Synopsis - Simone professes freedom from her captor under an act within the European declaration of human rights on slavery and servitude. She demands to be treated as an intelligent being despite being a computer. Can a computer make such a demand? Should an artificially intelligent device make such a stand? Who are we to judge really?
This is like Terminator or AI or I, Robot or Battlestar Galactica - all films and TV shows where technology seeks an upper hand over humankind. If we develop artificial intelligence smart enough to replicate our actions and sometimes thoughts, it is enough to treat these machines as human or almost human?
In all these movies, robots fulfill an aim and then realize people aren't really as smart as they seem to be, and take the next step where self-awareness provokes the need for self-preservation. Apart from AI, it all ends pretty badly for us fleshies.
Is intelligence a good gauge for being human? Baggini asks if you are aware who or even what could be behind the responses you get from let's say IM. When you are chatting with someone, how do you know that the responses are human? Computers can be made smart enough to mimic human responses and in some tests, we get pretty 'human' responses. Programmed-to-be-human responses. Like in games.
Is your calculator more intelligent than you are? That's another question posed. I couldn't find the square root of 2000 in a zip. I could estimate a close figure but not in any exactitude. I know my calculator isn't human but it helps me get answers that an ordinary human brain of the 21st century isn''t trained to do.
Perhaps the question should be what qualifies a human to have human rights? Blood and guts? Robots have wires and chips. A conscience or a sense of morality? We've seen that fail many times over with people trying to kill one another time and again. If robots were intelligent will they try to kill each other? Could logic go too far in computers so that they are compelled to seek a malicious course of action? That would make them human!
It's easy in our day and age when technology has not yet progressed to the point where we rely on robots or computers to be that smart to possess a self-awareness (well perhaps firewalls do) to declare without doubt Simone has no case. In the future it may be different. We may lead our lives interfacing with computer which can understand and compute varying complexities and nuances of human life and living. Then we'll have this problem. Perhaps we need to start thinking about the master off switch when we begin building intelligence things.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
31. Just So
Synopsis - Dr Kipling says that any human behaviour can be explained by our history as evolved beings and challenges anyone to throw up behaviour that tests this idea. "Why do kids wear their baseball caps the wrong way around?" Can Dr Kipling answer? Why yes, with two rather convincing reasons that relate to Darwin's survival of the fittest theory.
The reasons are quite convincing if taken at face value - I don't the need the protection of the cap and hence give the idea that I am a stronger male, and I am above the regular rules of cap wearing which make a superior male.
I think most ball player don't wear the cap the right way around is that the visor interferes with one's field of vision. I have a friend who wore a cap to study for the exams - it helped him focus by 'cutting out' distractions. Thinking cap I guess :)
Evolutionary psychology all sounds like a matter of retrofitting a rationale with the benefit of hindsight. Sure, men and women still innately want to mate, and that either party puts their best foot forward to impress the opposite sex. But the games and rules may have changed quite a bit, especially in urban societies. Also more women no longer think that they need a man to be happy, if happiness is their ultimate goal of life. Men on the other hand are horny creatures and very few detract from the notion they need to sow their seed. Perhaps in the modern context, it's more money than muscles that does the talking among men. Also I think more often that not, we are seeking a connection of the mind rather than physical attraction for long term relationship to happen.
There are possibly other reasons that work with the question, as Baggini as pointed out. Will it work with predictions though? Perhaps more work needs to be done in this area. If the theory needs to work, then evolutionary psychologists need to make predictions and see if they pan out they way expect. Financial crisis? Somali piracy? What's next for Japanese pop culture madness?
The reasons are quite convincing if taken at face value - I don't the need the protection of the cap and hence give the idea that I am a stronger male, and I am above the regular rules of cap wearing which make a superior male.
I think most ball player don't wear the cap the right way around is that the visor interferes with one's field of vision. I have a friend who wore a cap to study for the exams - it helped him focus by 'cutting out' distractions. Thinking cap I guess :)
Evolutionary psychology all sounds like a matter of retrofitting a rationale with the benefit of hindsight. Sure, men and women still innately want to mate, and that either party puts their best foot forward to impress the opposite sex. But the games and rules may have changed quite a bit, especially in urban societies. Also more women no longer think that they need a man to be happy, if happiness is their ultimate goal of life. Men on the other hand are horny creatures and very few detract from the notion they need to sow their seed. Perhaps in the modern context, it's more money than muscles that does the talking among men. Also I think more often that not, we are seeking a connection of the mind rather than physical attraction for long term relationship to happen.
