Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[smcder]

It's like we've reached this point where science has to either dance right, or left. There's no between as one would expect to find in a natural progressive arrangement

@smcder
First off, thanks for rolling with the zany nature of my comments in the thread so far. I mean my expressed gratitude to you, for your alternate intelligent perspectives on consciousness and Fortean considerations here in the most emphatic sense. It's just that Ufology (our Ufology in this discussion/thread originator) and I have had a running science vs. mysticism debate over the last 3-6 months in terms of many a dynamic conversation as we wrestle with bettering our mutual favorite pet understandings hypothetically. Namely: UFOs.

In the end of each energetic exchange, at least in my mind, it's almost always a combination of both that wins out and seems to further a balanced perspective the most. I have never encountered an instance where in effect I didn't come away knowing something new, and sometimes completely re-evaluating concepts that I did not realize prior I had yet to fully grasp.

In terms of a "field" proper with respect to consciousness, I don't pretend to have a working mathematically represented model at this point in the slightest. I do have many a mental construct that can be personally deconstructed far quicker than the time typically required to hypothetically consider and fit such alternate cognitive adaptations to a composite progressive model that crudely represents the interactions of physicality and information. The latter most process being what I define essentially as consciousness.

The notion of consciousness equating to a field includes us achieving sentience by establishing reference within it at birth. Sentience initializes as a marker (point of reference) in the field of consciousness. As we development physically and mature in cognitive process as a result, our interpretation of that point of reference sophisticates and adapts according to environmental context.

In my best guestimation, consciousness doesn't create reality. It is however what provides the human environmental perception facility to conjoin parallel information contained in our environment, informational (virtual particles) with physicality (observable atomic structure) relative to the unity of our independent willful human experience. Consciousness exists as a comprehensive informational whole, prior to us achieving sentience at physical birth. It also continues post the termination of our signifying point of reference in the field of consciousness when we physically die.

Apologies ahead of time here for the limited time postings today. Wasn't able to be as attentive as was the case a day prior.

ouch! Speak English man!! ;-) lol

No worries, my dad talks a lot like you, so I've had practice. I often tell folks to get out of their left hemisphere . . . have you ever come across a book called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" or Ian McGilChrist's "The Master and His Emissary"? - both are about how the left hemisphere hijacks the right, how and why and what you can do about it . . .

Jokes, falling in love - a kinesthetic sense of philosophic problems - I often can "feel" what I want to say - but can't get it into words - there is too much space between them . . . with you and UFOlogy both I have a sense of circular logic, of redefining terms, of description instead of explanation . . .

(insert commercial break here)

Part II: We have these top level words: matter (particles/waves), energy, fields - then consciousness, awareness, intention, meaning - these seem to be "non-overlapping magesteria" (Gould) but two fields about which we know a lot, in very different ways, we can mathematically describe the first and have tools to manipulate them, we can objectively examine them - we can't so much the second, because we experience them (but it's also what we use to be objective, we use the subjective to be objective - but the Western Esoteric tradition says we can manipulate these too (although that might be an illusion) - but whatever, getting one defined in terms of the other constitutes a "hard problem" - we've been discussing the hard problem of consciousness, but there is an equal and opposite "hard problem of materiality" - namely, how do we give an account of the material nature of objective reality starting from subjectivity . . . I haven't sprung that one on UFOlogy yet . . . shhhhh! ;-)

 

[Randall]

I'm aware of Chris' and Hansen's trickster and long ago tied myself to the mast . . . to torture a metaphor yet further . . .

been entertaining family tonight - so hadn't finished my post - but I was and am willing to go back to what we could tackle . . . as long as we'd established the limits - I think the hard problem draws a perimeter the way Godel's incompleteness theorem did (what the hell??) . . . beyond that lies dragons -

Ah. Zen Koans ( related link ). We discussed the first in the list in that link not long ago and I basically ripped it to shreds. But what is interesting is that I didn't know that it was part of this Zen Koan thing. Thank you for mentioning it. I'll have to look at a few more now .

OK, so you ripped the following to shreds:
1. A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

can you link me to where you do that or provide a summary?

