.e. a trigger), I prefer to counter it by thinking about tomorrow, because if I have plans for tomorrow, then the process of sleeping feels less like "waiting" and more "resting, to expel the fatigue that would otherwise slow me down tomorrow".

So, that's the irrational fear of death. Of course, if you're currently being chased or attacked, then that's a rational fear, you should probably do something about that. But, if you're not in immediate danger, you can focus on the life you're living. That's what helps me, I hope it helps you.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and until next time I still hate sleeping, but I sleep easier now that I can more easily manage the intrusive thoughts that used to keep me up at night.

The Meaning of Death

We've talked a lot about death already... which is to be expected, that is the theme of this year's Countdown after all. But, I want to talk for a moment about Life. See, I like the memento mori--I like people coming to terms with death--specifically because life is really cool. I like being alive and I think it is important to like life for what it is, and not to take it for granted.
I'm not some emo-core gothkid who is like "we're all preparing for the grave, man..." I recognize that my last post might have sounded like that to people who weren't paying attention, but I actually find that kind of attitude annoying.

Like, this is a pet peeve of mine, but I really hate it when people say "life's too short" not only because most people say it in this self-pitying woe-is-me-I-didn't-achieve-anything way, but it's also wrong. Life is literally the longest thing you will ever do, so it makes no sense to say that it's too short. This is before we get into the fact that when people say this, by nature of the fact that they're not dead, they don't actually know how long their life is because it doesn't have two distinct ends, and thus it doesn't have a measurable length, yet.
I'm probably the only person that cares about this, but my mind goes off on this little journey whenever someone says it. It's just like the phrase "bear in mind".

...okay, it's not just like that phrase, but whenever someone says the phrase bear in mind, whilst I know they mean it in the same sense as "ring-bearer" or "the right to bear arms", my punny "dad joke" brain can't help but imagine a grizzly bear going "rarrgh" and swiping its claws, and then I giggle to myself like an idiot because I literally have a "bear in (my) mind"; but people often use this phrase to refer to something that I need to pay attention to and remember, yet I am wholeheartedly not capable of bearing that in mind because I'm too busy thinking about a bear, like an idiot. And I am sorry if I have now poisoned your minds with this dumb joke, but it's what my head does every time. I swear, it's a virulent meme. Whatever you do DO NOT "Bear in Mind".

What in the actual blazing fuck was I talking about?

Oh, right, life. So, life... I'm a fan. Not everyone is, but they just haven't met an enthusiastic biologist before. I think it's pretty fascinating. But for some people, this isn't enough, they start thinking "okay, this is fun and all, but what does it all mean?"
Right. Yes. The Meaning of Life. And I don't dislike the question because it doesn't have an answer, it has an answer. I found it and I've actually answered it before in a post on this very blog if you're interested... you may not like the answer, though.
Because whilst "the meaning" has a lot of different meanings to a lot of people, most people (when asking about life's meaning) tend to use it to mean "the purpose, and therefore value". Or, to state it another way "What is life's purpose, and how does that purpose confer value onto life?"

To which I say, well: There isn't one.

That's a bit of a downer to people, but it's true, and I will use this blog post to explain why. But also, don't fret, I'll also (hopefully) explain why it's not as depressing as most people would believe.

First thing's first, I should introduce you to the Word of the Day. Yes, I know we're almost half-way through the blog post, but we're mixing things up this Countdown, and I insist that this word is important. The Word is: 'TELEOLOGY'

Teleology /tee-lee-ol-uh-jee/ n. Philosophy. 1. The doctrine that final causes exist. 2. The study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature. 3. Such design or purpose. 4. The belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature. 5. (in Vitalist Philosophy) The doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.

As you can see, it's all about causes and design and purpose. I first learned about teleology when I was looking into the Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe. Back when I was a much more evangelical atheist, the CTMU model was proposed as the best "Proof of God" written by the supposed "Smartest Man in America", a man with a purported IQ of 195 called Christopher Michael Langan. There is a whole digression about how IQ tests are biased, racist and ultimately flawed but it's not relevant as Mr Langan seems like a rather smart man. So, I checked out this CTMU. It was a clever construction, hard to parse, but I eventually cracked it...
Behind all the fancy philosophy and confuscation, the entirety of the model was balanced upon the fulcrum of teleology, which as we all know (having definitely read the definition above) teleology is the study of design & purpose in reality. The whole theory was based on it, even proposing a "telic principle" that the purpose and design must come from a being within this reality.
However, these are assumptions and they're very poor ones, because design and purpose are, by definition, subjective.

In order to have a purpose, a person must decide upon some goal, some "thing which is not done, which they believe ought be done". And in order to have design, a person must construct an object (or system, or concept) to fulfill such a particular purpose.
A rock has no design, and no inherent purpose, it exists because of the confluence of physics and chemistry that solidified certain materials together.
Of course, you can impose a purpose on a rock. If you find a particularly smooth rock, you can throw it to skim it across a lake, you (briefly) had a purpose for that rock. And if you want to build a strong building, you could design a mix of rocks and clay into a concrete to have particular qualities, for the purpose of building that building.
But, that would ultimately be your purpose. I think you could argue that certain rocks have purpose or design when we so choose, but that's just a semantic quibble, I argue that these purposes (and designs) are inherited, not inherent. Which is to say, it's a quality we give to a rock, not one we take from a rock. Because, if we remove the designer... that purpose goes away.

Just look at paleontology as an example. We dig up "pot sherds", and we try to look at their design to figure out the purpose that ancient peoples had with them. This helps us learn about ancient peoples and we study these things and put them on display. Now, (some of) these items were not made for display, at the very least they likely weren't made for the purposes of educating people about how your dead society once lived. We can even have a pretty good idea of what that purpose was, yet we don't continue to use pot sherds and ancient ruins for that purpose...
And why? That's not a rhetorical question, the answer is "because we don't want to", we have our own pots and stuff... a chamberpot which you crap in and empty out of a window, or even a clay pot for carrying water to the fireplace isn't a "thing which is not done, which we believe ought to be done". The purpose died with the designer.
But even if the designer lives on, that's still not "inherent", because just look at the marketplace. Farmers grow meat to feed people (or to make money by selling it to people who eat it, either/or) that's what they design different cuts of meat for, and people buy meat to eat it (usually, I mean, you can buy meat for whatever reason you want, just try to be hygienic, I'm not here to kinkshame). But, that doesn't mean that "being eaten" is an inherent purpose of meat, easily proven by the fact that vegetarians don't eat meat. They've decided that they don't agree with this purpose, and for them that purpose doesn't exist. But this is true even if you do eat meat, because even if you are a meat-eater (or omnivore) and believe that "meat should be eaten", whether for nutrition or flavour or whatever, that's a coincidence of purposes, not an example of purpose transcending an object. That's the beauty of design... if people share intent, then a well-designed product will not only provide potential for that but also by its very design help to make one's goals easier to accomplish. It's a design principle called "affordance", but I'm getting off topic. The point is that this exact kind of "coincidence of goals" is an example of a social construct, a subjective thing that appears objective because of consensus.

Now, whilst this may seem like an "atheistic" position, it's actually agnostic. Even if you believe in a creator that does not mean that their purpose is your purpose, even if you spell it with a capital "P". Even if they could, somehow, psychically share their intent, it is still your choice as to whether your goals coincide with theirs. Unless of course they use their magical power to force you to believe that... but even then, that's imposing their will upon an unwilling subject to enforce coinciding intent, not "creating" inherent purpose. But, that's getting into some kind of mind-control, evil god "speculative fiction" at that point, so let's move on.

