Synopsis - Brian has an accident and only his brain survives. Unable to find a suitable donor body, doctors then hook Brian's brain to a supercomputer that feeds him sufficient stimuli that 'Brian' can now live his life 'normally' as his brain perceives. But is he really living or are any of us?
Isn't this basis of the Matrix movies?(I wrote that before reading Baggini's thoughts on the matter.) And what he writes about a 90% chance that we could be in a fake environment is indeed startling.
Perhaps atheists would use this argument to explain that miracles are merely the deeds of a supercomputer, sort of like the larger-than-life animations we see in the movies. These illusions would be an experiment by some puppet master. Thinking about it makes it kinda cool but at the same it makes us sad guinea pigs at the mercy of a higher being that sits in front of a computer.
I read a science fiction story when I was 11 about how God came into being. He was a kid who had special abilities and was groomed by similar others when his abilities manifested. He was later told to create life and be in charge all that went on in that experimental realm. The kid's name was G O Dextrium.
Another story I read had the solar system in a terrarium-like lab environment. It took large biblical events and reduced each to experimental intervention e.g. the great flood happened because a scientist accidentally spilled water on the terrarium. So on and so forth.
I can only conclude that if indeed we are controlled by a computer, wow, the programming must be awesome.
There's little room to really argue any defence for or against this idea. Already most of the planet already believes in some form of higher being to explain the universe's existence. The rest of us just simply take it one day at a time.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
50. The Good Bribe
Synopsis - A businessman, known for being less than honest, comes up to the PM and asks to be included in the Queen's honours list for which he'll give $10 million to help improve water supply to hundreds of thousands in Africa. Should the PM accept this good bribe?
Well, we all need a little recognition sometimes.
The trouble here is the element of corruption. There is usually an advantage gained by one or both parties involved in a corrupt deal. In this case, the businessman would get his OBE and the PM would feel good knowing he helped many underprivileged people get access to water. Baggini states that the PM's reward is moral self-indulgence, not quIte the usual reward one would expect.
Off the bat, I state that I thought it was not a bad proposal because I thought about the benefits reaped. Then as I read on, my opinion wavered.
Some questions: Isn't it the PM's job to look after the welfare of his people and not those far away? If the offer was to improve the lives of people at home, would it make less offensive/repugnant to accept the 'bribe'? If accepted and found out later, the PM might be in not as much trouble if his fellow voters benefited. Then it speaks badly of the PM's character - he's swayed by this one seemingly harmless gesture but what could be next? Greater dishonesty? Practice makes perfect also applies to crooks. And malleable isn't the sort of description voters would want of their PM.
What's an OBE worth? I'm not sure. I know lots of different persons get an OBE for various reasons but mostly for contributions to the country, its honour or to its people. Stephen Hawking, Richard Branson and Elton John got one each, demonstrating the breath of the spectrum of recipient types. For some, it's likely a matter of pride, especially in this case. There's no good reason for getting one but said businessman wants to show off.
But people do this sort of thing all the time though, especially with charitable donations when it's announced or etched on a wall that Mr. So and So generously gave $X. Not much effort, gain some fame. Would it be less ego-inflating if more effort was put in? Parents' community service in select schools gets their kids into the school. That's a little more fair I guess for this advantage.
Well, we all need a little recognition sometimes.
The trouble here is the element of corruption. There is usually an advantage gained by one or both parties involved in a corrupt deal. In this case, the businessman would get his OBE and the PM would feel good knowing he helped many underprivileged people get access to water. Baggini states that the PM's reward is moral self-indulgence, not quIte the usual reward one would expect.
Off the bat, I state that I thought it was not a bad proposal because I thought about the benefits reaped. Then as I read on, my opinion wavered.
Some questions: Isn't it the PM's job to look after the welfare of his people and not those far away? If the offer was to improve the lives of people at home, would it make less offensive/repugnant to accept the 'bribe'? If accepted and found out later, the PM might be in not as much trouble if his fellow voters benefited. Then it speaks badly of the PM's character - he's swayed by this one seemingly harmless gesture but what could be next? Greater dishonesty? Practice makes perfect also applies to crooks. And malleable isn't the sort of description voters would want of their PM.