There are possibly other reasons that work with the question, as Baggini as pointed out. Will it work with predictions though? Perhaps more work needs to be done in this area. If the theory needs to work, then evolutionary psychologists need to make predictions and see if they pan out they way expect. Financial crisis? Somali piracy? What's next for Japanese pop culture madness?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
30. Memories Are Made Of This
Synopsis - Alicia went to Greece and visited the Parthenon. It looked better from far then near she thought. Wait, she didn't go to Greece. Instead she got a memory transplant from her friend Mayte who was the actual traveller. They've exchanged memories so often that Alicia remembers many episodes of Mayte's experiences. But surely she doesn't feel like she owns Mayte's memories?
This story's a little complex. Psychological reductionism requires the continuation of mental lives as opposed to the conventional physical self as a matter of defining the self. An interesting thought - is your existence defined by what you remember? If you woke up one day and couldn't remember your past, would you still be you? This si sort of like Samantha on the TV show Samantha Who? She couldn't remember what happened or what she was like before her car accident, and begin life on a blank slate. A scary blank slate.
In some sense it is true. Your memories are the connections the brain has to everything around you. You can't learn anything without being able to remember. Does reflex action require memory? It should, at some deep level - the brain knows to tell your arm to move away when it touches a hot pot. Remember that movie, Memento? Poor guy couldn't remember a thing and had to tattoo stuff on his body. What about fears? Are they memory-based or hard-wired? Would be afraid of roaches if I lost my memory and encountered one? Hmm.
Yes, I agree that the self must be there to have memories. I exist and have memories. But at the same time, we live our lives based on our memories. So drawing that line becomes harder. The older we get, the more we cling on to our past as a way of defining who we are. It's really not pretty when you don't know who you are when you're helpless.
Finding it a little difficult to conclude this given that both angles to the argument make sense.
This story's a little complex. Psychological reductionism requires the continuation of mental lives as opposed to the conventional physical self as a matter of defining the self. An interesting thought - is your existence defined by what you remember? If you woke up one day and couldn't remember your past, would you still be you? This si sort of like Samantha on the TV show Samantha Who? She couldn't remember what happened or what she was like before her car accident, and begin life on a blank slate. A scary blank slate.
In some sense it is true. Your memories are the connections the brain has to everything around you. You can't learn anything without being able to remember. Does reflex action require memory? It should, at some deep level - the brain knows to tell your arm to move away when it touches a hot pot. Remember that movie, Memento? Poor guy couldn't remember a thing and had to tattoo stuff on his body. What about fears? Are they memory-based or hard-wired? Would be afraid of roaches if I lost my memory and encountered one? Hmm.
Yes, I agree that the self must be there to have memories. I exist and have memories. But at the same time, we live our lives based on our memories. So drawing that line becomes harder. The older we get, the more we cling on to our past as a way of defining who we are. It's really not pretty when you don't know who you are when you're helpless.
Finding it a little difficult to conclude this given that both angles to the argument make sense.
Monday, March 2, 2009
29. Life Dependency
Synopsis - Dick gets drunk at a party in a hospital and wakes up being a volunteer organ extension to a terminally ill violinist. He's gotta be hooked up for 9 months else the violinist will die. Dick protests but it's too late. Is it his fault or should he kill, essentially murder, the violinist?
Baggini reveals that this story is an analogy to the whole abortion issue. Dick's problem was that he got drunk. Completely self-inflicted and he's completely aware of his crime. But he didn't want to end up being a volunteer and especially not hooked up to another life for 9 months. The doctor tells him that he doesn't have a choice, that his 'partner' would die if he detached himself from him, and Dick needs to be 'locked in' for that time, just as a pregnant woman would be. Just like Dick, there are women who make this living, breathing mistake. Some then choose to wind up the pregnancies through abortion.