Two relevant comments below:

• https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-boy-who-lived-before-documentary-about-a-childs-memories-of-another-life.13954/page-8#post-169887
• https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-boy-who-lived-before-documentary-about-a-childs-memories-of-another-life.13954/page-9#post-169905

I'm just using Zen koans as an analogy, the hard problem is koanesque (as opposed to Cohenesque) in so far as it's a tickling problem to the brain, but I'm not drawing an exact parallel. Until you can make me look at the hard problem of consciousness and provide me the tools/perspective to resolve it the way I do an "optical illusion" (cognitive illusion?) - so that I can see it either way and freely go back and forth between it, between the rabbit and the duck and fully explain how to do so to a third party - it's going to be hard for you to get me to leave it alone -

And so, I think it's still on you to show how your reasoning provides an accounting of how and why there is such a thing as what it is like to be you and exactly how that arises from material processes so that there is no sense of an explanatory "gap" there -

Let's not forget that I've made no claim to having any certain answers and we're both fishing on the same boat now. So as I see it, it's not simply me that needs to provide an accounting. It's more like if together we look at the problem and consider where we're at, what further insights might be gained from further discussion. Those issues were mentioned and do provide rational support for the idea that a consciousness field is dealing with the so-called hard problem. I've mentioned specific reasons as well. So if you think those reasons don't apply, then your counterpoint needs to address those specific issues rather than simply proclaim that they don't apply.

I'm OK with you explaining why the Wikipedia article is in error . . .

I don't have to because I don't say it is in error - the Wikipedia article doesn't come to a conclusion . . . does it? Does it give the answer to the hard problem?

If it does, why do you say:

"I say this because as the Wikipedia article mentions, the hard problem may not be an entirely valid problem in the first place."

If you say "may" you also have to mean "may not" . . .

The Wikipedia article seems to show argument and counter-argument in each section and does not provide closure on this issue. The hard problem of consciousness still stand in philosophy as best I can tell from the Wikipedia article . . . otherwise you could just say it's resolved and point me to the solution . . . can you do that?

Like I said, you need to address the issues I've already put forward in this post: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/philosophy-science-and-the-unexplained.14196/page-5#post-173812

Specifically:

• The semantics issue in the definition of the so-called hard problem.
• When discussing the consciousness field theory, we're no longer dealing with the material, and therefore have moved beyond the easy problem.
• To clarify, the Wikipedia article says: "The existence of a 'hard problem' is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers." ( see this link )

 

[smcder]

Two relevant comments below:

• https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-boy-who-lived-before-documentary-about-a-childs-memories-of-another-life.13954/page-8#post-169887
• https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-boy-who-lived-before-documentary-about-a-childs-memories-of-another-life.13954/page-9#post-169905

Let's not forget that I've made no claim to having any certain answers and we're both fishing on the same boat now. So as I see it, it's not simply me that needs to provide an accounting. It's more like if together we look at the problem and consider where we're at, what further insights might be gained from further discussion. Those issues were mentioned and do provide rational support for the idea that a consciousness field is dealing with the so-called hard problem. I've mentioned specific reasons as well. So if you think those reasons don't apply, then your counterpoint needs to address those specific issues rather than simply proclaim that they don't apply.


Like I said, you need to address the issues I've already put forward in this post: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/philosophy-science-and-the-unexplained.14196/page-5#post-173812

Specifically:

• The semantics issue in the definition of the so-called hard problem.
• When discussing the consciousness field theory, we're no longer dealing with the material, and therefore have moved beyond the easy problem.
• To clarify, the Wikipedia article says: "The existence of a 'hard problem' is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers." ( see this link )

Let's not forget that I've made no claim to having any certain answers and we're both fishing on the same boat now.
Good! I didn't think you did, but then wasn't so sure - and yes, we're on the same boat! Here, have a sandwich . . .

So as I see it, it's not simply me that needs to provide an accounting. It's more like if together we look at the problem and consider where we're at, what further insights might be gained from further discussion. Those issues were mentioned and do provide rational support for the idea that a consciousness field is dealing with the so-called hard problem. I've mentioned specific reasons as well. So if you think those reasons don't apply, then your counterpoint needs to address those specific issues rather than simply proclaim that they don't apply.

