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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)