Beyond ending a life, the matter of choice for women to do this has been a thorny issue for quite a while. Dick will kill off an individual - a violinist with the ability to communicate, think and express himself if he unplugged himself. A pregnant woman on the other hand would abort a 'thing'? Undeveloped, many pro-choice activists would argue that the foetus isn't quite an individual.
Perhaps, as Baggini has mentioned, it is about taking responsibility. When screwing up means being stuck with a situation, one should 'man up' and admit the crime and do the time. I take the anti-abortion stance. Spending time with my less than one year old nephew has allowed me to experience the joys (and pains) of raising a kid. But a life is something that can be nurtured and moulded to something better than ourselves.
Baggini reveals that this story is an analogy to the whole abortion issue. Dick's problem was that he got drunk. Completely self-inflicted and he's completely aware of his crime. But he didn't want to end up being a volunteer and especially not hooked up to another life for 9 months. The doctor tells him that he doesn't have a choice, that his 'partner' would die if he detached himself from him, and Dick needs to be 'locked in' for that time, just as a pregnant woman would be. Just like Dick, there are women who make this living, breathing mistake. Some then choose to wind up the pregnancies through abortion.
Beyond ending a life, the matter of choice for women to do this has been a thorny issue for quite a while. Dick will kill off an individual - a violinist with the ability to communicate, think and express himself if he unplugged himself. A pregnant woman on the other hand would abort a 'thing'? Undeveloped, many pro-choice activists would argue that the foetus isn't quite an individual.
Perhaps, as Baggini has mentioned, it is about taking responsibility. When screwing up means being stuck with a situation, one should 'man up' and admit the crime and do the time. I take the anti-abortion stance. Spending time with my less than one year old nephew has allowed me to experience the joys (and pains) of raising a kid. But a life is something that can be nurtured and moulded to something better than ourselves.
Monday, February 2, 2009
28. The Nightmare Scenario
Synopsis - Lucy has a bad dream and wakes up in a panic. Just then, the monsters in her dream break through the windows and attack her. She screams, only to wake up, once more. A dream in a dream, or had it ended?
I have had one of those, a dream in a dream. I can't quite remember what either dream was about.
This chapter makes one ponder about the truth of reality. Are we dreaming now? Have we woken up? Did we ever really wake up? 99.99% of us probably go through life as a sequence of consequential or planned events. We don't think about what else could be happening around us or to us or whether we were really in control. Deep questions, perhaps too soon.
The question of what is real is a big one. "I think therefore I am", "I feel pain, I must be alive", "All the world's a stage, and we are merely actors". Many schools of thought that helps us broaden our perspectives. Baggini mentioned creating a history on the spot. In his dream of the prairie and Pastor Green, he felt comfortable and sure. He could relate to his circumstances in his dream as if he had lived it. Extending that idea to the present, it begs us to consider whether what we are doing and feeling now is quite literally a figment of our imaginations. There is perhaps no answer.
Do we create historical links to prevent our emotions from going into a panic? How many times have you walked into a room and not recalled why you came in the first place? It makes us feel good when we establish that flow of events that eventually led to us standing in that room. "Ah, to get the scissors". Without the links, we'd think we must be going mad.
Watched the Matrix? Cool movie aside, it set the stage of thinking out of the box. In the film, humans were bred for energy and to keep their brains occupied, false realities were transmitted into their system (cable TV?) to ensure their brains and bodies were none the wiser. Just like when you dream. So do we need to find that red pill to get out of this false reality were in? Haha.
Then there is dejavu. It's spooky eh. But we can never explain it. Maybe we don't want to know why we're feeling that way. I had this theory about alternate timelines like in the TV series Sliders. Imagine that your dream self could jump timelines and live the future or the past and when you woke, you're in the present. Then dejavu would connect the multiple realities. Sounds like a film.
Is it worth it thinking that hard about our reality and whether we haven't woke from an elaborate dream or some alien experiment? We wouldn't be happy. So forget about it and have some hot cocoa.
I have had one of those, a dream in a dream. I can't quite remember what either dream was about.
This chapter makes one ponder about the truth of reality. Are we dreaming now? Have we woken up? Did we ever really wake up? 99.99% of us probably go through life as a sequence of consequential or planned events. We don't think about what else could be happening around us or to us or whether we were really in control. Deep questions, perhaps too soon.