I have to proclaim that - because I just don't see where it does provide an account of how what it is like to be you arises from the processes you propose. (let me go back after this post and snip that out and paste it and see if where I think you make this claim is where you think you make it and then we can hash it out - I could well have missed this)

• The semantics issue in the definition of the so-called hard problem.
• When discussing the consciousness field theory, we're no longer dealing with the material, and therefore have moved beyond the easy problem.

Ok, do these two tie in? The semantics issue to me means how the problem is worded, for me it's how do you give an account (I'll drop materialistic at this point) of what it is like to be you by any means . . . is that fair? But I'm not seeing how we've moved beyond the material (since the brain still generates virtual photons - if they are not material and the brain is, then what is the mechanism of interaction?)

To clarify, the Wikipedia article says: "The existence of a 'hard problem' is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers." ( see this link )

I can address this one: I agree that it is controversial and that is has been disputed. But it still stands, doesn't it? As I said until someone can definitively show it's semantic or a cognitive illusion . . . it still stands and tickles the brain.

Now, I'll go and find that piece and post it -

 

[smcder]

ok . . . on the Koan - you do realize the Zen master would have whacked you in the head about the time you got to:

So how might we interpret the above? I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I see it as an allegory . . .

WHACK!

;-)

 

[smcder]

OK - I have these, is there anything I'm missing?

Last time I checked, we had been discussing the idea of consciousness as a field similar to a magnetic field, and I proposed that it might then involve what are called "virtual photons". These virtual photons would be responsible for purely subjective perception and therefore connected with the so-called hard problem of consciousness. It's sort of out there, but still rational.

To elaborate a little on the idea of virtual photons and their connection to consciousness, the idea was connected to the example of an imaginary red Ferrari and what ( if anything ) such an image is made of. Obviously it's real, but it's not material, so it's not a substance ( as in substance dualism ), so how do we see this red Ferrari in our imagination ( active consciousness ).

Then Jeff brought the idea of a consciousness field into the discussion, and I took the approach that it's something generated by the brain like a magnet has a magnetic field. Following that I discovered that in magnetism, it's so-called virtual photons that are responsible for the magnetic field. So thinking back to the idea of eyesight and how a real red Ferrari reflects photons into our eyes, where they are converted to signals that our brain turns into the image we perceive, perhaps when we imagine a red Ferrari, what is happening is that we're seeing a "virtual Ferrari" composed of "virtual photons".

Do these virtual photons represent "quanta of awareness"? A very interesting question. Because it seems that we can also be aware of a blank space, if virtual photons can represent virtual objects, perhaps we can think of consciousness as the "virtual space" these perceptions can exist in?

In this model the process is circular in that it involves a feedback loop that starts in the brain material which through electrochemical processes generates a field composed of virtual photons ( unseen particles in the real world ) that interact with brain material where they evoke another electrochemical reaction which in turn causes the field to change. As the process iterates, the sequence becomes analogous to a video where each scene is wiped and replaced by the new one fast enough for us to perceive it as fluid motion. So our awareness ( consciousness ) is the sum of all these various fields being generated and interacting in concert with each other by virtue of our brain's design and operation.

 

[smcder]

I don't see anything in these statements that gets us out of the material, except by proclamation:
perhaps when we imagine a red Ferrari, what is happening is that we're seeing a "virtual Ferrari" composed of "virtual photons".

but what you are saying is that the seeing (real or imaginary) is being done by or occurs in the brain, right? By material processes.

This part (below) reinforces (to me) that understanding:

In this model the process is circular in that it involves a feedback loop that starts in the brain material which through electrochemical processes generates a field composed of virtual photons ( unseen particles in the real world ) that interact with brain material where they evoke another electrochemical reaction which in turn causes the field to change. As the process iterates, the sequence becomes analogous to a video where each scene is wiped and replaced by the new one fast enough for us to perceive it as fluid motion. So our awareness ( consciousness ) is the sum of all these various fields being generated and interacting in concert with each other by virtue of our brain's design and operation.