What's an OBE worth? I'm not sure. I know lots of different persons get an OBE for various reasons but mostly for contributions to the country, its honour or to its people. Stephen Hawking, Richard Branson and Elton John got one each, demonstrating the breath of the spectrum of recipient types. For some, it's likely a matter of pride, especially in this case. There's no good reason for getting one but said businessman wants to show off.
But people do this sort of thing all the time though, especially with charitable donations when it's announced or etched on a wall that Mr. So and So generously gave $X. Not much effort, gain some fame. Would it be less ego-inflating if more effort was put in? Parents' community service in select schools gets their kids into the school. That's a little more fair I guess for this advantage.
Friday, June 11, 2010
49. The Hole In The Sum Of Parts
Synopsis - Two American tourists in London hopped into a taxi and asked the driver for a quick tour of Oxford University in adjacent Stratford upon Avon. The driver brings them around the colleges, libraries and facilities. When back in London, the tourists accuse him of not showing them the university, just buildings. What makes a university?
Gilbert Ryle calls this a category mistake where one associates a concept for tangible material entities. A university isn't one building but more than a space for higher learning. A collection of colleges perhaps. That's it. So the biggest error that the American tourists made was in thinking Oxford university was represented by one building. But the more confusing issue is the case of a university being neither a material or immaterial thing. It is a real word that represents an idea that comprises many tangible things.
Right off Wikipedia, the word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars.", and not buildings. Over time, we've come to designate physical space to universities and that's what perhaps makes for some twist in meaning. Of course a university needs buildings, libraries and lecture theatres and things but these are extensions of the idea. Couldn't this community of scholars not just talk under a tree?
So no one's really wrong here, just not quite totally right.
Gilbert Ryle calls this a category mistake where one associates a concept for tangible material entities. A university isn't one building but more than a space for higher learning. A collection of colleges perhaps. That's it. So the biggest error that the American tourists made was in thinking Oxford university was represented by one building. But the more confusing issue is the case of a university being neither a material or immaterial thing. It is a real word that represents an idea that comprises many tangible things.
Right off Wikipedia, the word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars.", and not buildings. Over time, we've come to designate physical space to universities and that's what perhaps makes for some twist in meaning. Of course a university needs buildings, libraries and lecture theatres and things but these are extensions of the idea. Couldn't this community of scholars not just talk under a tree?
So no one's really wrong here, just not quite totally right.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
48. Evil Genius
Synopsis - Everyone agrees that De Puta Madre is an exceptionally made film and ticks all the boxes when it comes to art and creativity. But most want it banned for it's content. The moral story is deplorable and inhuman. So should the film be banned? Will there be a common ground?
Off the bat, there are many examples when among contemporary blockbusters that defy local moral and ethics. I use the word local because not all mankind respects the same morals and ethics. There are many ambiguous and amorphous factors that surround the acceptance of art. Many cultural notions affect and define the limits and bounds we treat as acceptable. Brokeback Mountain was critically acclaimed from artistic angles but the subject matter was a tricky one and the film was not freely screened in many countries. Of countries and inevitably, governments, someone or some people decides generally what's good for their population and possibly in their self-interest.
As mentioned, Keats wrote 'beauty is truth, truth is beauty' and in some cases the truth hurts. Is watching how depraved we can be on film a relfection of humanity? Perhaps it is. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. (Cliche but contextually useful) It might be a learning to experience a darker side of the human psyche on screen instead of real life. But the limits are once again to be set by those who know better. We rely on parents to tell their children to go to bed when something not right is on TV. We develop our sense of morality and ethics as we grow up. So as we see these immoral and unethical deeds are performed by actors in a film, we're not corrupted. Affected yes but not corrupted.
The film described deals with social conditions and hierarchy. Perhaps it will give an insight to another side of humanity, of what could have been. But if the subject matter was closer to some hearts, let's say it was about religion, I am sure even a beautifully made film will not make public consumption in some societies purely because it offends the masses and flips socially accepted norms. It already happens for less serious reasons. Art loses.
