Ludwig and Bertie have come up with a game, a personal plot to amuse themselves and confuse others. Should we be concerned with their imaginative musings? Perhaps not. But the point about the "pain in the knee" is something to think about a little more.
I work in an interactive agency and we get clients who sometimes tell us that they don't like the mockups. They can't explain why, they just don't seem to agree with the creatives/copy etc. It's their "pain in the knee", something they feel but someone else can't really identify or identify with. We use these euphemisms to get through life, and it seriously doesn't sound like a big deal.
Until, we look at the meaning of words at the very basic level. Imagine a scenario where the words don't mean what we are used to.
"This is an apple. It is an apple because
- your sense of sight tells you it is an an apple
- your sense of smells tells you it is an apple
- you expect the taste of apple if you were to bite into it
You bite into it and it's chocolate, not apple."
Sometimes, the beetle isn't a beetle. So keep an open mind about the world around you. Expect the unexpected.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
22. The lifeboat
I choose to help the drowning woman.
It is a sad state of the world that this story conveys, one of selfishness and a convoluted meld of economics and humanity. There are some with more than enough but refuse to share with those who have too little to survive.
Isn't it surprising that all this happening? As kids, we've been taught to share and help those in need. Most religious folks subscribe to this notion too. But at the international level, countries run by governments full of adults are powerless to fix the problems of the sick and the poor. Are these adults are simply falling prey to politics, overwhelmed by national concerns, or have hands tied by megacorporations who fund their aspirations? Do they not care?
Taking a look at the big picture, it seems that helping people is bound by national boundaries. You can't simply go give money or help people in a foreign land without problems. Unless your're Jesus Christ and have a miracle on hand to impress immigration. Even the UN seems powerless to make things happen or usually take action too late. It's frustrating eh.
If we want to extrapolate the issue, it goes beyond helping people. It extends to the way we treat our planet, the animals and the sea. We use without concern and care. Eventually the lifeboat won't be a place to survive on.
It is a sad state of the world that this story conveys, one of selfishness and a convoluted meld of economics and humanity. There are some with more than enough but refuse to share with those who have too little to survive.
Isn't it surprising that all this happening? As kids, we've been taught to share and help those in need. Most religious folks subscribe to this notion too. But at the international level, countries run by governments full of adults are powerless to fix the problems of the sick and the poor. Are these adults are simply falling prey to politics, overwhelmed by national concerns, or have hands tied by megacorporations who fund their aspirations? Do they not care?
Taking a look at the big picture, it seems that helping people is bound by national boundaries. You can't simply go give money or help people in a foreign land without problems. Unless your're Jesus Christ and have a miracle on hand to impress immigration. Even the UN seems powerless to make things happen or usually take action too late. It's frustrating eh.
If we want to extrapolate the issue, it goes beyond helping people. It extends to the way we treat our planet, the animals and the sea. We use without concern and care. Eventually the lifeboat won't be a place to survive on.
21. Land of the Epiphens
Wow, this is another one of those crazy ones.
It is very very difficult for us to think that thinking is a by-product of some other cranial process. What process will result in thought? Perhaps if we thought like a baby - the stomach is hungry, body wants food, baby cries - epiphenomenalism sort of works. All actions, little thought, thought of little consequence. Am I oversimplifying things?
I suppose this 'idea works for reflex actions. But how can the body do things without the basis of forethought?
Lets' say I want to make dinner. Does my body know it wants potato soup before I think about it? Does my tongue already dictate my actions based on what it wants to taste? Maybe. I go get a few potatoes. I choose a knife to peel the potatoes. Did my body tell me not to use the vegetable peeler? It doesn't seem likely. Maybe my eyes see the knife and create the thought of picking it up, as strange as that may sound. But there are still flaws. Wouldn't I think of getting a cutting instrument before my eyes went searching for one? Hmmm.
What about meditative or religious thought? Yes, there may be stimuli e.g. post-crisis trauma or routine e.g. regular visits to a place of worship that may trigger such thinking. But can the content of such thoughts be the result of some other bodily function? What bodily function would trigger thoughts of God? (I am sure some readers are going to the gutter with the last line ) What about the psychological or physiological effects of these thoughts? Are these effects a by-product or the intended outcome?
If our thoughts are the product of some other process, what determines the quality of the thoughts and ideas? The efficacy or efficiency of the unknown process? In all fairness and non-bias, humans have varying degrees of smarts (or in our case, perceived smarts) Do people who say dumb or irrational things have dumb or irrational processes? It doesn't quite work though some will say that chemicals in our bodies can in some way dictate our thoughts and subsequently actions.
I can’t buy the ephiphen argument. Sorry.
It is very very difficult for us to think that thinking is a by-product of some other cranial process. What process will result in thought? Perhaps if we thought like a baby - the stomach is hungry, body wants food, baby cries - epiphenomenalism sort of works. All actions, little thought, thought of little consequence. Am I oversimplifying things?
I suppose this 'idea works for reflex actions. But how can the body do things without the basis of forethought?
Lets' say I want to make dinner. Does my body know it wants potato soup before I think about it? Does my tongue already dictate my actions based on what it wants to taste? Maybe. I go get a few potatoes. I choose a knife to peel the potatoes. Did my body tell me not to use the vegetable peeler? It doesn't seem likely. Maybe my eyes see the knife and create the thought of picking it up, as strange as that may sound. But there are still flaws. Wouldn't I think of getting a cutting instrument before my eyes went searching for one? Hmmm.
What about meditative or religious thought? Yes, there may be stimuli e.g. post-crisis trauma or routine e.g. regular visits to a place of worship that may trigger such thinking. But can the content of such thoughts be the result of some other bodily function? What bodily function would trigger thoughts of God? (I am sure some readers are going to the gutter with the last line ) What about the psychological or physiological effects of these thoughts? Are these effects a by-product or the intended outcome?
If our thoughts are the product of some other process, what determines the quality of the thoughts and ideas? The efficacy or efficiency of the unknown process? In all fairness and non-bias, humans have varying degrees of smarts (or in our case, perceived smarts) Do people who say dumb or irrational things have dumb or irrational processes? It doesn't quite work though some will say that chemicals in our bodies can in some way dictate our thoughts and subsequently actions.