So I just don't see from the above how you are making an account of how subjectivity arises from material processes. Do I understand correctly now that you claim or posit "virtual photons" to be immaterial and if so, how do they interact with "brain material"? This is the mind body problem - and one of the basic underlying problems with materialism (and/or non-materialism) dualism - how do material and non-material processes interact?

 

[Randall]

I don't see anything in these statements that gets us out of the material, except by proclamation:
perhaps when we imagine a red Ferrari, what is happening is that we're seeing a "virtual Ferrari" composed of "virtual photons".

but what you are saying is that the seeing (real or imaginary) is being done by or occurs in the brain, right? By material processes.

Not exactly. The material of the brain is completely different than the consciousness field which is non material and separate from brain matter, but able to influence it ( like a magnetic field influences metal from a distance ). Whether or not these non-material fields occur "by a material process" isn't relevant because they are themselves non-material. What's more, virtual photons aren't at all the same as real photons. The world we perceive looks like it has light in it, but in reality our subjective perceptions don't have any actual photons ( real units of light ) in them. The photons that cause the stimulus response for your eyesight were absorbed when they hit your retina, which is a few centimeters away from your visual cortex. They're gone. So what you are experiencing right now as you read this isn't real light ( actual photons ) at all. But you see it nonetheless, so what do we call it? It seems to me that "virtual photons" seems to be a perfectly apt way to look at what we perceive.

This part (below) reinforces (to me) that understanding:

In this model the process is circular in that it involves a feedback loop that starts in the brain material which through electrochemical processes generates a field composed of virtual photons ( unseen particles in the real world ) that interact with brain material where they evoke another electrochemical reaction which in turn causes the field to change. As the process iterates, the sequence becomes analogous to a video where each scene is wiped and replaced by the new one fast enough for us to perceive it as fluid motion. So our awareness ( consciousness ) is the sum of all these various fields being generated and interacting in concert with each other by virtue of our brain's design and operation.

So I just don't see from the above how you are making an account of how subjectivity arises from material processes.

I don't see where you're having the problem. Can you elaborate in a way that identifies and explains the specific problem you're having by using an example based on the model I proposed?

Do I understand correctly now that you claim or posit "virtual photons" to be immaterial and if so, how do they interact with "brain material"? This is the mind body problem - and one of the basic underlying problems with materialism (and/or non-materialism) dualism - how do material and non-material processes interact?

Real photons aren't material in the sense that we have solid matter ( like brain matter ), let alone the so-called virtual photons, which are only detectable by the field they produce ( e.g. a magnetic field ). Magnetic fields aren't material. In addition to the video already posted, check out this video for a simplified explanation ( and turn your volume either down or up accordingly if you want the soundtrack or not ).

So as you can see, these virtual photons are a sort of magical "carrier force" that don't even seem to be a part of our realm ( spacetime ), let alone material. Yet they can be detected and evoked by magnetic means, and this is how they would interact with brain material, like a magnet can interact with a piece of metal some distance away via a magnetic field ( carrier force ).

 

[smcder]

Not exactly. The material of the brain is completely different than the consciousness field which is non material and separate from brain matter, but able to influence it ( like a magnetic field influences metal from a distance ). Whether or not these non-material fields occur "by a material process" isn't relevant because they are themselves non-material. What's more, virtual photons aren't at all the same as real photons. The world we perceive looks like it has light in it, but in reality our subjective perceptions don't have any actual photons ( real units of light ) in them. The photons that cause the stimulus response for your eyesight were absorbed when they hit your retina, which is a few centimeters away from your visual cortex. They're gone. So what you are experiencing right now as you read this isn't real light ( actual photons ) at all. But you see it nonetheless, so what do we call it? It seems to me that "virtual photons" seems to be a perfectly apt way to look at what we perceiving as light.

This elaboration is helpful . . . let me absorb it -

​

 

[Randall]

ok . . . on the Koan - you do realize the Zen master would have whacked you in the head about the time you got to:

So how might we interpret the above? I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I see it as an allegory . . .
WHACK!

;-)

That would be rather rude wouldn't it, especially after having purposefully spilled tea all over the place while acting out because of his own prejudice.

 

[smcder]

I don't see where you're having the problem. Can you elaborate in a way that identifies and explains the specific problem you're having by using an example based on the model I proposed?