Film is art and art is meant to move the soul. If art doesn't make an impact, then it has failed. The fact that critics can find the film beautiful in execution but nasty in content means that this piece of art has worked to some extent. Despite this, the issue of general consumption, I feel, is a different one altogether and a debatable one.
Off the bat, there are many examples when among contemporary blockbusters that defy local moral and ethics. I use the word local because not all mankind respects the same morals and ethics. There are many ambiguous and amorphous factors that surround the acceptance of art. Many cultural notions affect and define the limits and bounds we treat as acceptable. Brokeback Mountain was critically acclaimed from artistic angles but the subject matter was a tricky one and the film was not freely screened in many countries. Of countries and inevitably, governments, someone or some people decides generally what's good for their population and possibly in their self-interest.
As mentioned, Keats wrote 'beauty is truth, truth is beauty' and in some cases the truth hurts. Is watching how depraved we can be on film a relfection of humanity? Perhaps it is. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. (Cliche but contextually useful) It might be a learning to experience a darker side of the human psyche on screen instead of real life. But the limits are once again to be set by those who know better. We rely on parents to tell their children to go to bed when something not right is on TV. We develop our sense of morality and ethics as we grow up. So as we see these immoral and unethical deeds are performed by actors in a film, we're not corrupted. Affected yes but not corrupted.
The film described deals with social conditions and hierarchy. Perhaps it will give an insight to another side of humanity, of what could have been. But if the subject matter was closer to some hearts, let's say it was about religion, I am sure even a beautifully made film will not make public consumption in some societies purely because it offends the masses and flips socially accepted norms. It already happens for less serious reasons. Art loses.
Film is art and art is meant to move the soul. If art doesn't make an impact, then it has failed. The fact that critics can find the film beautiful in execution but nasty in content means that this piece of art has worked to some extent. Despite this, the issue of general consumption, I feel, is a different one altogether and a debatable one.
Friday, June 4, 2010
47. Rabbit!
Synopsis - Professor Lapin wants to set up a lexicon of an unknown language used by a newly found tribe. His first word is 'gavagai' which he heard said whenever a rabbit was seen. So is 'gavagai' rabbit? Just rabbit or rabbit seen hopping or rabbit in the evening or slow rabbit that's easy to catch? The possibilities all work. So what's 'gavagai'? How should Professor Lapin begin?
This is not quite a discussion but an agreement with the author that language has to be taken in context of culture and local practices. The example of 'esposas' in Spanish is an awesome one. Haha, how some men would agree they are handcuffs. I read somewhere that Eskimos have over 40 words/expressions for snow, to describe its feel, conditions of arrival and other circumstances. How words and phrases come about in a language is often based on circumstance and perhaps need. There's one word for uncooked and cooked rice in English whereas many Asian languages have separate words to described either state of rice.
It's a hard thing to do, putting a language together. It takes a lot of patience and revisiting concepts to refine the quality of the translation.
This is not quite a discussion but an agreement with the author that language has to be taken in context of culture and local practices. The example of 'esposas' in Spanish is an awesome one. Haha, how some men would agree they are handcuffs. I read somewhere that Eskimos have over 40 words/expressions for snow, to describe its feel, conditions of arrival and other circumstances. How words and phrases come about in a language is often based on circumstance and perhaps need. There's one word for uncooked and cooked rice in English whereas many Asian languages have separate words to described either state of rice.
It's a hard thing to do, putting a language together. It takes a lot of patience and revisiting concepts to refine the quality of the translation.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
46. Amoebaesque
Synopsis - Derek has a peculiar ability - if his arm is chopped off, it regenerates. Like Claire in Heroes. Over time though, his body started deteriorating and during the op to save his life, his brain got split in half. Luckily each half grew back into a whole and was transplanted into a new body each. Now each Derek think its the real Derek and wants his stuff back.
So it's a question of identity. Who's the real Derek? Can there be a real Derek?
I think the biggest mistake post-op was letting both brain-halves regenerate and be transplanted into a new body. Why keep both? An experiment? Was one brain was a backup? All the problems that followed started from the surgeon's error. Bad doctor. I'm not sure if it would have been right to kill off one Derek before he woke up but surely the doctor has the bear the brunt of some of this identity confusion.