I can’t buy the ephiphen argument. Sorry.
20. Condemned to life
The problem with eternal life is firstly that people get bored; secondly, people are greedy; and lastly, we usually don't imagine the consequences of an event beyond our immediate time and space.
Let's go down the list. What do you do when everything's been done, twice? Being bored is terrible. With eternal life, there had better be some real good TV to while the time away.
Vitalia blamed her greediness for the predicament. 'Ooh, eternal life. Sounds great. I'll get to travel and do everything I ever wanted.' Think a little harder about the cons and one might want to reconsider.
Perhaps it's our selfish need for 'tangible immortality' that would trick us into drinking the potion. If I can't write a great novel or discover some new species or be Prime Minister, would anyone remember me when I’m gone? Have I done anything significant enough to make a lasting impression on history, what I call 'tangible immortality'? If not, maybe eternal life will allow me to see through my ambitions. Maybe.
Having read Vitalia's situation, most of us will appreciate the folly of her ways, and if given the opportunity, would refuse the elixir of eternal life. Lesson learned, we make the right decision. But how many of us would turn down the offer if we hadn't read this article and had to make a decision on the spot? We would likely agree to receive, having skipped, hopped and jumped through the superficial advantages. The same thing sometimes happens when we buy a car on impulse - it's cool in the present, then petrol, parking and maintenance woes kick in. Thinking ahead, you'll figure that it isn't fun when your friends and family start dying and you're alone. Vitalia found that out the hard way. Sorry man, you can't chuck immortality.
Let's go down the list. What do you do when everything's been done, twice? Being bored is terrible. With eternal life, there had better be some real good TV to while the time away.
Vitalia blamed her greediness for the predicament. 'Ooh, eternal life. Sounds great. I'll get to travel and do everything I ever wanted.' Think a little harder about the cons and one might want to reconsider.
Perhaps it's our selfish need for 'tangible immortality' that would trick us into drinking the potion. If I can't write a great novel or discover some new species or be Prime Minister, would anyone remember me when I’m gone? Have I done anything significant enough to make a lasting impression on history, what I call 'tangible immortality'? If not, maybe eternal life will allow me to see through my ambitions. Maybe.
Having read Vitalia's situation, most of us will appreciate the folly of her ways, and if given the opportunity, would refuse the elixir of eternal life. Lesson learned, we make the right decision. But how many of us would turn down the offer if we hadn't read this article and had to make a decision on the spot? We would likely agree to receive, having skipped, hopped and jumped through the superficial advantages. The same thing sometimes happens when we buy a car on impulse - it's cool in the present, then petrol, parking and maintenance woes kick in. Thinking ahead, you'll figure that it isn't fun when your friends and family start dying and you're alone. Vitalia found that out the hard way. Sorry man, you can't chuck immortality.
19. Bursting the soap bubble
From birth, and some say even while in our mummies' tummies, our brains take in information. Some of this information comes from people around us - first our parents or guardians, then immediate relations, friends, co-workers. Books, TV and other media (increasingly pervasive is the Internet) are a primary source of information for hungry, sponge-like minds. I have been using the word 'information' because essentially that's what it is, just data. Whether it is fact or fiction, we decide when we process that data. The funny thing about us humans is that we allow ourselves to be conditioned. Conditioning applies to the way we think, what we believe and how we behave. We allow ourselves this flaw because it makes our lives simpler, or maybe we are just lazy to find out more. For instance, we go to the supermarket and pick up loaves of bread and cartons of milk without looking at the ingredients label. It's just bread and milk right? Experience tells us that. We condition ourselves to accept that these foods have not changed since we've known them. So the data we take the first time allows us to condition ourselves, upon successful processing, to accept the fact that bread and milk are just bread and milk and are yummy. Did you know they can add Vitamin C to milk now? And they do, together with a whole bunch of other chemicals.
Fear is another reason. Kids are put to bed with the idea that some monster will eat them if they are awake past 9pm. Yes, we all know that most kids grow up to distinguish fact from fiction. But the ideas of a monster conditioned them to go to bed for fear of being eaten. It's the same thing for stereotypes and stigmas. Parents do the worst harm when they instill and ingrain negative ideas in their children about other people.
1. Information --> 2. Processing --> 3. Judgment --> 4. Conditioning
So Kenneth was able to break out of the conditioning to ascertain for himself that the information he was receiving that he was processing had a false source. He broke that chain and was able to reassess things. Having discovered he's been duped will also make him question his truths even more.
This is sort of like when my Physics teacher once told us that all this we're learning about the insides of an atom are just ideas that scientists deem plausible. That's it. It may not be true. Goodness, imagine 17 year olds being subject to such a concept. We were aghast. But opening our minds to possibilities is important - we develop new ideas and accept things we can't control.
Remember, it's all not safe, just like the folks in Hogden thought. But it'll be interesting! Question, question, question. Don't subscribe to the curiosity killing cats notion. There are way too many strays around to disprove that load of bull.
Good for you Kenneth.
Fear is another reason. Kids are put to bed with the idea that some monster will eat them if they are awake past 9pm. Yes, we all know that most kids grow up to distinguish fact from fiction. But the ideas of a monster conditioned them to go to bed for fear of being eaten. It's the same thing for stereotypes and stigmas. Parents do the worst harm when they instill and ingrain negative ideas in their children about other people.
1. Information --> 2. Processing --> 3. Judgment --> 4. Conditioning
So Kenneth was able to break out of the conditioning to ascertain for himself that the information he was receiving that he was processing had a false source. He broke that chain and was able to reassess things. Having discovered he's been duped will also make him question his truths even more.
This is sort of like when my Physics teacher once told us that all this we're learning about the insides of an atom are just ideas that scientists deem plausible. That's it. It may not be true. Goodness, imagine 17 year olds being subject to such a concept. We were aghast. But opening our minds to possibilities is important - we develop new ideas and accept things we can't control.
Remember, it's all not safe, just like the folks in Hogden thought. But it'll be interesting! Question, question, question. Don't subscribe to the curiosity killing cats notion. There are way too many strays around to disprove that load of bull.