But, of course, there is a much crueler answer... since we're talking about design, there is a heuristic first proposed by Stafford Beer, and its name is also its principle, that proposes an "objective" purpose: The Purpose of a System is What it Does.
In simplest terms, purpose is designer agnostic. You could think of this like "death of the author" for designers—Death of the Engineer, if you will—because the principle states that it is madness to claim that a system is "designed to do something that it fails to do".
For example, if someone claimed to have invented the freight rail network to "cure the common cold", then they definitely failed to do so, because it doesn't do that at all (if anything, it hinders it). However, some people propose that they created the railroad network to "allow people to travel great distances", but that's not really what it does either, because technically it only "allows people who can afford a train ticket to travel great distances". That is what it does, and so that's it's purpose.

So, let's look at life. What does life do "well", what does it do that nobody else can do... You may disagree, but I have a LOT of evidence to the contrary, that one thing that life does that no other system is capable of, and which it has done more than anything else, is Die.
Life is the only thing that can die, it's the one thing that, without fail, I can guarantee that every living thing will do. And I'm not just talking humans... insects, rats, vermin; animals, both prey and predator; fish, birds and bacteria. There are exponentially more dead things than living things, and even if you do other things with your life, and several people agree and help you to do it, can you honestly say that you (or any living person, or even any ideology) has achieved more of that than Life has, ultimately, achieved dead bodies?

So, if life does have a purpose, its gift to reality which would not exist without it, and the one thing it does better than anything else: It is Death.

Now, there's a reason that I front-loaded this post by saying that I like life. I don't agree with this purpose. However, you can't deny the reality that humans die.
...okay, you can, but that's what leads to religion in the first place.
But, people think that's the only alternative. They think the choices are between Religion and Nihilism. And I fully accept that what I'm proposing is a form of Nihilism, I genuinely believe that life is meaningless, pointless and purposeless.
Some people think that the best response to this is denial (religion, or some other form of self-deception); self-destruction, be that self-medication or self-harm in some form; or, they think that the best course of action is destruction, tearing down other people either as a form of Evangelical Nihilism, or simply radical selfishness... valuing their experience of pleasure over anything else.

I see all of these views as rather stupid.

I think Religion is stupid because it is wrong, and I value Truth. I think self-destruction is stupid because it causes suffering, and I value Happiness. I think Evangelical Nihilism is wrong, because it causes destruction and disunity, and I value Creativity and Community.

Admittedly, this is subjective, because it does come down to values, but as I think I've established already, all of this stuff is subjective. But, that's why it's awesome.
Objectively, life ends, and that sucks... but, subjectively, I won't ever experience my death, I will only experience my life. I don't like that my life is finite, but that doesn't mean that I like death.
Because that's the thing. Life may be Meaningless, but Death is Meaningless too. Why would I value being dead, over being alive? There's no inherent reason to do that, and I don't see the purpose of that.

Now, if you do... again, I strongly suggest you seek help. I genuinely believe that suicidality is a mental health issue that plagues young people, and it's only going to get worse without efforts against it. I am not suicidal, far from it, but I can understand how one can logically fall down an ideological rabbit-hole of believing that life is not "worth" living. If you're one of those people, I disagree, but as much as I can explain why you're wrong philosophically you should talk to a mental health professional, as that's more important than ideological debate.

Life is Meaningless... that doesn't mean you give up, it means you have to find your own. Good luck, I just hope you find yours before you run out of time.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and tomorrow, we're going to dive into a post that explains just one of the many reasons I don't want to die. Until then, I hope you found this post meaningful. I know I did.

Memento Mori

Good evening, mortals and morsels alike, and welcome once again to the Halloween Countdown. We will be dwelling in the darkness, contemplating corruption & perhaps even spreading a little spook as we count down the thirteen nights between now and Halloween. But, why ripe and ravenous little reader, do we begin our Halloween celebrations today? Well, I am your half-humble horror host, and today just so happens to be... my birthday. Sing With Me Now!:

Happy Birthday to You,
But Beware what You do...
Or this might be the Last Time...
That we Sing this to You!

Oh, but those words are somewhat apt, are they not? After all, for those of you just joining us, or who haven't been made aware... this is the Final Halloween Countdown, on this blog. Yes, it is a bit sad, I hear voices wailing from the basement as we speak. But, it was inevitable, after all. All things come to an end, eventually. We either stop while the going is good, or we drag on until we start to fester and rot. And since this is my THIRTEENTH Halloween Countdown, it just felt right.

Don't cry for me, I'll still be here. I have plans for stories and blog posts still to come. So, this blog will still be around... for a while anyway. As I said, it is inevitable. All things come to an end. Everything dies. One day, I too will die and this blog will end with me. It seems so apt that I always celebrate Halloween after my birthday, when I'm one year closer to death. Also, Halloween is all about Horror, and according to many psychologists and researchers, a lot of the most fundamental fears, not to mention the most common fears, ultimately come down to a fear of death and dying.
So, the Word of the Day, and final unifying theme for this Halloween Countdown has to be: "DEATH"

Death /deth/ n 1. The act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare: brain death. 2. An instance of this: Death in the family; Letters published after his death. 3. The state of being dead: To lie still in death. 4. extinction; destruction: It will mean the death of our hopes. 5. Manner of dying: A hero's death. 6. Capitalized The agent of death personified, usually represented as a man or a skeleton carrying a scythe. Compare: Grim Reaper. 7. Christian Science The false belief that life comes to an end. 8. Bloodshed or murder: Hitler was responsible for the death of millions. 9. A cause or occasion of death: You'll be the death of me yet! 10. Archaic Pestilence; plague. Compare: Black Death.

Yes, the Final Halloween Countdown had to be all about death, as the Countdown itself is dying, but it's much more than that. I will keep writing the blog, but eventually I will die and the blog along with it. Even if someone else took over, they too will die one day. But, even if I were replaced by some virtual A.I. ghost haunting the internet with a computer's interpretation of my writing, even if this blog kept going on for centuries... eventually you will die too. Nothing lasts forever.

It's not the most pleasant thought depending on your predilections. But, it's as inevitable as it is true. Everything dies. And I don't mean things change to become a ghost—I am a horror author and I adore the power of a ghost story, but the one thing people seem to find more horrifying than ghosts is the reality that ghosts don't exist, that when you die you will be dead and gone. Become by dust, by dust undone.
It can be a horrifying thought, and it's not practical to think about it all of the time, as it can lead to existential horror and anxiety. As much as I love the screaming, it can become exhausting after a while. On the other hand, or stump, some people hate considering it at all and prefer to think of it none of the time. When you see through my eyes, both ways of thinking are doomed.

Existential death anxiety, a preponderance with one's own undoing, can be quite disabling. But, at the same time, don't kid yourself, kid. You, the person reading this blog post, you are not immortal. You are a squishy machine made of meat and muck and mushy stuff and it will break down one day into a fetid, unpleasant puddle of organs and goo. For that reason, I adore the memento mori.
That is to say, a Reminder of Death; the Morbid Memento, the Last Item on Everyone's To-Do List. You shouldn't think about your death all of the time, but you shouldn't forget it completely either. Rather, you should think of it some of the time, and so I think it's appropriate and necessary to be occasionally reminded that you are going to die.