Can I ask for your statement of the hard problem? I've given my understanding above but if it doesn't line up with yours - we're going to keep talking past one another here - I don't have any problems with your idea/theory - (is the virtual proton theory like the abstract in the link below?) but I just don't think it addresses the "hard" problem (as I understand it)

ingentaconnect Are virtual photons the elementary carriers of consciousness?

 

[smcder]

That would be rather rude wouldn't it, especially after having purposefully spilled tea all over the place while acting out because of his own prejudice.

I think this is where you have to bring humor and imagination to bear - which is part of the point of the story, not so much to be taken literally. I read your response in the other thread and yes (by our cultural standards) it might be rude and prejudiced but the whole story, including the behavior of the Zen master is meant as a teaching lesson - in my example, I'm not sure an actual Zen master would WHACK a non-student. (but I wouldn't necessarily take my chances either ;-)

There are cultural differences here - the story occurs in a different time and place - and also the professor came to see the master and inquire about his practices and beliefs. The Zen master responded in a traditional manner within that context.

Ah. Zen Koans ( related link ). We discussed the first in the list in that link not long ago and I basically ripped it to shreds. But what is interesting is that I didn't know that it was part of this Zen Koan thing. Thank you for mentioning it. I'll have to look at a few more now .

I have to (politely) disagree - I don't think you ripped it to shreds - I think you missed the point.

 

[Randall]

Can I ask for your statement of the hard problem? I've given my understanding above but if it doesn't line up with yours - we're going to keep talking past one another here - I don't have any problems with your idea/theory - (is the virtual proton theory like the abstract in the link below?) but I just don't think it addresses the "hard" problem (as I understand it)

ingentaconnect Are virtual photons the elementary carriers of consciousness?

Fantastic link. It seems we're not the only fishing boat out here that is onto this idea. Regarding why I think we've hooked the hard problem here, once again, I've already indicated why more than once. So before I can answer your question I need to know why you think those reasons don't apply. Specifically, review the semantics problem and the part about us dealing with a non-material phenomena separate from brain matter.

 

[Randall]

I think this is where you have to bring humor and imagination to bear - which is part of the point of the story, not so much to be taken literally. I read your response in the other thread and yes (by our cultural standards) it might be rude and prejudiced but the whole story, including the behavior of the Zen master is meant as a teaching lesson - in my example, I'm not sure an actual Zen master would WHACK a non-student. (but I wouldn't necessarily take my chances either ;-)

There are cultural differences here - the story occurs in a different time and place - and also the professor came to see the master and inquire about his practices and beliefs. The Zen master responded in a traditional manner within that context.

Ah. Zen Koans ( related link ). We discussed the first in the list in that link not long ago and I basically ripped it to shreds. But what is interesting is that I didn't know that it was part of this Zen Koan thing. Thank you for mentioning it. I'll have to look at a few more now .

I have to (politely) disagree - I don't think you ripped it to shreds - I think you missed the point.

That explanation doesn't make sense because the so-called lesson is to set aside one's preconceptions in order to absorb new information, yet it is the Zen Master who is demonstrating his own inability to set aside his own preconceptions and simply start the lesson. This means that although he understands the issue, he is acting out anyway, which means he's blind to his own hypocrisy. Therefore there is no cultural defense for this koan. Let's also remember that these parables are meant to be reflected on by a third party, so questioning their validity is perfectly acceptable, and blindly accepting them is contrary to their original intention. So no matter how one looks at this example, it falls apart ... completely.

 

[smcder]

So no matter how one looks at this example, it falls apart ... completely.

I think for it to fall apart completely under rational analysis is the point - because it's being mishandled - you're not going to get the effect of the Koan through rational analysis.

The point is to shift you out of rational thinking into another kind of mind or subjective state . . . I think this is beginning to take on new relevance -

- I'm reviewing the semantics problem, but I really could use a statement of the hard problem from you.

 

[smcder]

everything that you are saying could be spot on and still happen with a "Zombie" - without any kind of interior life, with nobody home -

 

[smcder]

Fantastic link. It seems we're not the only fishing boat out here that is onto this idea. Regarding why I think we've hooked the hard problem here, once again, I've already indicated why more than once. So before I can answer your question I need to know why you think those reasons don't apply. Specifically, review the semantics problem and the part about us dealing with a non-material phenomena separate from brain matter.