Good for you Kenneth.
18. Rationality demands
Sophia has weird friends.
Big causes can make being rational argument really convincing. Stalinism and Maoism worked because people were motivated to work for a 'higher cause'. In these cases, they sold out their friends because it was rational to lock up those against the 'greater good'. Same reasons for the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan - no one bat an eyelid just so long as WW2 ended. Higher-scale motivations somehow always work - the misconstrued use of Jihad makes it easy for a Islamic terrorist to defend his/her actions. So it must be one hell of an argument that Sophia's friend put forward.
Where does morality go in all these big-ticket decisions? It's strange that no matter how rational an argument may be to blow people up that one's conscience doesn't raise a iota of objection. Reason can be wrong. Reason is based on logic and logic based on what we come to believe as the truth. For example, we believe it is wrong to hurt people. We should hence eliminate evil things that hurt people. Should we then we kill sharks because they have sharp teeth and bite about 5 people a year worldwide and are hence evil? Nope.
Rational argument is good for business, resolving arguments and thrifty shopping. It is isn't so good to apply 'if A, then B' logic to everything. We miss the big picture and can lose sight of bigger consequences of our decisions. The demands of rationality can make us cold and robotic - it may not be worth it.
Big causes can make being rational argument really convincing. Stalinism and Maoism worked because people were motivated to work for a 'higher cause'. In these cases, they sold out their friends because it was rational to lock up those against the 'greater good'. Same reasons for the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan - no one bat an eyelid just so long as WW2 ended. Higher-scale motivations somehow always work - the misconstrued use of Jihad makes it easy for a Islamic terrorist to defend his/her actions. So it must be one hell of an argument that Sophia's friend put forward.
Where does morality go in all these big-ticket decisions? It's strange that no matter how rational an argument may be to blow people up that one's conscience doesn't raise a iota of objection. Reason can be wrong. Reason is based on logic and logic based on what we come to believe as the truth. For example, we believe it is wrong to hurt people. We should hence eliminate evil things that hurt people. Should we then we kill sharks because they have sharp teeth and bite about 5 people a year worldwide and are hence evil? Nope.
Rational argument is good for business, resolving arguments and thrifty shopping. It is isn't so good to apply 'if A, then B' logic to everything. We miss the big picture and can lose sight of bigger consequences of our decisions. The demands of rationality can make us cold and robotic - it may not be worth it.
17. The torture option
The moral dilemma gets tougher. Yes, torture is wrong. But since 9/11, everyone's been up at arms with terrorists. The kneejerk is 'Damn them all. They want to blow us up? We'll screw them once we nab them'. So we're all suddenly cool with being thrust back to the Dark Ages. Not good. TV and media isn't helping either - how many people 'die' violently on your TV each week? Scary eh, especially with the kids watching. The value of life has plummeted a great deal.
Let's try to keep Hadi's predicament simple, or perhaps logically robotic.
1. Brad is the bad guy (one life). He planted the bomb that will kill many people (many innocent lives). If many people die, two to three times more will be adversely affected.
2. Does Brad have a motive? Does Brad have demands? If his demands were met, would he tell Hadi where the bomb was? If yes, good. (If not, we're screwed)
3. If Brad just wants to blow people up or isn't willing to tell Hadi where the bomb is, is it ok to hurt Brad to get the location of the bomb? Will Brad give in? Hadi suspects that it won't work.
4. By torturing Brad's son Wesley (another innocent life), Hadi thinks Brad will give in. Family ties over zealot's motivations.
5. So to save many innocent lives, one innocent life may be sacrificed, and perhaps another incarcerated later. To the government, it's a fair trade. The smaller sacrifice for the greater good. It's harsh, in fact down right cruel, but it'll also be cruel when thousands die from Brad's bomb.
The reasons behind terrorism are many. Most of them stem from the unequal distribution of wealth and fairness, deaf ears and misplaced faith. We all just need to show to concern to the less fortunate, listen the voice of humanity within us and just be compassionate. Else the definition of 'humane' just might need to change.
Let's try to keep Hadi's predicament simple, or perhaps logically robotic.
1. Brad is the bad guy (one life). He planted the bomb that will kill many people (many innocent lives). If many people die, two to three times more will be adversely affected.
2. Does Brad have a motive? Does Brad have demands? If his demands were met, would he tell Hadi where the bomb was? If yes, good. (If not, we're screwed)
3. If Brad just wants to blow people up or isn't willing to tell Hadi where the bomb is, is it ok to hurt Brad to get the location of the bomb? Will Brad give in? Hadi suspects that it won't work.
4. By torturing Brad's son Wesley (another innocent life), Hadi thinks Brad will give in. Family ties over zealot's motivations.
5. So to save many innocent lives, one innocent life may be sacrificed, and perhaps another incarcerated later. To the government, it's a fair trade. The smaller sacrifice for the greater good. It's harsh, in fact down right cruel, but it'll also be cruel when thousands die from Brad's bomb.
The reasons behind terrorism are many. Most of them stem from the unequal distribution of wealth and fairness, deaf ears and misplaced faith. We all just need to show to concern to the less fortunate, listen the voice of humanity within us and just be compassionate. Else the definition of 'humane' just might need to change.
16. Racing tortoises
The author is right - experience tells us that it's almost impossible that Achilles won't beat the tortoise.
Considering the Achilles fails option, the question that comes to mind is why does Achilles not just keep running past each milestone at a constant speed? To not catch up with the tortoise, he would have to drastically reduce his speed of travel at each start of elapsed distance. It doesn't make sense, especially to students of 'train A leaves at 1030am and train B starts in the opposite direction at 11am' mathematics.
It's underdog cool to imagine the tortoise winning with time and space split into quanta. However our physical world and activities will not be as orderly without a summation of these quanta. Nothing would work. But those paradoxes will kick in and get us all confused again.
Logic is what should guide us. Experience is what tells us what to expect. Sometimes the two don’t meet eye to eye. This is one of those times.
(It's nice to know that the ancient Greeks were thinking really hard way back in 500BC. Makes you wonder why we're so screwed up 2500 years later.)