After all, your death defines your life. Not only does it define the time limit, but it also defines your life's meaning and can affect your life's purpose. If you don't believe me, just look at religions and the way its zealots pray upon the meek and the helpless; the harm, the hatred and the suffering all caused in the name of an eternal life. Religion not only avoids this fact of life, it actively denies its existence. Which is why I'd like to clarity, I don't think that death itself is all that "meaningful", I'm saying that the indirect effect it has on your life, by ending it, requires that in order to have a well-informed purpose and meaning in life, one must consider the variable of death.

I adore Halloween and Horror for its ability to remind us of our fragile, fatal existence, but even my beloved horror can shy away from the realities of death, with ghosts, ghouls and grave-dodging fiends of all kinds. But this year, we shall not blink in the face of oblivion.

Welcome to the Final Halloween Countdown. Are you ready for what's in store?

Beauty in the Eye of the Controller

I don't play a lot of videogames.

This is entirely because videogames are very expensive. But, I really like videogames, it's a fascinating medium for experiential storytelling and has the potential to engage the player in a world that they otherwise never could. That's really cool and so I would like to play more games...
So, about a year ago, I bought a Playstation 5. I bought it second-hand, and the controller definitely has some slight stick-drift. Thankfully it doesn't impact gameplay so much as precise cursor movements on some map screens, so whilst I'm looking to find a second controller it doesn't negatively impact gameplay.

But, I'm not here just to talk about a recent-ish purchase, or the games I play. Like I said, I don't play a lot of games. I own eleven game disks, and they're all second-hand. I got Spyro: Reignited Trilogy for $1 at a swap-meet, and even though I found it in a dusty bin and it had a cracked box, it works. It's simple and kinda childish, but still fun.

But, I'm not here just to talk to you about the games I've played. I'll say what they are for context, but I recently finished two games and I started playing a third, and something has been bothering me about all of them...
The Word of the Day is: 'CRUNCH'

Crunch /kruhnch/ v.t. 1. To crush with the teeth; chew with a crushing noise. 2. To crush or grind noisily. 3. To tighten or squeeze financially: The administration's policy seems to crunch the economy in order to combat inflation. ◊v.i. 4. To chew with a crushing sound. 5. To produce, or proceed with, a crushing noise. ◊n. 6. An act or sound of crunching. 7. A shortage or reduction of something needed or wanted: The energy crunch. 8. Distress or depressed conditions due to such a shortage or reduction: A budget crunch. 9. A critical or dangerous situation: When the crunch comes, just do your best.

So, for context, I finished playing Just Cause 3, and I also worked my way through Doom (2016). I'm not very good at either of these games because they both require shooting, and I'm terrible at it. I'm not really a fan of shooter games, since I do find it gross the way that we are gamifying war. I'm not opposed to violence in videogames, I just think it's kind of gross. Also, that's no excuse, I don't suck at shooting because I don't like it... I just suck at it.

Both of these were relatively fun. But, something I noticed in these games is that in both of them, moving very quickly is a key element of the gameplay. In Doom, standing still in the middle of a battle isn't a good idea (I learned that the hard way, even though I was trying to use a tactical scope to shoot from afar), and also it's a linear game, so you move from one level to the next. If you stop moving then you're probably stuck, and I can tell you from experience that being stuck looking for a particular keycard or doorway just isn't fun.
In Just Cause 3, not only should you move in combat, but more importantly it's an open world. Whilst you could jog from one area of the map to another, that would take literal hours. So, you're encouraged to hijack cars, parachute or (my favourite, and the best part of the game) ziplining into the air and using your wingsuit to glide like a bird.
In both of these games movement is fun, but I noticed that the maps in these games are very pretty.

For different reasons obviously, in Doom you're usually walking through high-tech mars bases; bloodstained warzones; corrupted facilities or Hell itself. I started noticing all of this because I got stuck at one point. Like I said, being stuck isn't fun, but I tried looking for a keycard all over the map and I found out that the walkway leading into the area was a grating that didn't touch the ground. So, I jumped down to check it out, and I got even more stuck. I clearly wasn't supposed to be there. There were some pipes and vents around, but there wasn't an easy way to jump back up. I considered killing my character to respawn, but eventually I crossed under the walkway, found a particularly wide edge and jumped up, over it and out.
But, when I got out, I was wondering "why is that there?" It wasn't a secret area... because those are usually clearly indicated on the map. I wouldn't have even noticed it if I hadn't taken a wrong turn and failed to find the keycard for the locked door. So, why put that there?
But once I had even asked that question, I couldn't help but wonder about that for everything aesthetic in the game.
For instance, in some levels, as you enter a combat area, there will be these sigils drawn on the floor. they're always decorated with candles and there's often blood or viscera strewn up the walls from whatever poor soul was sacrificed there. But, they're almost always in corridors that you are meant to either walk past, or more likely run past so you can attack an oncoming zombie. Why go to all this effort for a corridor? I'm not bothered that someone did a good job, but I can't help but wonder why you would spend so much time and effort on something that I, as the player, am supposed to ignore. These details are all over Doom. In facilities, the "greeblies" on the walls, all the different crates and stock, the random forklifts in certain rooms. In hell, the bones that the world seems to be built from, floating platforms with gigantic iron chains that seem to be imprisoning the very stone itself in chaos.

It's even worse in Just Cause 3, because that game is absolutely gorgeous. In it, you are fighting to free the archipelago of Medici from an oppressive, tyrannical, militant government. Don't get me wrong, I love how the islands look. Driving from one city to the next, or flying over the landscape, I was struck by the natural beauty of this oppressed land. I was glad to be a rebel trying to free my homeland from tyranny, as my character Rico Rodriguez is a Medici citizen himself.
But, it struck me that a lot of the gameplay involved going from one place on the map to another, which was usually around 5 kilometres away. The map even helpfully shows the relevant settlements and military bases with an outline... but it made me wonder, if these parts are important to gameplay, why is there so much of the stuff that isn't? Why do I have to drive five kilometres from one part of the island to another. I started listening to podcasts as I played, to pass the time whilst driving or flying across the nation. Sure I could have used the Fast Travel system, to simply skip over the travel, but if I had a chance to use my wingsuit, I wasn't going to pass up that opportunity. But that also rubs me the wrong way... a fast travel system.
The only reason you'd offer that is if you know that some people won't enjoy traveling across your open world. But (and I hate to burst anyone's bubble here), Medici is not a real place. Everything in it was created and devised by level designers.
I'm not even complaining that the land is big, the large space meant that I could use my wingsuit and that's clearly a big and fun part of gameplay. But, my issue is that every single part of the map is lovingly textured and coloured, you can count the individual bricks on every house.

I want to state upfront, I am not complaining that I had to go from one place to another, or that the maps were big, or that I like going fast. My issue is that because these worlds are fake, someone had to make all of this stuff. Someone had to design the texture, branches and foliage of the trees that I am flying 4 kilometres over. Someone had to build the raised platform that I am not supposed to notice, for fear of getting stuck. Someone had to form and colour the stairs that I always zipline over. Someone had to draw the sigils that I am spilling demon guts onto in another glory kill because I'm low on health.