The question of what is real is a big one. "I think therefore I am", "I feel pain, I must be alive", "All the world's a stage, and we are merely actors". Many schools of thought that helps us broaden our perspectives. Baggini mentioned creating a history on the spot. In his dream of the prairie and Pastor Green, he felt comfortable and sure. He could relate to his circumstances in his dream as if he had lived it. Extending that idea to the present, it begs us to consider whether what we are doing and feeling now is quite literally a figment of our imaginations. There is perhaps no answer.
Do we create historical links to prevent our emotions from going into a panic? How many times have you walked into a room and not recalled why you came in the first place? It makes us feel good when we establish that flow of events that eventually led to us standing in that room. "Ah, to get the scissors". Without the links, we'd think we must be going mad.
Watched the Matrix? Cool movie aside, it set the stage of thinking out of the box. In the film, humans were bred for energy and to keep their brains occupied, false realities were transmitted into their system (cable TV?) to ensure their brains and bodies were none the wiser. Just like when you dream. So do we need to find that red pill to get out of this false reality were in? Haha.
Then there is dejavu. It's spooky eh. But we can never explain it. Maybe we don't want to know why we're feeling that way. I had this theory about alternate timelines like in the TV series Sliders. Imagine that your dream self could jump timelines and live the future or the past and when you woke, you're in the present. Then dejavu would connect the multiple realities. Sounds like a film.
Is it worth it thinking that hard about our reality and whether we haven't woke from an elaborate dream or some alien experiment? We wouldn't be happy. So forget about it and have some hot cocoa.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
27. Duties Done
Synopsis - Four kids on a round-the-world holiday tell Mom they'd write home. All four do but none of their letters reach home. Have they fulfilled their moral obligations?
Nice names. I was looking for some kind of code in Hew, Drew, Sue and Lou.
Anyways, Baggini explains that the story of simple letter writing and non-receipt has greater implications to bigger moral issues. Kinda freaky but the extrapolation is valid.
All four kids made attempts to communicate with their mother and through no or little fault of their own, no letter made it to mom. Their intention though genuine, sincere and manifested, the intended outcome did not materialise. Is this a question of responsibility? All four kid did as required of them. So in their minds, it's a non-issue. "Yeah Mom, I wrote. What nothing came through? Shucks"
It sounds a little like politics. When it's time for elections, politicians may promise the Earth and when it comes to deliver, no one really knows what happened down the line. "Yeah, I promise to clean up the streets." and months later, "I blame the police for not seeing this through." (Sorry, I am generalising. Too much Law & Order).
The example Baggini brought up was about calling off a nuke attack. Ok, that is a very big difference. The Chief of the Nuke Forces better listen to the President then and execute orders immediately, dammit. So follow through, is that what we should be concerned about? Expectations of performance come into play. I was a Project Manager in a digital agency for 3 years and it that time, I understood what it means to see things through all the way to the end. Yes, you need to trust everyone you work with to do their job but my job was to question and check every step of the way. Just like Hew, Drew and Lou trusted different sets of people down the 'postal line' to facilitate the transfer of each letter, we all have to trust that people do their job too. Especially managers and bosses. Else nothing would work. Society would fumble back to cavemen times.
If something didn't work, who's fault would it be? As a PM I would look at the problem in steps - who did what, who didn't do what, what did happen, what didn't happen what didn't the PM do. That's all logical and clinical. Hew could go confront his friends. Lou could go see someone in the post office.
But we all have expectations, appropriately measured, for all aspects of our interactions. The kids had to rely on the postal service to fulfill their moral duty. Maybe they would or wouldn't expect the letters to get delivered because of past experiences. In Singapore, the postal service guarantees local mail arrives the next day unless there's a problem. Most Singaporeans have come to have this expectation of service too. I have to trust the eggs are fresh when I buy them at the market because I wouldn't know if they are. My moral duty ends when I had the money over, I think.
This is also why Fedex, UPS and DHL make a lot of money. Trust them to get things delivered.
Nice names. I was looking for some kind of code in Hew, Drew, Sue and Lou.
Anyways, Baggini explains that the story of simple letter writing and non-receipt has greater implications to bigger moral issues. Kinda freaky but the extrapolation is valid.