Considering the Achilles fails option, the question that comes to mind is why does Achilles not just keep running past each milestone at a constant speed? To not catch up with the tortoise, he would have to drastically reduce his speed of travel at each start of elapsed distance. It doesn't make sense, especially to students of 'train A leaves at 1030am and train B starts in the opposite direction at 11am' mathematics.
It's underdog cool to imagine the tortoise winning with time and space split into quanta. However our physical world and activities will not be as orderly without a summation of these quanta. Nothing would work. But those paradoxes will kick in and get us all confused again.
Logic is what should guide us. Experience is what tells us what to expect. Sometimes the two don’t meet eye to eye. This is one of those times.
(It's nice to know that the ancient Greeks were thinking really hard way back in 500BC. Makes you wonder why we're so screwed up 2500 years later.)
15. Ordinary Heroism
What did Private Kenny do? Did he do something that was expected of him or was it an extraordinary act?
From the military response, it appears that the army thinks that the act was ordinary. It is a general expectation that 'one for all, all for one' applies in the military unit context but sacrificing one's life for the sake of others is a big step away from marching in tandem and sharing food. (Perhaps that's the army I’m used to). Was there any other soldier that tried to do the same? Would they have contemplated doing the same for the fellow brothers-in-arms? I don't know. Someone told me that Private Kenny shouldn’t be rewarded but punished (shock and horror) because he acted out of instruction. There apparently shouldn’t be any place for free thought or action in the army, not without permission.
But then what kind of act would deserve the Victoria Cross? Would all previous awards be in vain or less worthy?
To a civilian, Private Kenny's act of bravery ranks among the superlative without doubt. One man saving the lives of many in a superogatory act is a one-in-a-million occurrence, something worth immortalizing in film. But then a civilian would likely apply a less demanding set of expectations to the situation. Indeed then Kenny deserves the Victoria Cross!
In a war, circumstances are different and maybe the sense of valour is stronger, even kneejerkish. In a state of reactive panic I am assuming, Private Kenny did the right thing. It may not have been the smartest thing because a life, his life, was lost but we'll not know the circumstances and conditions in place at the time and place of the unfortunate incident. The death of one to save many is noble and heroic by any standards.
From the military response, it appears that the army thinks that the act was ordinary. It is a general expectation that 'one for all, all for one' applies in the military unit context but sacrificing one's life for the sake of others is a big step away from marching in tandem and sharing food. (Perhaps that's the army I’m used to). Was there any other soldier that tried to do the same? Would they have contemplated doing the same for the fellow brothers-in-arms? I don't know. Someone told me that Private Kenny shouldn’t be rewarded but punished (shock and horror) because he acted out of instruction. There apparently shouldn’t be any place for free thought or action in the army, not without permission.
But then what kind of act would deserve the Victoria Cross? Would all previous awards be in vain or less worthy?
To a civilian, Private Kenny's act of bravery ranks among the superlative without doubt. One man saving the lives of many in a superogatory act is a one-in-a-million occurrence, something worth immortalizing in film. But then a civilian would likely apply a less demanding set of expectations to the situation. Indeed then Kenny deserves the Victoria Cross!
In a war, circumstances are different and maybe the sense of valour is stronger, even kneejerkish. In a state of reactive panic I am assuming, Private Kenny did the right thing. It may not have been the smartest thing because a life, his life, was lost but we'll not know the circumstances and conditions in place at the time and place of the unfortunate incident. The death of one to save many is noble and heroic by any standards.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
14. Bank error in your favour
Haha, free money! Richard had the best-case scenario happening - a receipt for £100 and bank records that showed a withdrawal of the same amount. Good thing there wasn't a security camera to catch him pocketing the extra £9900.
That sense of small business honesty versus large corporation nonchalance undeniably sits with most of us. Somehow we can mentally put aside our morals and justify our petty theft against a large MNC. We know it's wrong but they won't miss it, will they? Why do we think that way? Do we feel we are victims to their exploits? Big business versus small man. Millions of dollars a day versus small change. Enough to let some morals slip.
If I ran a business, regardless of size, I’d be upset over petty theft. A Malay saying goes 'Sikit sikit lama jadi bukit' which means 'A little each time becomes a lot over time'. This saying is used to educate the young on the merits of saving. It also applies to our context too. The French rail company SCNF estimates it's lost over €200 million in unpaid fares from farejumping over a decade. Now that's a lot! Somehow I believe that there is a finite amount of money. So no matter how it plays out, someone loses.
I suppose it's a test of true honesty and self will. If it's the one that gets you past the pearly gates or not reincarnated as a worm, would that extra cash matter? It all boils down to beliefs.
That sense of small business honesty versus large corporation nonchalance undeniably sits with most of us. Somehow we can mentally put aside our morals and justify our petty theft against a large MNC. We know it's wrong but they won't miss it, will they? Why do we think that way? Do we feel we are victims to their exploits? Big business versus small man. Millions of dollars a day versus small change. Enough to let some morals slip.
If I ran a business, regardless of size, I’d be upset over petty theft. A Malay saying goes 'Sikit sikit lama jadi bukit' which means 'A little each time becomes a lot over time'. This saying is used to educate the young on the merits of saving. It also applies to our context too. The French rail company SCNF estimates it's lost over €200 million in unpaid fares from farejumping over a decade. Now that's a lot! Somehow I believe that there is a finite amount of money. So no matter how it plays out, someone loses.
I suppose it's a test of true honesty and self will. If it's the one that gets you past the pearly gates or not reincarnated as a worm, would that extra cash matter? It all boils down to beliefs.
13. Black, white and red all over
Wow, seeing everything in shades of grey is something we don't normally think about. And dogs do it all the time. Knowing everything about the colour red and not having seen it makes the experience all so bizarre yet it's possible. Poor Mary.
Scientists can strip everything to its basics, explaining bonds, chemicals, reactions, processes and all else about something. The problem is that we don't experience life that way. We know red for the colour it is and not bother that the light reflected into our eyes has a wavelength between 625–740 nm. Beyond the actual colour, seeing red triggers various emotional, psychological and artistic responses too. Science can't really explain that, merely suggest the triggers and outcomes. At the same time, we can relate to Mary's predicament, though not as dramatic, in the way we read travelougues. We can read all about the sights and sounds of Istanbul and imagine, but being there allows to take in everything, from the air to the smells to the feel of the food and walls. It's just different and irreplaceable. (Damn, I need to go to Istanbul!). People feel first then analyse, we can't run away from that.