At first, I thought maybe it was just the speed. Why are they putting so much detail into something that I am meant to fly or run past, but that's not even it... because after finishing these two games, I started playing Until Dawn. I have not heard that this is a "good game" (in fact it seemed kind of bad), but I call myself a horror author and this is meant to be a "horror game", and I found it secondhand for about $10, so I figured it was worth at least that...

But Until Dawn truly highlighted the issues I'm having because of the lackluster gameplay. See, Until Dawn has very simple game mechanics. Walk around, maybe interact with something. But it's made very clear that if you can interact with something, it will have an unmissable glint of light off of it. Or, on occasions when you talk to another character, you're bolted into a cutscene where you must choose how to respond... from one of very few options. I'm not here just to complain about the game, because the story works with these minimal mechanics (at least, so far). But, these basic mechanics are juxtaposed violently against the graphics which utilize photorealistic rendering of the faces of several prominent actors, who also motion-captured the movements of their characters. Also, the story is set on a remote, snow swept mountain getaway. As you walk through the pine trees and rocky trails, there's this constant fog-like breeze with snow lifted on the wind, and as you enter the enormous log vacation home, it's this gorgeous, detailed, two-storey villa... and all you do, is walk through it. I think it's made worse by the fact that, to show off the rendered actors, you have this third-person perspective that sets the camera far back. But even if it was first-person, why are there so many rooms in the villa without a single, interactable element? Why are there so many mountain trails, where there isn't even a fork in the road, it's just a long path you need to follow.

Maybe the realistic visuals and high-fidelity graphics are meant to make it "scarier" somehow, but I don't see how. Some of the scare set-pieces are jumpscares, and as they involve things literally jumping out at you, detail does not help in the fear. In two separate scenes, fake-out scares were ruined because I could identify the person, or animal, as non-threatening.
Regardless, my issue isn't that the game is bad (even though it is), my issue is that this high quality detail, gorgeous imagery—all of this artistry was being lost, because it wasn't helping to improve the way these games felt, or played. I'd argue that they don't even improve the way they "look", because in each of these, you only notice in moments when you aren't playing the game.

And all of this brought to mind a tweet that, the more I think about, the more it resonates with me.

@Jordan_Mallory
i want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and i'm not kidding

4:07 PM · Jun 29, 2020

That is Jordan's opinion and when I first read it, it was being quoted in a Jimquisition video by Stephanie Sterling and I agreed with it wholeheartedly. See, this was before I had bought my own console, so my main source of videogame content was Let's Plays and games journalism. And if you listen to any kind of games journalism, you'll learn about crunch. If you don't know what crunch is, it's very simple... it's overworking people, leading to stress, health issues and lack of fair compensation, and it is rife in the games industry game developers. The most common way this is done is through compulsory overtime. But even that can be caused by myriad issues, including firing staff to save money on payroll (thus, forcing a small team to overwork to accomplish the work of a bigger team); shortening game release deadlines to unmanageably short timeframes, or just a culture of workplace exploitation and stress.

However, at the time I merely saw this as "inside baseball". It is a genuine and serious problem that needs to be fixed in the games industry at the very least, if not outlawed for every industry on a grander, legislative level. I didn't think it would affect my enjoyment of the game. If anything, it should make me like the games more, right? If we're forcing people to suffer under unfair working conditions, surely it should be to the games benefit right?!

Even before I knew that Avalanche studios made a large number of staff redundant after releasing the award-winning Just Cause 3, the amount of effort being put into the physics of the golden wheat blowing in the breeze or the voice acted lines of propaganda from the speaker-towers that I am meant to blow up or all of the landscape underneath the stunt ramps that are designed for my vehicle to fly over, it made me uncomfortable. Heck, I haven't been able to find anything negative that came to id Software after Doom, or Supermassive Games after Until Dawn, but that's not the point. The point is that the game isn't helped by having so much detail on the surface of a battlefield that you never look at in detail, or photorealistic faces on a character you see from behind for 90% of the gameplay. None of this aesthetic is helping to improve the game, and in some ways might even be making it worse, but it feels like it exists because it is expected to be there. It's a "Triple A" game, after all, they need to be the prettiest, the biggest, and offer the most DLC and multiplayer content and make the game publishers rich.

Maybe I'm alone in this. Actually, I'm almost certainly alone in this because so many games seem to sell themselves on the quality of their graphics, but I feel uncomfortable seeing so much effort put into something that I am encouraged to ignore.

Some of the other games I own include the Uncharted game series (a trilogy compilation, and Thief's End on its own), and God of War (2018), so I'm pretty sure this won't be the last time that I feel like this when playing one of my games. But, all of these are secondhand games, they're not all that new, so I find myself hoping either that eventually games will have worse graphics, or that one of these game with amazing graphics will have them for a good reason, that I am supposed to pay attention to and not simply ignore.

After all, I play videogames to have fun. And knowing that someone was overworked and underpaid to texture the blades of grass that I'm crashing my helicopter into... yeah, that isn't fun to me. I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and until next time, I'm going to play more of Spyro, since I can appreciate the simple, cartoony graphics for what they are. Also, purple dragons are cool...

When Freedom is Outlawed, only Outlaws will be Free...

Good evening, my fellow crooks, whether you’ve been found guilty or simply haven’t been caught yet, everyone is welcome in this hive of outlaws. One and all, I invite you to celebrate, for tonight this first night of the Halloween Countdown! For, not only is this the start of yet another unstoppable timeline towards that most dreaded holiday of Halloween, but it’s also the anniversary of my thirty-third year of birth. Yes, of course, tonight it is my birthday:

Happy Birthday to you,
But beware what you do,
Or this might be the last time...
That we sing this to you.

Oh yes, I do enjoy these Halloween Countdowns, and this year I have decided upon an utterly unjustifiable theme. This year, I wanted to explore ideas regarding ‘CRIME’:

Crime /krahym/ n. 1. An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. 2. Criminal activity and those engaged in it: To fight crime. 3. The habitual or frequent commission of crimes: A life of crime. 4. Any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin. 5. A foolish, senseless, or shameful act: It's a crime to let that beautiful garden go to ruin.

I’ve been ruminating a lot on crime lately. Firstly and fore-mostly, because America is (at time of writing) once again planning the ritualistic excision of their president, and one of the persons they’re considering is an infamous psychotic criminal. But, one fool isn’t enough to dictate the theme for my Halloween Countdown. There’s also the crimes of the Australian government to consider, as well as the way the media discusses it. Lastly, on a personal note, I have been doing research into True Crime for a story I’m working on, and I’ve learned some fascinating things.
So, this countdown, I plan on talking about these crimes and the eerie phenomenon of people treating crime the same as they would sin; exploring how some crime enforcement does more harm than good; the strange psychology of the audience to true crime as well as some of the ways in which crime is used in fiction... all this and more I have in store for this year’s countdown – as there is space for some other ideas that are, at best, peripheral to the theme. Either way, I hope you’re looking forward to it as much as I am.

Oh... but before I leave you, one last thing.

In some ways it pains me to say this, but in others it is a relief. Whilst I do enjoy the research and writing of these Halloween Countdowns, I so often find myself stressing to accomplish them at the same time as my other duties that I have often wondered when it will come to an end. For that reason, I have another awful injustice in mind – I plan on ending the Halloween Countdown. But not this year. See, I started this tradition in 2013 (how fitting), and every year since then I have de-marked the 13 days between my birthday and Halloween by publishing a post count down those 13 days. However, this year, is my twelfth Halloween Countdown in so many years... it wouldn’t be right to stop there, would it?
It seems only fitting for the Final Halloween Countdown to be the Thirteenth.