Each Derek has the memories, skills and personality of the original Derek. But that doesn't mean they would act, react or make the same decisions in the present time. Maybe they both prefer eggs sunny side up but that doesn't mean that both will enjoy eggs for breakfast all the time. Soon either Derek willl inevitably make his own decisions and live his own life. Let each Derek forge his own identity. It can't be defined at the get-go, just like in a new born. Only time and individual experience, and in this case, a good deal of psychological counselling, will shape and form the identity. It's true that the past will haunt them in a very real sense, but the confusion and denial/acceptance must be settled first. Everyone else around them has to choose also. Which Derek is your Derek? Good, now stick him.
I wonder if the two Derek could eventually be friends?
So it's a question of identity. Who's the real Derek? Can there be a real Derek?
I think the biggest mistake post-op was letting both brain-halves regenerate and be transplanted into a new body. Why keep both? An experiment? Was one brain was a backup? All the problems that followed started from the surgeon's error. Bad doctor. I'm not sure if it would have been right to kill off one Derek before he woke up but surely the doctor has the bear the brunt of some of this identity confusion.
Each Derek has the memories, skills and personality of the original Derek. But that doesn't mean they would act, react or make the same decisions in the present time. Maybe they both prefer eggs sunny side up but that doesn't mean that both will enjoy eggs for breakfast all the time. Soon either Derek willl inevitably make his own decisions and live his own life. Let each Derek forge his own identity. It can't be defined at the get-go, just like in a new born. Only time and individual experience, and in this case, a good deal of psychological counselling, will shape and form the identity. It's true that the past will haunt them in a very real sense, but the confusion and denial/acceptance must be settled first. Everyone else around them has to choose also. Which Derek is your Derek? Good, now stick him.
I wonder if the two Derek could eventually be friends?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
45. The Invisible Gardener
Synopsis - Stanley and Livingston have been staking out a clearing in the forest, waiting for a gardener who supposedly tends to the area. Nothing moved in that time but Livingston suggests he might be 'invisible' but a frustrated Stanley wants to send the gardener to 'invisible heaven'.
I didn't expect Baggini to relate this story to the existence of God. Quite a dramatic but logical progression I suppose. So can God be said to exist if there is no physical sign of his intervention? Maybe not. Can God be believed in even these signs do not exist? Yes.
I remember at interesting lesson in school when the teacher asked 'Did God invent man or did man invent God?' That was a wow moment in education for me, those times when a uninitiated part of the brain suddenly springs to action with new oxygen. Back to the topic, it seems early man had a great need to explain the world about him and when he couldn't quite explain things, he attributed the event to a higher power. Fair I guess. But what sort of became unfair was the way that those in power or wanted to be in power used these beliefs as a way of control. That still happens today. Many people do things, harmful things, in the name of God. I can't subscribe to this.
Science has come along to explain phenomena and in most cases helped make our lives better. The case for religion has somewhat waned in the shining spectre of logic. Some have totally rejected the idea of a higher being, others have taking their foot out of organized religion while preserving an understanding and respect for God and further others have attributed the wonders of science to God's greatness, a solidification of their case for religion. There many ways to tackle this 'invisible hand'.
Yes, things will happen around us because nature takes care of things. There will be ebbs and flows in the way the Earth changes but generally there's a balance. We may not be able to account for everything, a role for science to qualify, but their is change about for sure. When Man stepped into this picture, a thinking, creative being, the situation changes somewhat. We began to manipulate the world around us. That sort of started screwing up the balance of nature. Human nature came to rule the land. Our greed, sometimes manifested through religious actions, is responsible for quite a few of the world's problems today. So the thinking man of today, living in an overcrowded, polluted, over-exploited planet, is perhaps permitted a little cynicism about the control the 'invisible hand' has had.
I didn't expect Baggini to relate this story to the existence of God. Quite a dramatic but logical progression I suppose. So can God be said to exist if there is no physical sign of his intervention? Maybe not. Can God be believed in even these signs do not exist? Yes.