Mary will be having a hard time once she's able to see colour. Though the world will be alive and exciting, imagine if someone tells her that purple was blue. She might get it wrong forever. Unless of course she tests for wavelengths!
Scientists can strip everything to its basics, explaining bonds, chemicals, reactions, processes and all else about something. The problem is that we don't experience life that way. We know red for the colour it is and not bother that the light reflected into our eyes has a wavelength between 625–740 nm. Beyond the actual colour, seeing red triggers various emotional, psychological and artistic responses too. Science can't really explain that, merely suggest the triggers and outcomes. At the same time, we can relate to Mary's predicament, though not as dramatic, in the way we read travelougues. We can read all about the sights and sounds of Istanbul and imagine, but being there allows to take in everything, from the air to the smells to the feel of the food and walls. It's just different and irreplaceable. (Damn, I need to go to Istanbul!). People feel first then analyse, we can't run away from that.
Mary will be having a hard time once she's able to see colour. Though the world will be alive and exciting, imagine if someone tells her that purple was blue. She might get it wrong forever. Unless of course she tests for wavelengths!
12. Picasso on the beach
Art itself is an expression of one's thoughts and ideas, regardless of whether the artwork is a representation of one's surroundings or a mental picture. Art for the sake of art is a noble pursuit by passionate but usually penniless visionaries. They paint, etch, sculpt and build (as most traditional arts go). Their works are usually recognised long after their deaths, auction gavels ringing in the millions for some fortunate relative/collector. The artist's passion has become immortal.
Throw money into the equation and you get something else. There may be artists or would be artists just faking it for the money, lapping up an ‘appreciative’ but possibly deluded clientele. “Buy it now and it’ll be worth millions later” could be a line you might hear at an art gallery. Not always.
Art is subjective. Like Heidi says “One day you’re in, the next day you’re out” while Coco said “Fashion fades, only style remains the same.” Immortality is in the style. Find your own. Yes, we all want to be remembered in one way or another, in fame or infamy. Painters paint, authors write and the rest of us tag along hoping to be remembered for the way we lived our lives. In our own style.
What is the purpose of art? Looking at it, be it a painting or sculpture, should invoke a response. That is it I think. No response, no art. It could be a case of people not looking and just passing by, and hence not feeling anything. There’s art in all things –from the way lines criss-cross in a aerial view of a city to the way leaves wither to the crow’s feet on my father’s face. Art is everywhere we choose to find it. If Roy was just watching and reveling in Picasso’s work, he might find a glimmer of that feeling in the art he observed. He really didn’t need to think of the money or fame of possessing a Picasso original. Picasso is just another guy with deft hands and a great imagination. But what did Picasso want an observer to feel?
When the waters came and washed away the work of a genius, would it matter to the genius? I doubt. He had done his deed and given himself in that moment. Not to preserve the work forever but revel in its execution. To have an observer revel too.
Throw money into the equation and you get something else. There may be artists or would be artists just faking it for the money, lapping up an ‘appreciative’ but possibly deluded clientele. “Buy it now and it’ll be worth millions later” could be a line you might hear at an art gallery. Not always.
Art is subjective. Like Heidi says “One day you’re in, the next day you’re out” while Coco said “Fashion fades, only style remains the same.” Immortality is in the style. Find your own. Yes, we all want to be remembered in one way or another, in fame or infamy. Painters paint, authors write and the rest of us tag along hoping to be remembered for the way we lived our lives. In our own style.
What is the purpose of art? Looking at it, be it a painting or sculpture, should invoke a response. That is it I think. No response, no art. It could be a case of people not looking and just passing by, and hence not feeling anything. There’s art in all things –from the way lines criss-cross in a aerial view of a city to the way leaves wither to the crow’s feet on my father’s face. Art is everywhere we choose to find it. If Roy was just watching and reveling in Picasso’s work, he might find a glimmer of that feeling in the art he observed. He really didn’t need to think of the money or fame of possessing a Picasso original. Picasso is just another guy with deft hands and a great imagination. But what did Picasso want an observer to feel?
When the waters came and washed away the work of a genius, would it matter to the genius? I doubt. He had done his deed and given himself in that moment. Not to preserve the work forever but revel in its execution. To have an observer revel too.
11. The ship Theseus
My first reaction was 'what's with these rich people? Mad ah?'
Then I put my thinking cap on. So this ship has been rebuilt with many new parts, and all the old bits have gone into making a new ship. Since the crazy rich guy wants the ship with all the deep gory history, then our friendly neighbourhood henchman should be after the ship rebuilt with the old authentic albeit morbid bits. It's the genuine, real deal isn't it?
What's written is true. Imagine that 1979 BMW is up for sale. Sentimentalists might buy the car for the old world charm and style. At the same, some folks wouldn't give a hoot for this 'old piece of junk'. The acquirer's motivation must prevail.
So far, the context surrounds stuff, actual, physical stuff. People on the other hand are a different story. We change. It's inevitable our psyches and mindsets are altered by the way we live and grow up. Some changes are quick like hair colour, others happen over decades like a heart attack from accumulated artery deposits. This also means that the people around us, our family, friends, colleagues, sports buddies will be affected in some way or rather by these changes. But to claim that these changes make us less genuine cannot be true. I am who I am but I do different things and think differently. But it's genuinely me. People might come up and say 'You're not the same person' but yeah I ain't. But it's still me.
Then I put my thinking cap on. So this ship has been rebuilt with many new parts, and all the old bits have gone into making a new ship. Since the crazy rich guy wants the ship with all the deep gory history, then our friendly neighbourhood henchman should be after the ship rebuilt with the old authentic albeit morbid bits. It's the genuine, real deal isn't it?
What's written is true. Imagine that 1979 BMW is up for sale. Sentimentalists might buy the car for the old world charm and style. At the same, some folks wouldn't give a hoot for this 'old piece of junk'. The acquirer's motivation must prevail.