So, if you do enjoy this series, I hope that you’ll enjoy the rest of this year and make sure you mark your calendars next year for the Final Halloween Countdown... I already have a theme in mind. But for now, for tonight, happy birthday to me...

The Divine Inhuman Form

Good evening, monsters and monstresses, today I must declare a revolution! A revolution, of the Earth around the sun, once again, completing yet another year on this insignificant, little planet.
But this is no mere anniversary of vows matrimonial, judicial or even funereal; rather this is yet again the anniversary of when I was first unleashed into this existence. Today is my birthday.

Happy Birthday to you,
but beware what you do...
or this might be the last time
that we sing this to you.

Oh, I do love that song... It's a sinister celebration of what most would consider a day of joy and light and life; a memento mori, a reminder of death. It may seem unusual to commemorate each year of one's life with a reminder of death, but I find it apt. Not only because my birthday is 13 days before halloween, allowing for this yearly round of the Halloween Countdown, but because I enjoy the odd, the horrific, the unseemly.

And this year is no different, I'm looking at things that most people don't do, or I should say most humans. This year, we've faced the inhumane quite a lot. Not only with developing technologies that supposedly think to themselves, but also questioning whether we should reconcile our dark past and dare I even mention, the war and bloodshed?
So, I find it fitting that the theme of this year's Halloween Countdown, and the Word of the Day is: INHUMAN

Inhuman /in'hyūmən/ adj. 1. Lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal: An inhuman master. 2. Not suited for human beings. 3. Not human.

We can face unthinking monsters, man's inhumanity to man, and perhaps even those things which exceed human ability, or understanding. Although, admittedly, I have been thinking a lot about artficial intelligence and the horrors of the mind-like machine. Can blood and flesh ever compete with ones and zeroes? I want to find out.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd and I hope you'll join me as we explore humanity's dark opposition, found both within and without ourselves.
Until Next Time, why not join me for a piece of birthday cake. I promise you, I didn't poison it this time...

Skepticism 102: How to Argue Wrong

You don't know how to argue properly.

That's not just directed at you, but also most people you know... most people you don't know, and even me. It's a fundamental flaw of humanity that we tend not to know how to present a convincing argument. The reason why, well, I covered that in Part 1 of this retrospectively titled Student Skeptic series, please read that if you haven't, as it is a prerequisite reading for this continuing lesson.

Now, I recognize that "argument" is a bit of a loaded word, since an argument can be a reasonable presentation of ideas... and it can also be a shouting match between two people. I looked up the meaning in the dictionary, and apparently this has always been the case. Whilst "argue" comes from the Latin "arguere" meaning the act of proving, reasoning or (literally) illuminating, it could also be used to mean blaming, indicting or accusing, and one dictionary claimed it was frequentatively used to mean babble or chatter. So, it's always had this antagonistic, perhaps even dismissive aspect.
That could be because the word is flawed, or it could be indicative of just how poor humans are at arguing that the definition of "presenting evidence" is tainted with accusation, but that's pure speculation on my part, I'm not an etymologist...

It's part of the reason why, I don't actually like the word "argument", I prefer "debate", since debate is a formal, public discussion of a question or subject, so as to discuss opposing views. Even an unstructured debate is, in principle at least, more open to opposing views. But, it's flawed, since debates are usually an open forum... so, for the sake of clarity, let's call a spade a spade, and I'll be using the word "argument" for any form of disagreement, be it debate or debacle.

See, the fundamental flaw with arguing is two-fold. Firstly, when we argue we tend to rely on things which are, to put it lightly, completely irrelevant. Our mood at the time, our flawed understanding, the status of ourselves or our opponents. Human social interaction is fraught with extraneous details. This is a beautiful thing, the many layers of empathy, experience, expression and emotion... but when it comes to matters of fact and basis in reality, truth can get lost in the shuffle.
If you want to argue why a particular position is right, or true, you really ought to focus on the proven facts of the case at hand.
Secondly, arguing is fundamentally flawed because... well, people are convinced by bad arguments. As I said, human social interaction is multi-faceted, and although it makes no sense to fall for an argument because someone says "Of course the Moon is made of cheese, what are you, stupid?", but humans can be nonsensical sometimes.

So, I think that's the first thing you need to understand with this lesson. Whilst I am here to teach you about the flaws in argument, so that you can have a better means of identifying truth, that doesn't mean you're going to become some irrefutable debatant. We're not here to convince the unwashed masses... I'm here to teach you how to be less wrong, and that means teaching you not only how to present your position, but also how to be receptive when someone else presents a better position.
Yes, I recognize I'm basically teaching you how to argue with yourself, but it's a useful skill when you're trying to find out what is most likely true, and what is most likely false.

Now, I find that the best way to teach you how to argue well is to show you how not to argue, and go from there. First thing first, when making your case, you should try to avoid fallacy. What is Fallacy? Well, I'm glad you asked because The Word of the Day is: FALLACY

Fallacy /falləsee/ n. 1. A deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. A misleading or unsound argument. 3. Deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness. 4. Logic. Any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. 5. Obsolete. Deception.

Since we're talking about skepticism and argumentation, the most relevant of these definitions is "4.", the definition in regards to logic. That said, the main definitions are also accurate—as all fallacy is misleading, deceptive or false; it's ultimately a failure of reason.
There are many ways to reason incorrectly, but for ease of understanding, many of them have actually been identified and named. The following list is intended to be comprehensive, and if you see where it is lacking, please let me know, but this list may be incomplete. Many fallacies are known by their Latin names, because philosophers are nerds, but I will list them by their English name...

A COMPREHENSIVE* LIST OF FALLACIES

Anecdotal Evidence: trying to use a personal or isolated event as proof for a general or widespread claim.
(Latin: "mea historia"; also known as "unscientific evidence" or a "nonrepresentative sample")

Appeal to Ambiguity: using words with unclear or indefinite meanings to try to prove one's claim.
(Latin: "argumentum ad ambiguitas" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of imprecise language, but includes more specific instances, such as: Amphiboly [or Syntactic Ambiguity], Continuum Fallacy [or Fallacy of the Beard, related: Loki's Wager], Definist Fallacy, Equivocation [or Lying by Omission], Etymological Fallacy, Insinuation [or Innuendo], Intensional Fallacy, Misleading Accent [Latin: "accentus"], Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy [or Debate and Switch], Polysemy, Principle of Explosion [Latin: "ex falso quodlibet"] & Reification [or Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness] - see also Special Pleading)

Appeal to Authority: claiming that the celebrity or intellect of a claimant alone is enough to substantiate a claim.
(Latin: "argumentum ad auctoritum" or "argumentum ad verecundium"; also known as "argument from authority" or "false attribution"; related to the "courtier's reply")

Appeal to Character: attacking an opponent's character or personal traits, as proof against their claims.
(Latin: "argumentum ad hominem"; also known as a "personal attack" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of character denigration, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to Motive, Poisoning the Well, Tone Policing & the Traitorous Critic Fallacy [Latin: "ergo decedo"] - see also Genetic Fallacy)