I remember at interesting lesson in school when the teacher asked 'Did God invent man or did man invent God?' That was a wow moment in education for me, those times when a uninitiated part of the brain suddenly springs to action with new oxygen. Back to the topic, it seems early man had a great need to explain the world about him and when he couldn't quite explain things, he attributed the event to a higher power. Fair I guess. But what sort of became unfair was the way that those in power or wanted to be in power used these beliefs as a way of control. That still happens today. Many people do things, harmful things, in the name of God. I can't subscribe to this.
Science has come along to explain phenomena and in most cases helped make our lives better. The case for religion has somewhat waned in the shining spectre of logic. Some have totally rejected the idea of a higher being, others have taking their foot out of organized religion while preserving an understanding and respect for God and further others have attributed the wonders of science to God's greatness, a solidification of their case for religion. There many ways to tackle this 'invisible hand'.
Yes, things will happen around us because nature takes care of things. There will be ebbs and flows in the way the Earth changes but generally there's a balance. We may not be able to account for everything, a role for science to qualify, but their is change about for sure. When Man stepped into this picture, a thinking, creative being, the situation changes somewhat. We began to manipulate the world around us. That sort of started screwing up the balance of nature. Human nature came to rule the land. Our greed, sometimes manifested through religious actions, is responsible for quite a few of the world's problems today. So the thinking man of today, living in an overcrowded, polluted, over-exploited planet, is perhaps permitted a little cynicism about the control the 'invisible hand' has had.
Monday, May 3, 2010
44. Till Death Do Us Part
Synopsis - Harry and Sophie start having second thoughts about their marriage. Both think that if one put the other's interests first, he/she would lose out. But marriage requires "two lives to be joined in one unbroken circle", the collective before self. How is this going yo work?
The author got it right when he started off with 'Something doesn't sound right'. You bet. Why are are Harry and Sophie even contemplating marriage when they can't forsee giving up their self-interests for one another? I know marriage isn't supposed to be a sacrifice but there has to be some give before the take to start off with.
Apparently Harry was scarred by other broken marriages (not his own), and this has spearheaded this attitude. Having discussed it together, both had decided to put their ego aside in their relationship but secretly looking out for individual selves. Oh dear. About to go nowhere this tie up.
Baggini brings up the prisoner's dilemma. (Some would have no problem relating marriage to prison.) Some would have seen some measure of it played out on some U.S. cop drama. In these situations, prisoners are kept in separate cells unable to talk. Without a pre-arranged story, of course then each prisoner would look out for himself, selling the partner crook out in a jiffy. It's kinda funny to apply the same circumstances to a marriage but at some levels I guess it's plausible. Maybe couples who don't share their feelings about work and income may end up feeling like it's a competition between themselves. Competition is good but can get unhealthy pretty quickly when one can't split work and personal life.
This thought plays out as the 'sum of parts is greater than the whole' too. I think this has got to emphasized more when two people get together. Let the emotions and thoughts interconnect so that both individuals get more than from just keeping to oneself or putting oneself first. I agree with the author when he wrote that putting oneself first often closes off the possibilities of what we can achieve together. Anyone who's had a positive group brainstorm can testify to that.
The author got it right when he started off with 'Something doesn't sound right'. You bet. Why are are Harry and Sophie even contemplating marriage when they can't forsee giving up their self-interests for one another? I know marriage isn't supposed to be a sacrifice but there has to be some give before the take to start off with.
Apparently Harry was scarred by other broken marriages (not his own), and this has spearheaded this attitude. Having discussed it together, both had decided to put their ego aside in their relationship but secretly looking out for individual selves. Oh dear. About to go nowhere this tie up.
Baggini brings up the prisoner's dilemma. (Some would have no problem relating marriage to prison.) Some would have seen some measure of it played out on some U.S. cop drama. In these situations, prisoners are kept in separate cells unable to talk. Without a pre-arranged story, of course then each prisoner would look out for himself, selling the partner crook out in a jiffy. It's kinda funny to apply the same circumstances to a marriage but at some levels I guess it's plausible. Maybe couples who don't share their feelings about work and income may end up feeling like it's a competition between themselves. Competition is good but can get unhealthy pretty quickly when one can't split work and personal life.