So far, the context surrounds stuff, actual, physical stuff. People on the other hand are a different story. We change. It's inevitable our psyches and mindsets are altered by the way we live and grow up. Some changes are quick like hair colour, others happen over decades like a heart attack from accumulated artery deposits. This also means that the people around us, our family, friends, colleagues, sports buddies will be affected in some way or rather by these changes. But to claim that these changes make us less genuine cannot be true. I am who I am but I do different things and think differently. But it's genuinely me. People might come up and say 'You're not the same person' but yeah I ain't. But it's still me.
10. The veil of ignorance
Interesting predicament - equality vs meritocracy. It's nice that everyone gets their 'fair' share in the grand scheme of things. But then humans are greedy and lazy, naturally. So expect some people not to pull their 'fair' weight when it comes to work. So do these slackers deserve the equal amount of reward as everyone else?
Every society is made up of different kinds of people. We grow up subject to the rules and norms of the world around us. We are moulded into the productive or contributive (or the opposite) members of society. (I know this is simplifying things quite a bit as there are many, many factors that shape our lives but let's take this road before I end up with a thesis.) Wars and political manouvres have been played over the way we contribute to society. Communism came about because the farmers felt that the elite were oppressing them with taxes and secret police. The Soviets and some countries today have social systems that provide benefits to all, regardless of employment of contributive status. The 'dole' in Australia means they
In Singapore, the philosophy of meritocracy prevails. This socio-political ideology was put in place because the powers that be needed to provide equal opportunity to all races that made up the tiny island. Meritocracy meant that those that wanted to be all they could be could be all they could be. But that also means that Singaporeans couldn't afford to fail. After some years, the powers that be were enjoying a great booming economy but at the same time, there was a slice of the population that wasn't doing too good. So the government, keen on improving everyone's lives, does quite a bit to lessen the burden of the less fortunate or low-wage earners. We can't leave them behind. It's not fair distribution to one and all but it helps to even the general playing field.
So what should the Martians do? Here's what I think. Pick a leader by consensus. Get him/her to decide what needs to be done to survive. Delegate tasks and ensure they get done. Split the rewards into an 'everyone' set and 'bonus' set. Decide what over and above performance entails for the bonus rewards. Be fair and honest, distribute the 'everyone' rewards to all. Tell everyone what the 'bonus' rewards are for and get everyone to vote the people who deserved to get extra.
Every society is made up of different kinds of people. We grow up subject to the rules and norms of the world around us. We are moulded into the productive or contributive (or the opposite) members of society. (I know this is simplifying things quite a bit as there are many, many factors that shape our lives but let's take this road before I end up with a thesis.) Wars and political manouvres have been played over the way we contribute to society. Communism came about because the farmers felt that the elite were oppressing them with taxes and secret police. The Soviets and some countries today have social systems that provide benefits to all, regardless of employment of contributive status. The 'dole' in Australia means they
In Singapore, the philosophy of meritocracy prevails. This socio-political ideology was put in place because the powers that be needed to provide equal opportunity to all races that made up the tiny island. Meritocracy meant that those that wanted to be all they could be could be all they could be. But that also means that Singaporeans couldn't afford to fail. After some years, the powers that be were enjoying a great booming economy but at the same time, there was a slice of the population that wasn't doing too good. So the government, keen on improving everyone's lives, does quite a bit to lessen the burden of the less fortunate or low-wage earners. We can't leave them behind. It's not fair distribution to one and all but it helps to even the general playing field.
So what should the Martians do? Here's what I think. Pick a leader by consensus. Get him/her to decide what needs to be done to survive. Delegate tasks and ensure they get done. Split the rewards into an 'everyone' set and 'bonus' set. Decide what over and above performance entails for the bonus rewards. Be fair and honest, distribute the 'everyone' rewards to all. Tell everyone what the 'bonus' rewards are for and get everyone to vote the people who deserved to get extra.
Monday, February 12, 2007
9. Bigger brother
Pierre puts the math together seconds before participants respond in reality - that's not so bad. Yes, it means a computer can piece together circumstances related to time, space, environment and conditions to come up with a result that happens to be the actual decision from the affected person. But seriously, a few seconds before won't make much of a difference. If Pierre was applied to a hostage situation, then maybe we'll see dramatic possibilities from precognition.
Free will is perhaps, as written, the spontaneous decision-making at the moment of choice. Otherwise, isn't it just great planning? Knowing what my colleagues will eat for lunch on a Monday is the result of weeks of hanging around the same people for Monday lunch and seeing patterns in behaviour. That's it. If the order is or isn't expected, it is still free will on the part of my colleague. The choices are more or less the same, and faced with these, my colleague chooses wan tan mee. If it isn't wan tan mee, then the pattern of preference is broken for that week. No biggie.
Is Pierre going to do the same - seek patterns and make judgments? If a participant on the show tends to be passive and inclined to follow the opinion (as a character trait), then we would expect a particular outcome in certain situations, would we not? It may be a set of chemicals in the brain that trigger this response but isn't it rather a kink in the participant's nature through natural (or unnatural, as the case may be) development?
I've no real issue with a computer predicting human responses to situations. We've been doing that in the fields of economics, sociology, politics, psychology and medicine with various degrees of success. We become predictable as humans. We develop to follow order and systems, so it is inevitable that all the cogs, wheels and cycles click and mesh.
Free will is perhaps, as written, the spontaneous decision-making at the moment of choice. Otherwise, isn't it just great planning? Knowing what my colleagues will eat for lunch on a Monday is the result of weeks of hanging around the same people for Monday lunch and seeing patterns in behaviour. That's it. If the order is or isn't expected, it is still free will on the part of my colleague. The choices are more or less the same, and faced with these, my colleague chooses wan tan mee. If it isn't wan tan mee, then the pattern of preference is broken for that week. No biggie.
Is Pierre going to do the same - seek patterns and make judgments? If a participant on the show tends to be passive and inclined to follow the opinion (as a character trait), then we would expect a particular outcome in certain situations, would we not? It may be a set of chemicals in the brain that trigger this response but isn't it rather a kink in the participant's nature through natural (or unnatural, as the case may be) development?