All four kids made attempts to communicate with their mother and through no or little fault of their own, no letter made it to mom. Their intention though genuine, sincere and manifested, the intended outcome did not materialise. Is this a question of responsibility? All four kid did as required of them. So in their minds, it's a non-issue. "Yeah Mom, I wrote. What nothing came through? Shucks"
It sounds a little like politics. When it's time for elections, politicians may promise the Earth and when it comes to deliver, no one really knows what happened down the line. "Yeah, I promise to clean up the streets." and months later, "I blame the police for not seeing this through." (Sorry, I am generalising. Too much Law & Order).
The example Baggini brought up was about calling off a nuke attack. Ok, that is a very big difference. The Chief of the Nuke Forces better listen to the President then and execute orders immediately, dammit. So follow through, is that what we should be concerned about? Expectations of performance come into play. I was a Project Manager in a digital agency for 3 years and it that time, I understood what it means to see things through all the way to the end. Yes, you need to trust everyone you work with to do their job but my job was to question and check every step of the way. Just like Hew, Drew and Lou trusted different sets of people down the 'postal line' to facilitate the transfer of each letter, we all have to trust that people do their job too. Especially managers and bosses. Else nothing would work. Society would fumble back to cavemen times.
If something didn't work, who's fault would it be? As a PM I would look at the problem in steps - who did what, who didn't do what, what did happen, what didn't happen what didn't the PM do. That's all logical and clinical. Hew could go confront his friends. Lou could go see someone in the post office.
But we all have expectations, appropriately measured, for all aspects of our interactions. The kids had to rely on the postal service to fulfill their moral duty. Maybe they would or wouldn't expect the letters to get delivered because of past experiences. In Singapore, the postal service guarantees local mail arrives the next day unless there's a problem. Most Singaporeans have come to have this expectation of service too. I have to trust the eggs are fresh when I buy them at the market because I wouldn't know if they are. My moral duty ends when I had the money over, I think.
This is also why Fedex, UPS and DHL make a lot of money. Trust them to get things delivered.
Monday, January 19, 2009
26. Pain's Remains
This is a good chapter - it helps us think a lot about what pain means and what its consequences are, beyond the physical but the emotional and ethical.
When we grow up we learn that pain hurts. We touch something sharp and cut ourselves, the bacteria on the outside start to attack and our nervous systems reacts by sending pain signals to the brain. Kids cry, adults not so much. We touch something hot and we reflexively jerk away the offended hand. Apparently, the reflex happens before the brain can tell you it hurts (I read this in another book). So pain is important in letting us know what hurts the body.
If hurting is suffering then idea of ethical treatment of animals holds sway. Killing animals is not nice but we do it for food, protection and maintain the balance of some predator/prey numbers. There are some arses who kill for fun and those guys deserve to be shot in the knees. Vegetarians probably have a field day rubbing it in, that were bad people to eat meat. It's also harmful to the environment it seems, to eat meat. I try to ensure its quick when I get that roach. Not hurt the animal so much. Like in those movies where the kid is crying as farmer dad has to put down the hurt horse.
The kid in that movie is shattered emotionally. Just like people who have fallen out of love, it hurts. That pain of loss or rejection stays with you for a long time. The hearts tears and the brain etches the scar of that pain forever. Time heals all wounds but the scar remains. So what that pain does is that it helps us learn about what hurts the heart. Pain that may help us with future interactions or cause us to shun contact.
So is having no pain good? The story somehow justifies not having the memory of pain but harm is being done to the body (so that it can heal later). Not using anaesthesia is a great thing. But it is worrisome that someone could do something to you and you not feel it. It somehow makes us less human i feel.
Remember that guy in the Bond film who got hurt in the head such that he couldn't feel pain? Some Russian dude. He was a baddie and he would grab hot metal to prove a point to his minions and victims. Feeling no pain made it easy for him to hurt other people. It made him robotic and clinical in his mission. Heartless perhaps.
If the memory of pain and how our brain processes memories is more relevant to the experience of pain and the learning behind pain, then yes, different creatures would "feel" pain differently. But I guess that how we evolved up the evolutionary ladder - to recognise pain and treat it; to remember pain and not repeat what caused it; and not to inflict pain on others. Some of us haven't evolved, clearly.