Appeal to Commitment: belief that a course of action will lead to positive outcomes because the proponent has spent a significant amount of effort to achieve it.
(Latin: "argumentum ad irrecuperabili"; also known as a "sunk cost fallacy" - see also Appeal to Nature)

Appeal to Emotion: trying to convince through feeling, instead of a valid argumentation.
(Latin: "argumentum ad adfectum" or "argumentum ad passiones" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of emotional reasoning, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to Anxiety [or Think of the Children], Appeal to Flattery, Appeal to Guilt , Appeal to Hope [or Wishful Thinking], Appeal to Pity [or the Galileo Argument], Appeal to Rage [or Appeal to Justice] & Appeal to Spite -)

Appeal to Frustration: presenting several claims or comments, overwhelming one's opponent, rather than allowing them to focus on a single debate topic.
(Latin: "argumentum ad nauseum"; also known as "filibuster" or the "gish gallop")

Appeal to Hypocrisy: responding to criticism by claiming one's opponent is also guilty.
(Latin: "tu quoque"; also known as "whataboutism" or the "you too defence")

Appeal to Incredulity: claiming a claim is wrong because it is difficult for you to understand.
(Latin: "argumentum ad incredulitas"; also known as "argument from ignorance", "appeal to common sense", the "divine fallacy", the "moralistic fallacy" or the "psychologist's fallacy")

Appeal to Moderation: assuming that a compromise between opposing viewpoints is the most valid or fair.
(Latin: "argumentum ad moderatio"; also known as "false compromise" or "fallacy of the mean". )

Appeal to Nature: arguing that something is good, ideal, just, true or valid because it is natural.
(Latin: "argumentum ad naturam"; also known as "look at the trees")

Appeal to Popularity: claiming something is true, or valid, because it is common, popular or widespread.
(Latin: "argumentum ad populum"; also known as "bandwagon fallacy" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of preferential popularity, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to Commonality [Latin "ad numeram"], Appeal to Novelty [Latin: "ad novitam"], Appeal to Tradition [Latin: "ad antiquitatem"] & Chronological Snobbery)

Appeal to Possibility: Claiming that something is probable, because it is possible.
(Latin: "possibiliter ergo probabiliter"; also known as "appeal to probability" - see also Slippery Slope)

Appeal to Purity: claiming that a valid criticism only applies to invalid forms of one's claim. (Latin: "argumentum ad puritas"; also known as "no true scotsman" - see also Special Pleading)

Appeal to Rationality: presuming that any claims or conclusions drawn from logic, reason and science are superior to those involving emotion or subjective experience.
(Latin: "argumentum ad empirica"; also known as "quantitative fallacy"; related to "ludic fallacy" - see also Incomplete Evidence)

Appeal to Repetition: repeating the same claim over and over, wearing down an opponent's patience or stamina, rather than logic.
(Latin: "argumentum ad infinitum"; also known as "going in circles" or "proof by assertion" - see also Appeal to Incredulity)

Appeal to Ridicule: asserting that because a claim is counter-intuitive, unusual or humorous, it is invalid.
(Latin: "argumentum ad absurdo" or "argumentum ad lapidum"; also known as "appeal to mockery", "appeal to the stone" or "the horse laugh")

Appeal to Violence: threatening harm to your opponent, to convince them to your claims, rather than logic.
(Latin: "argumentum ad baculum"; also known as "appeal to force" or "argument from the stick")

Bare Assertion: a claim presented without support, evidence or reason; or an opinion expressed as though it were a fact.
(Latin: "ipse dixit")

Begging the Question: a claim whose premises assert the conclusion, rather than support it.
(Latin: "petitio principii"; also known as "assuming the conclusion"; related to "Kafkatrapping" - see also Circular Reasoning)

Burden of Disproof: asserting that an unsubstantiated claim is true, until it has been disproven.
(Latin: "onus probandi"; also known as "russell's teapot" or "shifting the burden of proof")

Causal Fallacy: asserting or assuming the cause for an effect, without proof of causality.
(Latin: "non causa pro causa" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of causal misattribution, but includes more specific instances, such as: Causal Reductionism [or Fallacy of the Single Cause], Gambler's Fallacy [or the Monte Carlo Problem], Magical Thinking, One-Way Causality [or Ignoring Bidirectional Causation], Regression Fallacy [or the Historical Fallacy] Reverse Causality [or Wrong Direction], Spurious Correlation [Latin: "post hoc ergo propter hoc"] & Third-Cause Fallacy [or Ignoring a Common Cause])

Circular Reasoning: making a claim which includes its unproven conclusion within its own premise.
(Latin: "circulus in probandi"; also known as a "round argument")

Composition Fallacy: claiming that a quality of one part must be equally shared by the whole.
(Latin: "totum pro parte" or "modo hoc"; also known as "false conjunction" or the "package-deal fallacy" - see also Division Fallacy)

Division Fallacy: claiming that a quality of the whole must be equally shared by one part.
(Latin: "pars pro toto"; also known as "ecological fallacy" - see also Composition Fallacy)

Fallacy Fallacy: assuming that a claim is wrong because it's claimant used a fallacy.
(Latin: "argumentum ad logicam"; also known as "argument from fallacy" - see also Genetic Fallacy)

False Dichotomy: claiming that just two (or very few) options exist, ignoring other, valid options.
(Latin: "falsus dilemma"; also known as "black-and-white thinking", the "nirvana fallacy" or the "perfect solution fallacy"; related to "false analogy"; may be related to the "Continuum Fallacy")

Formal Fallacy: When the conclusion of a claim does not logically follow from the premises.
(Latin: "non sequitur" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of illogical structure, but includes more specific instances, such as: Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent, Affirming a Disjunct, Denying a Conjunct, Fallacy of Exclusive Premises, Fallacy of Four Terms, Fallacy of Necessity, Illicit Commutativity, Illicit Major, Illicit Minor, Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises, Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises & Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle)

Genetic Fallacy: assuming that a claim is wrong because of the nature of its origins, motive, or claimant.
(Latin: "argumentum ab originis"; also known as "association fallacy", "guilt by association" or "honour by association" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of categorical dismissal, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to the Purse [Latin: "argumentum ad crumenam"], Bulverism [or Psychogenetic Fallacy], False Equivalence [or Comparing Apples and Oranges] & Playing the Nazi Card [Latin: "reductio ad hitlerum"])

Incomplete Evidence: presenting data that supports one's claim, whilst ignoring data which disputes it.
(Latin: "malum specimen"; also known as "cherry-picking", "base rate neglect", "false-positive paradox", "hasty generalization", "incomplete comparison", "prosecutor's fallacy", "proving too much", the "quantitative fallacy", "suppressed evidence" or the "texas sharpshooter fallacy" - see also Special Pleading)

Irrelevant Conclusion: presenting a counter-claim that is valid and logically sound, but irrelevant to the proponent's claims.
(Latin: "ignoratio elenchi"; also known as "missing the point" or a "red herring" - see also Strawman Argument)

Loaded Question: asking a question which has assumption or bias implicit in its phrasing, or a question which outright makes two claims, whilst purporting to make one.
(Latin: "plurium interrogationum" or "ducens inquisitum"; also known as "biased question", the "conjunction fallacy" [or the "Linda problem"] or a "double-barrelled question")