I've no real issue with a computer predicting human responses to situations. We've been doing that in the fields of economics, sociology, politics, psychology and medicine with various degrees of success. We become predictable as humans. We develop to follow order and systems, so it is inevitable that all the cogs, wheels and cycles click and mesh.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
8. Good god
Wow. To some it might seem Plato should have been struck by lightning!
(Some years ago in school, my class discussed religion. Our teacher asked a question that rather disturbed her attentive audience - Did God create man, or did man create God? The basis for the latter was that man needed a supernatural being to explain the unexplainable phenomena around him. It was disturbing to think about rocking the fundamentals of religion. Here we go again.)
Man has the ability to decide what is good or bad, in most simple cases anyway. Do not steal, do not lie, do not hurt etc. Our conscience allows us to weigh the rationality of situations and actions to prescribe them as good or bad. How is our conscience inherently able to make this determination? A god-given ability? Maybe. If we are able to decide good or bad, does it also mean we can go against what we currently know to be good or bad based on God's word? Are we then going against God? Will God be upset or will He be happy that we are able to think for ourselves?
Let's not forget that it is also our upbringing that allows us to define right from wrong. Racist parents will likely have kids that feel the same way.
Different religions present varying versions of higher beings. There merciful gods, sympathetic gods and even vengeful gods. Some gods are presented with flowers, others with animal sacrifice. Given these differences, the message to their followers is likely different too. 'Good' to one person may not be the same as 'good' for another (granted there are also general key similarities in all religions). A good god that makes you do bad things? (Hmmm, i shouldn't be able to put that sentence together.) Then followers wouldn't know the difference. Would witnesses of other religions and atheists be able to identify the 'lack of good'? With caution, yes.
This situation also begs us to ask the questions - Are atheists evildoers? My answer is no. In fact, rational atheists should be able to provide a perspective untainted by religious constraints (if religion can be applied to the situation at hand).
(Some years ago in school, my class discussed religion. Our teacher asked a question that rather disturbed her attentive audience - Did God create man, or did man create God? The basis for the latter was that man needed a supernatural being to explain the unexplainable phenomena around him. It was disturbing to think about rocking the fundamentals of religion. Here we go again.)
Man has the ability to decide what is good or bad, in most simple cases anyway. Do not steal, do not lie, do not hurt etc. Our conscience allows us to weigh the rationality of situations and actions to prescribe them as good or bad. How is our conscience inherently able to make this determination? A god-given ability? Maybe. If we are able to decide good or bad, does it also mean we can go against what we currently know to be good or bad based on God's word? Are we then going against God? Will God be upset or will He be happy that we are able to think for ourselves?
Let's not forget that it is also our upbringing that allows us to define right from wrong. Racist parents will likely have kids that feel the same way.
Different religions present varying versions of higher beings. There merciful gods, sympathetic gods and even vengeful gods. Some gods are presented with flowers, others with animal sacrifice. Given these differences, the message to their followers is likely different too. 'Good' to one person may not be the same as 'good' for another (granted there are also general key similarities in all religions). A good god that makes you do bad things? (Hmmm, i shouldn't be able to put that sentence together.) Then followers wouldn't know the difference. Would witnesses of other religions and atheists be able to identify the 'lack of good'? With caution, yes.
This situation also begs us to ask the questions - Are atheists evildoers? My answer is no. In fact, rational atheists should be able to provide a perspective untainted by religious constraints (if religion can be applied to the situation at hand).
7. No one wins
This is a tough one.
War is bad. It brings out the worst in mankind. Despite the rules of war which both sides should stick to so that atrocities don't take place, we all know that it is easier said than done.
When soldiers far away from home, away from the people they care about, with their lives under threat, are very unlikely to care whether the enemy is treated humanely, regardless if they are innocent civilians. They probably hope that the enemy, civilian or otherwise, was just dead. it's cleaner that way? Less paperwork maybe?
Sacks has to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, both similar in outcome but different in execution (appropriate yet wrong word to use). Sacks is a victim of unfortunate circumstances and a lack of morals among his superiors. Does it nonetheless make Sacks blameless for his actions? No. Does it make Sacks a better person in possibly making his acts less painful for the victim? Yes. Brownie points in heaven, his superiors couldn't care less. Bet he'll go mad from the guilt later (veterans' syndrome). If Sacks objected, he'd be a martyr for morality. Not many would give a hoot, branded a treasonous outcast. It's hard to be the good guy sometimes.
War is bad. It brings out the worst in mankind. Despite the rules of war which both sides should stick to so that atrocities don't take place, we all know that it is easier said than done.
When soldiers far away from home, away from the people they care about, with their lives under threat, are very unlikely to care whether the enemy is treated humanely, regardless if they are innocent civilians. They probably hope that the enemy, civilian or otherwise, was just dead. it's cleaner that way? Less paperwork maybe?
Sacks has to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, both similar in outcome but different in execution (appropriate yet wrong word to use). Sacks is a victim of unfortunate circumstances and a lack of morals among his superiors. Does it nonetheless make Sacks blameless for his actions? No. Does it make Sacks a better person in possibly making his acts less painful for the victim? Yes. Brownie points in heaven, his superiors couldn't care less. Bet he'll go mad from the guilt later (veterans' syndrome). If Sacks objected, he'd be a martyr for morality. Not many would give a hoot, branded a treasonous outcast. It's hard to be the good guy sometimes.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
6. Wheel of fortune
Marge saw things wrongly. But as most people do, she tried to make connections between events. 'First 5 red, then the next spin would end up black. 6 black'. As written, she failed to grasp the mathematical probability of each individual event and accept that each event (spin of the roulette wheel) was independent of each and every other spin.
People make connections to make sense of the stuff they can't control. So if my knees ache, the must be rain coming, and other less than scientific explanations. Connections between and patterns in the occurrence of events allow us to appease the hauntingly apparent illogic of it all. Especially where fortune is concerned.