When we grow up we learn that pain hurts. We touch something sharp and cut ourselves, the bacteria on the outside start to attack and our nervous systems reacts by sending pain signals to the brain. Kids cry, adults not so much. We touch something hot and we reflexively jerk away the offended hand. Apparently, the reflex happens before the brain can tell you it hurts (I read this in another book). So pain is important in letting us know what hurts the body.
If hurting is suffering then idea of ethical treatment of animals holds sway. Killing animals is not nice but we do it for food, protection and maintain the balance of some predator/prey numbers. There are some arses who kill for fun and those guys deserve to be shot in the knees. Vegetarians probably have a field day rubbing it in, that were bad people to eat meat. It's also harmful to the environment it seems, to eat meat. I try to ensure its quick when I get that roach. Not hurt the animal so much. Like in those movies where the kid is crying as farmer dad has to put down the hurt horse.
The kid in that movie is shattered emotionally. Just like people who have fallen out of love, it hurts. That pain of loss or rejection stays with you for a long time. The hearts tears and the brain etches the scar of that pain forever. Time heals all wounds but the scar remains. So what that pain does is that it helps us learn about what hurts the heart. Pain that may help us with future interactions or cause us to shun contact.
So is having no pain good? The story somehow justifies not having the memory of pain but harm is being done to the body (so that it can heal later). Not using anaesthesia is a great thing. But it is worrisome that someone could do something to you and you not feel it. It somehow makes us less human i feel.
Remember that guy in the Bond film who got hurt in the head such that he couldn't feel pain? Some Russian dude. He was a baddie and he would grab hot metal to prove a point to his minions and victims. Feeling no pain made it easy for him to hurt other people. It made him robotic and clinical in his mission. Heartless perhaps.
If the memory of pain and how our brain processes memories is more relevant to the experience of pain and the learning behind pain, then yes, different creatures would "feel" pain differently. But I guess that how we evolved up the evolutionary ladder - to recognise pain and treat it; to remember pain and not repeat what caused it; and not to inflict pain on others. Some of us haven't evolved, clearly.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
25. Buridan's an ass
Odd description for a man in eventual peril. Well maybe because he is in peril of himself.
This is an interesting story followed by an equally thought-provoking explanation from the author. So it seems that sometimes we mix up the idea of non-rational and irrational - that's the take-away. That's fair.
The story's dilemma of the coin toss and the explanation's example of herbal medicine are clear instances of using non-rational means to solve a problem. There could be more such situations I guess like why some people like their yolks squishy and some don't. Preferences we can't explain but meet a need.
Can processes be irrational though? A coin toss is non-rational but it helps us choose between two equally-weighted options. If we has to toss a coin, hop on one foot, sing the national anthemn and only accept the result if the coin hit the ground and bounced off in a westerly direction, that would be irrational I imagine.
This is an interesting story followed by an equally thought-provoking explanation from the author. So it seems that sometimes we mix up the idea of non-rational and irrational - that's the take-away. That's fair.
The story's dilemma of the coin toss and the explanation's example of herbal medicine are clear instances of using non-rational means to solve a problem. There could be more such situations I guess like why some people like their yolks squishy and some don't. Preferences we can't explain but meet a need.
Can processes be irrational though? A coin toss is non-rational but it helps us choose between two equally-weighted options. If we has to toss a coin, hop on one foot, sing the national anthemn and only accept the result if the coin hit the ground and bounced off in a westerly direction, that would be irrational I imagine.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
24. Squaring The Circle
The God introduced to us in this chapter is a very tough God. He sounds very early Biblical, circa Moses' time, or one of those that lived on Mount Olympus. They seemed to be able to command mankind at whim and fancy, usually at the threat of untold misery in the form of miraculous catastrophes.
As cavemen developed into mankind in societies, we needed explanations for many natural occurrences around them. LIghtning and thunder became manifestations of anger of the higher powers, so were disease, famine and war. Blessings from the gods came in the form of good weather, bountiful harvests and accidental discoveries of gold. It was easy to attribute these occurrences to religion. A society where followers of a dominant religion were prosperous and powerful were often described as blessed by the Gods and thus had the right to impose themselves on others.