Slippery Slope: claiming that a harmless/neutral position is invalid, as it might lead to something worse.
(Latin: "ignota consequentia"; also known as "appeal to consequences"; related to "jumping to conclusions")

Special Pleading: dismissing valid criticism by claiming one's position is uniquely immune to it.
(Latin: "argumentum ad immunitas"; also known as "double-standard", "nirvana fallacy", "nut-picking", "shifting the goalposts" or "survivorship bias")

Strawman Argument: misrepresenting an opponent's position as a weaker claim instead, so it's easier to dismiss.
(Latin: "argumentum ad effigia" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of claim amelioration, but includes more specific instances, such as: Persuasive Definition & Quoting Out-of-Context [or Quote Mining, also a Contextotomy])

As you can see, there are dozens of fallacies, and they are all fallacious in their own particular ways. When arguing logically, or trying to understand the truth of a claim, you must avoid using these if you wish to have a valid argument.
Now, this alone does not guarantee that a statement is false - there is after all the "Fallacy Fallacy", just because an argument is unsound doesn't mean the statement being made is wrong:
     "Of course the Earth isn't flat, what are you, stupid?" (appeal to character)
     "It's a bad idea to run with scissors, because Mummy told me so." (appeal to authority)
     "If you keep calling homosexuals 'unnatural', I'll punch you in the face." (appeal to violence)
These claims here are all accurate... but the arguments being used to prove them (or, silence dissent) aren't truly reasonable. That doesn't mean these claims are false — far from it — but it means the arguments have failed, and that's an important distinction.

If you avoid these fallacies, that should greatly improve your ability to reason, and argue your position... but that said, how do you argue well?
You might want to look into propositional calculus, and logical axioms, but at the end of the day, there's only two good ways to argue:

1. If you're arguing Fact (truth, reality and the way things are — describing how things are), then you must present evidence that what you're claiming comports with reality.
2. If you're arguing Opinion (values, morals or things you prefer — prescribing how you believe things should be), then you should establish some common belief, opinion, want or need between you and your opponent (or the target of your opinion; be that an individual, a community, or humanity as a whole), and from there, use exemplary evidence to convince others of your preference.
   

So, evidence... yeah, that's kind of it. There's also reason and logic, and when you're arguing prescriptively, it gets more complicated and requires a better understanding of logic... but it's still all about facts and proveable concepts.

In a way, it's surprising that it's so easy, since all you need to do is stop wasting time with the other stuff, but that's also what makes it complicated. Human beings are biased, emotional, messy things... I think I've said that three times now, but it's true. For a lot of us, we've already been convinced of things because of fallacy. Just think about the number of things that teachers, parents and peers taught you, and their reason was "if you don't, you'll be punished" or "do it because I told you to" or "do it, come on, we're all doing it"...
It is true, to err is human, and that is especially true of reason. Humans don't know how to argue properly. And even when you do, you may find yourself unable to convince others.

But, that's why argument and debate isn't really the point of this post... if you want to use this to engage in argument in an open forum, I whole-heartedly support you (Good Luck!). But, as far as I'm concerned, an understanding of fallacy is a necessary element of introspection, self-skepticism and personal truth-seeking.
It sounds silly, but I want you to argue with yourself, to question your own beliefs, and investigate whether they are built on a foundation of reason, fact and logic... or one of these many fallacies.

Informal fallacy is a part of human social interaction, we are irrational beings, but if you start with yourself, and develop your own beliefs, then you are able to step back into informal debate and argument, and be able to support your own beliefs.
I occasionally argue with others, philosophically, politically, morally, but my goal is never to prove anyone else wrong (people tend to get offended when you tell them they're wrong), rather, my goal is to convince myself of the other person's beliefs. If I fail, I explain to the opponent why I'm still skeptical, and present my own counter-points, based on my reason.
I don't try to prove anyone else wrong, I try to prove me wrong, and if I can't, I explain why - because I'm a skeptic, and I want to give other claims their best chance of convincing me. I don't point out fallacies as a "gotcha" to try to shut down debate... I point them out to explain "you can't convince me without reason, please provide a better argument".

See ultimately, that's the most important part of understanding argumentation - argument is fraught with peril, because of how complicated it is, but the worst possible way to argue is by trying to prove anyone else wrong. You'll never convince anyone else by isolating their wrength and pointing it out to them. To most people, pointing out where they're wrong is basically saying "Look, this is how stupid you are!", and as I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, most people aren't ready to accept that they're stupid — heck, I've been a skeptic for years, and I struggle to admit when I'm wrong — so instead, I want to focus on self-reflection, because at least then there's more room for rational debate.

If you're reading this, hoping to find a way to prove your opponent wrong... you've already failed.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and let me know if you've ever come across one of these fallacies "in the wild" - I'm sure you have, and having a list as "comprehensive" as this will hopefully make you realize just how common they are. Until Next Time, I'm going to go argue with myself about what I'm going to post tomorrow...

Going Down in Flames

 Welcome back, my mortal morsels, to the annual Halloween Countdown, where we are preparing for a celebration of the dead, the dangerous, the dreary and the delectably dark. Once again, we find ourselves thirteen nights from Halloween. And in case you've failed to remember... the reason why we begin our countdown /now/ is because today is my birthday

Happy Birthday to you... but Beware what you do...
Or this might be the last time, That we sing this to you.

I struggled to find a theme for this year's Halloween Countdown - some guiding principle behind which to power the engine that is this macabre metric. But, in the absence of my success, I had an epiphany. If there's one thing that has defined this year - perhaps even the last few years on this miserable, little planet - it is failure.

The Word of the Day is: FAIL

Fail /fayl/ v.i. 1. To fall short or be wanting in action, detail, or result. 2. To be insufficient or absent: Our supplies may fail. 3. To fall off; dwindle. ♦v.t. 4. To neglect to perform: Despite her promise, she failed to help. 5. To prove of no use or help to: Words fail me. 6. To take (an examination, etc.) without passing: He failed Maths this year. 7. To declare (a person) unsuccessful in a test, course of study, etc.: The teacher failed him in class. ♦n. 8. Without fail, for certain; with certainty.

You Have all Failed.

When it comes to handling the plague, we all had choices to make, to decide how many would die. At best, three thousand (~300,000) people would die; but, if we completely failed to act, then over one hundred and fifty million (~150,000,000) people would die.
At time of writing, just over six million, five-hundred thousand (6,500,000) people have died. Now, I'm no mathematician - I'm not even a mathy-mortician - but six and a half million is a lot more deaths than three-hundred thousand. And the numbers are still, slowly but surely, rising...

When it comes to the end of the world as we know it, we are running out of time. The boffins have set a 2030 deadline to prevent the global climate from rising 2°C or more... but these numbers betray a much darker truth.
A rise of one degree will change our climate for the worse, and currently we've changed the global climate by 1.2°C (2.2°F); and, as anyone with eyes and skin can attest, it already has. The climate has become more volatile over the last few years. But, most people know this - the response is palliative, not preventative - but now even the experts are saying that their deadline was optimistic, and it may already be too late...

When it comes to freedom, safety and education we are regressing. Nazis and bigots of the world were given the reins for far too long in recent years, leading to record highs of human rights abuses in recent years. Not only this, but it's lead to distrust, paranoia and conflict amongst the rest of the human cattle.