In Singapore, there's a number lottery that happens 3 times a week . It's called 4D. Some people believe they can predict the winning numbers from the winning numbers that have come before, in the hopes history repeats itself. For example, if 1234 was a winning number on Saturday and 4321 was a winning number on Sunday, many gamblers will make association and devote it to memory or their little notebook. So you can guess what number an 'attentive' gambler may bet on if ever 1234 won again. It's same thing Marge did - spot supposed patterns and make a 'perfectly logical' connections. Some signs make sense, other don't and never will.
Have you heard of the guy whose car engine died each time he went to a particular store to buy vanilla ice cream and only vanilla ice cream? Initially it was the curse of the flavour. But somewhere out there came a plausible, scientific explanation. Go Google it.
People make connections to make sense of the stuff they can't control. So if my knees ache, the must be rain coming, and other less than scientific explanations. Connections between and patterns in the occurrence of events allow us to appease the hauntingly apparent illogic of it all. Especially where fortune is concerned.
In Singapore, there's a number lottery that happens 3 times a week . It's called 4D. Some people believe they can predict the winning numbers from the winning numbers that have come before, in the hopes history repeats itself. For example, if 1234 was a winning number on Saturday and 4321 was a winning number on Sunday, many gamblers will make association and devote it to memory or their little notebook. So you can guess what number an 'attentive' gambler may bet on if ever 1234 won again. It's same thing Marge did - spot supposed patterns and make a 'perfectly logical' connections. Some signs make sense, other don't and never will.
Have you heard of the guy whose car engine died each time he went to a particular store to buy vanilla ice cream and only vanilla ice cream? Initially it was the curse of the flavour. But somewhere out there came a plausible, scientific explanation. Go Google it.
5. The pig that wants to be eaten
The pig is strange. If it volunteered to die, then it is going against nature - most living things fight to live. Is the pig too dumb to accept its reality, its existence? Unlikely, especially if it can talk. If it was explained to the pig that it was to be eaten, it must be disappointed to say the least. Accepting that fate and knowing that death would be painless and humane (how ironic), it goes ahead with slaughter - rather big of the pig don't you think? Goes against nature, I say. Those who object to cruelty to animals would be ok with this outcome - it's a happy ending for all, consumer and pig. Nonetheless, vegetarians who want the benefits of meatlessness would still continue to eat vegetables. No change there. I don't think vegetarians are driven to stick to their strict diet because animals suffer. They still kill cockroaches and slap mozzies to death.
What if the pig wanted to change its mind? Will the pig be set free?
If the pig was genetically engineered to accept the end game, to be ok with its murder for human consumption, was the genetic modification or brain rewiring the cruel act instead? Hence the developers of the GM pig hold the ultimate responsibility of not allowing the pig to have a choice. Does the pig deserve freedom of thought or the right to choose? To feed the world, no. To respect animals, no animal should be eaten.
What if the pig wanted to change its mind? Will the pig be set free?
If the pig was genetically engineered to accept the end game, to be ok with its murder for human consumption, was the genetic modification or brain rewiring the cruel act instead? Hence the developers of the GM pig hold the ultimate responsibility of not allowing the pig to have a choice. Does the pig deserve freedom of thought or the right to choose? To feed the world, no. To respect animals, no animal should be eaten.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
4. A byte on the side
People generally define infidelity on a moral and ethical level. So the idea of being unfaithful is enough to point fingers at. Yes, no crime may have happened or no contact had taken place but pre-meditation is enough for me. Pre-meditation in murder cases drags the killer deeper in trouble; forethought of an affair in marriage may go 'unpunished' as longs as it is not expressed. If Wifey found out, she might come after Dick with a knife. Too bad. So going ahead with virtual sex would be wrong for Dick.
3. The indian and the ice
Ignorance is often to blame for disbelief. Mankind usually needs to see things happen, experience them before acknowledging the reality of things. If enough people acknowledge this event/thing/occurrence, it is more likely that the nay-sayers will come to believe in the truth. Sort of a herd instinct, faith based on majority opinion or the opinion of the trusted ones. This is also how we study and teach, especially at the primary and secondary school levels, especially for Physics and Chemistry. High school kids won't see molecules or see chemical bonds in organic fuels - they read, study and accept, and pass exams in the trust that that is the truth - the truth built on the basis of sufficient believers. So it isn't Dhara's fault for doubting Mahavir, not yet.
2. Beam me up
Yes, we do perceive our psychological continuity to be more important than any physical continuity. This is evident in our ideas behind ghosts and of mythological punishments (where sorcerers turned men into frogs, toads and other creatures where the victims knew of their transformation) - the psychological form transcended the physical form. Even modern day films use such hyper-physical identity transformations (there was a movie where a man and woman switched bodies, a teenage girl and her mom did the same - titles of which i can't remember, haha). So, it is agreed that a person heart-mind-soul are more important then their bodies. The body is a container to support these things. As long as the death of the heart-mind-soul is deemed more substantial than the death of the body, then there is no murder. No end or loss of memory, no break in continuity of experience, no end of 'life'.
1. The evil demon
The basis of argument and reason has to be our ability to rationalize. If we are able to rationalize our thoughts in whatever realm we are in, whether controlled by an evil demon or not, then these thoughts must be the truth. If we are certain of this evil demon's dominion over us, then we must be able to know that this truth we believe now, in what forms it manifests, may change its state later. This knowledge is now the truth behind the truth, and it is what we must apply when we rationalize our arguments later.
A Book That Snorted Out To Me
.jpg)
Titles that stop you in your tracks. That's what this book did to me. In Singapore, it was marketed with yellow cover, red title copy and an image of a pig. If that doesn't stop a genuine book browser, little else will. Most people would probably pick the book, flip through the pages, and make a decision not to buy it because it's a thinkers' book. Philosophy is a big word that scares many people. The closest philosophical thought many may relate to is "To be or not to be, that is the question", although its roots are hardly philosophical (Shakespeare wasn't it?). "I think, therefore I am" could be next best. Anyway, my point is the book isn't for everyone. In this sunny island, it may not do so well (Sorry Julian Baggini).I started this blog to put down my own ideas and thoughts for each of the 100 thought experiments found in The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten and 99 Other Thought Experiments. Having read the first 6 chapters, I revisited them and wrote my ideas down on paper on the train ride home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)