Anyway, what I am trying to get at is, early man needed God to explain things he could not fathom. It was easy to do so. Animism, and some religions like Hinduism and Catholicism, and many superstitions factor highly on the 'work of higher powers' scale to validate certain practices. We were asked in junior college, "Did Man create God or did God create Man?". That really got us thinking.
The science came along. Since some bloke said the Earth went around the Sun and got in trouble with the Church, there has been no let up in the revisions organised religion has had to do to keep 'up-to-date' with popular belief and the rationality we in the 21st century have come to subscribe to. I recently read a book Why the Toast Always Lands Butter-Side Down: The Science of Murphy's Law by Richard Robinson which explained many phenomena we had come to accept as bad luck or Murphy's Law - even why bad things happen in threes.
Yes, by definition we cannot square a circle. That amount of logic requires us to be rational about it. Being rational about things we have to deal with helps us get through life. Being irrational will probably make one lose friends. But being rational and logical about everything will turn most of us into atheists bent on applying science and reason. It might be interesting to find out how many physicists are religious.
So we need reason to live our lives, but faith to believe in and not get too far ahead of ourselves. I bet there are some people who can compartmentalise their logic and faith bits, and turn them on and off at the right time. It helps them get by. If you take religion as a way to basic ethics and to differentiate good and bad, and perhaps to build communities, the pain of questioning God in light of science and reason goes away.
As cavemen developed into mankind in societies, we needed explanations for many natural occurrences around them. LIghtning and thunder became manifestations of anger of the higher powers, so were disease, famine and war. Blessings from the gods came in the form of good weather, bountiful harvests and accidental discoveries of gold. It was easy to attribute these occurrences to religion. A society where followers of a dominant religion were prosperous and powerful were often described as blessed by the Gods and thus had the right to impose themselves on others.
Anyway, what I am trying to get at is, early man needed God to explain things he could not fathom. It was easy to do so. Animism, and some religions like Hinduism and Catholicism, and many superstitions factor highly on the 'work of higher powers' scale to validate certain practices. We were asked in junior college, "Did Man create God or did God create Man?". That really got us thinking.
The science came along. Since some bloke said the Earth went around the Sun and got in trouble with the Church, there has been no let up in the revisions organised religion has had to do to keep 'up-to-date' with popular belief and the rationality we in the 21st century have come to subscribe to. I recently read a book Why the Toast Always Lands Butter-Side Down: The Science of Murphy's Law by Richard Robinson which explained many phenomena we had come to accept as bad luck or Murphy's Law - even why bad things happen in threes.
Yes, by definition we cannot square a circle. That amount of logic requires us to be rational about it. Being rational about things we have to deal with helps us get through life. Being irrational will probably make one lose friends. But being rational and logical about everything will turn most of us into atheists bent on applying science and reason. It might be interesting to find out how many physicists are religious.
So we need reason to live our lives, but faith to believe in and not get too far ahead of ourselves. I bet there are some people who can compartmentalise their logic and faith bits, and turn them on and off at the right time. It helps them get by. If you take religion as a way to basic ethics and to differentiate good and bad, and perhaps to build communities, the pain of questioning God in light of science and reason goes away.
An Apology
I have not been attending to this blog for a long long time. I'm sorry. I stopped writing since my PDA died and it was a habit I had - reading each story on the way to work and writing out my opinion straight into a digital format on my PDA. The demise of my PDA somehow made me stop altogether. And the book had been gathering dust.
Since my last post I have been receiving comments on my posts and lately, there have been too many to ignore. Better yet, there have been comments that spark debate and discussion - brilliant! Certainly one of my initial aims for setting up this blog. Thank you for your comments and ideas.
So I am going to take this seriously once more and hope not to let apathy or laziness take over. A Sunday afternoon ritual for 2009.
Since my last post I have been receiving comments on my posts and lately, there have been too many to ignore. Better yet, there have been comments that spark debate and discussion - brilliant! Certainly one of my initial aims for setting up this blog. Thank you for your comments and ideas.
So I am going to take this seriously once more and hope not to let apathy or laziness take over. A Sunday afternoon ritual for 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)