In the face of these fundamental, human failures you could be crushed under the weight of your own incompetency, allow yourself to be destroyed by your own delicious deficiencies.
Or, you could step back, stand above, look down at the pitiful peasantry, and celebrate their inadequacies. There's no turning back now, we're haemorrhaging out vital fluids and there's no putting the blood back in this dying body. So, let's watch it die, and autopsy the remains... and as I always say, if you're going to cut into someone, you might as well have a smile on your face while you're doing it.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and in the following nights, I'm going to explore some of our most damning, devastating failures, and everything that comes with it. Until then, if you're going to fail, you might as well go down in flames.

My Need/Hate Relationship with Sleep

I have seen, in certain circles of culture, that people seem to love going to bed. This seems to be due to either a general nostalgia, or desire for comfort, to wrap up in blankets, which has mental health vibes of self-care, since sleep is good for the mind; there's also some kind of lazy positivity that is in part self-aware and self-deprecating, but in other parts defeatist and self-critical, since sleep is akin to being lazy; or, in some sad cases, a kind of "doomer", "pseudo-cidal" disaffected apathy that you see in mid- & post-teenaged hakikkomori types, since it's coveting the depression aesthetic & the idea that being awake, or alive, is "lame". But I don't see why. If anything, I wish I could always stay awake. The Word of the Day is: 'INSOMNIA'

Insomnia /in'somneeə/ n. Inability to obtain sufficient sleep, especially when chronic; difficulty in falling or staying asleep; sleeplessness.

So, there's a broad spectrum of people that seem to "enjoy" sleep. Whilst I understand these mindsets, I can never truly empathize with them because I honestly Hate sleep. That may be a little controversial, since even those who don't prefer sleep, often like sleep, at times. It's meant to be comfortable, restful and peaceful. But personally? No, I hate it. I hate every single unconscious second of it. I hate that it intrudes on my waking life in the form of tiredness; I hate that it dictates my schedule & I absolutely hate that I have to spend a third of my life in this incoherent, thoughtless void.
And yes, I say "thoughtless void" because I don't seem to dream very much. Now, full disclosure, this may in part be because I take anti-anxiety medication, which has been known to make dreams less frequent or common, so that may be the reason why I consider most sleep a dark void. Also, from what I've read, dreams are easier to recall if you put in the effort, and as I am disinterested in the personal experience of sleep and dreams, I don't do that - so that might be why I don't dream very often. But, I still don't like sleep, whether I dream or not.
Even when I dream, I still hate it because, due to the inactive parts of my brain, I can't tell what is and isn't real. So, I end up either believing nonsense until I come to my senses after I wake up, or I waste an immeasurable amount of time trying to make sense of a senseless world - and that's even if we ignore nightmares.

See, even when it's an "enjoyable" dream, I still don't like it. For example, I occasionally have dreams where I fly. Who doesn't want to fly, right? I mean, whenever I dream that I fly, I have to flap my arms... that's kind of annoying, and I don't know why my brain insists on flying like a bird instead of superman, but that's beside the point... when I dream, sometimes I can fly, and sure, that's fun. But, guess what happens every time I wake up? I excitedly throw off the covers, ready to go tell everyone about this amazing discovery. But, as the rest of my brain wakes up, I realize that I can't actually fly, and that it was all just a lie my brain made up, and I'm disappointed. This happens every time. Because to me, the experience of flying isn't as much fun as being able to let everyone else try it too.
Or hey, what about sex dreams? They're good fun, right? Well, again, no. Firstly, it's not as good as the real thing, since I'm not feeling everything; secondly, it often uses people I know, and that can make me feel awkward & thirdly, it's called a "wet dream" for a reason...
If it's something impossible, then I don't want to do it because it's not something I can enjoy when fully conscious, and if it's something that is possible, then I'd rather do it in real life.
The worst part is, I have heard stories about people who are inspired by dreams - even artists, poets or writers who find inspiration for their art, writing or stories from dreams. Well, maybe I'm just unlucky, but my dreams never have a coherent plot. My dreams are always nonsensical. There's not even elements that I can use, because they often rely on some surreal context which is impossible to replicate. So, no, none of my dreams are inspiring enough to even write stories from. So, my point is, I hate sleep and I hate dreams.

But I can already here some people saying "well, what about comfort? Don't you enjoy lying down in bed, and getting all snuggled up in blankets when you sleep?"
NO! Look, I am not a monster, I enjoy a nice snuggly blanket and I enjoy being warm... but I hate that I have to do it for sleep. Think about it this way: if you enjoy the sensation of being wrapped up in your blanket, then when you fall asleep you lose that sensation as you lose consciousness and your paralyzed body becomes numb to this world. For me, I like getting snuggled up in a blanket to watch a movie on the couch, or to read a book. Then I get to enjoy the comfort. But your body doesn't want that comfort for you, it wants it for your brain to go into standby mode without your body being exposed to the elements.
And people might be saying "Yes, but don't you like getting a good night's rest?"
But don't you see? You've fallen into the trap - the only reason we feel the need to rest for an entire night is because sleep overcomes us with tiredness. I would much prefer if I didn't get tired at all. Now, I know that's not realistic, we are using energy and it needs to be replenished - but, what if instead of losing consciousness, we just... rested? Y'know, like you usually do after a lot of work? I prefer to lie down and daydream than let sleep take over - since at least when I daydream, I'm still in control, and I'm thinking about something that's real.
Y'know, there was an episode of American Dad that is my ultimate fantasy. I don't care about the plot or the b-story, but in an episode called "Stan Time", the C.I.A. reveals that they invented a pill which eliminates the need for sleep. It recuperates anyone who takes it, with all the energy needed for a 24-hour period. Doesn't that sound like bliss? A pill that removes the need for sleep... I would kill for something like that. Whilst I reference American Dad, I'm sure some others have thought of the concept as well because it's a beautiful idea - and that's what would make me truly happy: benign insomnia.

At first, I used to say that I have a love/hate relationship with sleep. Because I don't really like it, but I do get tired a lot, and so I sleep in sometimes. But, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this isn't some compromise between sleep and myself - it's an abusive relationship. I hate that I have to sleep, but sleep forces me to feel tired, then lose consciousness. If I try to fight back, and stay awake, like I truly want to, then sleep punishes me by making me even more tired, and then intruding on the rest of my day. The fact of the matter is, I like being awake because I like being alive. I like doing things, seeing things, experiencing this reality... but sleep takes that away from me - it takes a whole third of my life away from me. And if I try to leave it behind, then the abusive relationship turns deadly, and sleep threatens to kill me if I don't get enough sleep.

I chose an abusive relationship metaphor, but you could just as easily use an addiction metaphor - one that kills you with withdrawal symptoms. But, at the end of the day, I just don't want to go to sleep. I wish I could stay awake, but I can't. So, I am trapped in this cycle of falling asleep, and waking up, only to need to fall asleep again.

I'm not scared of sleep, I just find it ceaselessly annoying and frustrating, but it only takes the slightest tweak to make this whole situation horrifying... this kafkaesque nightmare of being trapped in a body that doesn't function as I had hoped. But, that is taking it to the extreme. Like I said, I'm not scared of falling asleep, I just hate it - I'm not somnnophobic, but I am a sleep bigot. And I'm not sure exactly what I was hoping to achieve with this post, except to say:
     "My name is Matt, and I hate sleep. And if you hate it too, well, you're not alone..."

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and Until Next time, I'll see you again in the waking world.