Regarding why I think we've hooked the hard problem here, once again, I've already indicated why more than once.

I am honestly not intentionally trying to be obtuse or dense - I just don't see where you have indicated this - I'm not saying you haven't but that I don't see it - maybe this is the semantics issue, maybe I'm seeing a duck and you a rabbit. I want to see both and be able to freely go back and forth between the two. I think more and more the two different ways we see the Koan are helpful to me to see our mis-communication.

Specifically, review the semantics problem and the part about us dealing with a non-material phenomena separate from brain matter.

Can you give me an exact quote in the Wikipedia article where I need to review the semantics problem (or is it reviewed in another source? if so, remind me where you indicated I should look . . . this thread is getting pretty long to go back and forth and find statements!)

 

[Randall]

Regarding why I think we've hooked the hard problem here, once again, I've already indicated why more than once.

I am honestly not intentionally trying to be obtuse or dense - I just don't see where you have indicated this - I'm not saying you haven't but that I don't see it - maybe this is the semantics issue, maybe I'm seeing a duck and you a rabbit. I want to see both and be able to freely go back and forth between the two. I think more and more the two different ways we see the Koan are helpful to me to see our mis-communication.

Specifically, review the semantics problem and the part about us dealing with a non-material phenomena separate from brain matter.

Can you give me an exact quote in the Wikipedia article where I need to review the semantics problem (or is it reviewed in another source? if so, remind me where you indicated I should look . . . this thread is getting pretty long to go back and forth and find statements!)

Maybe this is real reason they call it "the hard problem" . The semantics problem isn't in Wikipedia. It's something I explain ( or at least try to explain ) myself in the post ( here ) using an analogy to the concept of flight. The other reason is based on Chalmers comment in his formulation of the hard problem, to quote: "It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises." However, contrary to this, our theory of a consciousness field is a "good explanation" of why and how it ( consciousness ) arises. The why and how are because of causal factors associated with the biology of the stimulus response, yet arising from the stimulus response doesn't make it something material, so dualism ( in a general sense ) remains intact. There may be an argument that it ( the consciousness field ) is still physical ( within the realm of physics ), but that makes no difference to our pursuit anyway.

 

[smcder]

That last post helps! Will work on it a bit.

 

[smcder]

That explanation doesn't make sense because the so-called lesson is to set aside one's preconceptions in order to absorb new information, yet it is the Zen Master who is demonstrating his own inability to set aside his own preconceptions and simply start the lesson. This means that although he understands the issue, he is acting out anyway, which means he's blind to his own hypocrisy. Therefore there is no cultural defense for this koan. Let's also remember that these parables are meant to be reflected on by a third party, so questioning their validity is perfectly acceptable, and blindly accepting them is contrary to their original intention. So no matter how one looks at this example, it falls apart ... completely.

the so-called lesson is to set aside one's preconceptions in order to absorb new information

Ok, I see what you're saying. But that's not the lesson - in my view anyway, there isn't a literal lesson - each Koan has exactly the same purpose - to shift you from a rational, literal mindset. You think and think on it and then you have an aha moment and shift into another way of thinking.

 

[Randall]

the so-called lesson is to set aside one's preconceptions in order to absorb new information

Ok, I see what you're saying. But that's not the lesson - in my view anyway, there isn't a literal lesson - each Koan has exactly the same purpose - to shift you from a rational, literal mindset. You think and think on it and then you have an aha moment and shift into another way of thinking.

What you say may be the intent, but there is no question whatsoever that the koan is an allegory meant to illustrate the point as I stated it, and that the "ah ha moment" is when that point dawns on the person contemplating it. That's not to say that setting aside one's preconceptions in order to make room for new ideas isn't a perfectly valid point in it's own right, but most people don't see the deeper meaning hidden within it because they are so blinded by the initial "ah ha moment" that the Zen Master takes on an aura of mystical wisdom that justifies his behavior, when in fact he's not justified in pulling his little stunt at all.