This thought plays out as the 'sum of parts is greater than the whole' too. I think this has got to emphasized more when two people get together. Let the emotions and thoughts interconnect so that both individuals get more than from just keeping to oneself or putting oneself first. I agree with the author when he wrote that putting oneself first often closes off the possibilities of what we can achieve together. Anyone who's had a positive group brainstorm can testify to that.
Friday, April 23, 2010
43. Future Shock
Synopsis - Drew comes up to her friend who's now a Republican senator with a pointed gun. She goes on to say that she's there to kill the senator because of a signed statement he made many years earlier "If I vote republican, then shoot me". Drew's here to keep that promise. Can the senator get out of this living will?
It's true that we say dumb things we don't mean. We forget our promises and commitments as easily as we spew out dumb things from our mouths. To hold a person to his word has to come with a pinch of salt, perhaps to blind those nearby of his trangressions against those promises.
But these statements are unlike those with a serious commitment like a mortgage or marriage. They're playful and silly and shouldn't be taken seriously. Living wills on the other hand are meant to be used when we're unable to make a decision consciously or sanely in our future lives, as pointed out by the author. And the best person to decide for one's future self is one's present self.
Perhaps the bigger issue here is whether we always mean what we say, and what we can take back after the crime of utterance.
It's true that we say dumb things we don't mean. We forget our promises and commitments as easily as we spew out dumb things from our mouths. To hold a person to his word has to come with a pinch of salt, perhaps to blind those nearby of his trangressions against those promises.
But these statements are unlike those with a serious commitment like a mortgage or marriage. They're playful and silly and shouldn't be taken seriously. Living wills on the other hand are meant to be used when we're unable to make a decision consciously or sanely in our future lives, as pointed out by the author. And the best person to decide for one's future self is one's present self.
Perhaps the bigger issue here is whether we always mean what we say, and what we can take back after the crime of utterance.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
42. Take The Money And Run
Synopsis - Marco The Magnificent knows how Frank will choose when asked to pick one or both boxes. One box openly contains £1000 and the other is closed. The closed box could contain nothing or a million pounds. It's 'could' because Frank has to make a decision, with the knowledge that Marco apparently already knows how Frank will decide. Marco tells Frank "If you take just the closed box, it will contain a million pounds. If you take both, the closed box will be empty." If Marco is wrong, which he apparently never is, he'll give a million pounds to a random audience member.
This thought puzzle is called the Newcomb's paradox. The paradox comes about from the facts that 1. Frank could be sure and take the £1000; 2. Frank could be unsure and take the closed box and hope for the best 3. Frank could take both boxes and be sure of £1000 and have the possibility of another million. A question of how sure Frank can be in the situation.
What bothers me about this puzzle is that the outcome is already loaded. Marco has come out to say two things that screw with Frank's head: 1. Marco is never wrong and 2. If Frank took the closed box, the million would be in it. One statement supports the other.
Why should Frank doubt Marco's ability? Would Marco stake his credibility on a one-off error? After all, an error means Marco pays out a million to a random onlooker. Is the thought of losing extraordinary gain enough to play with Frank's mind? That's what the author is playing at - the fear of losing.
It seems totally logical to take the closed box.
Playing what if, what if Marco and Frank are in it together? It's a routine they play to mesmerize members of an audience for some future unravelling or misfortune? Hmmm. That's what happens when cynicism and too much TV combine.
This thought puzzle is called the Newcomb's paradox. The paradox comes about from the facts that 1. Frank could be sure and take the £1000; 2. Frank could be unsure and take the closed box and hope for the best 3. Frank could take both boxes and be sure of £1000 and have the possibility of another million. A question of how sure Frank can be in the situation.
What bothers me about this puzzle is that the outcome is already loaded. Marco has come out to say two things that screw with Frank's head: 1. Marco is never wrong and 2. If Frank took the closed box, the million would be in it. One statement supports the other.
Why should Frank doubt Marco's ability? Would Marco stake his credibility on a one-off error? After all, an error means Marco pays out a million to a random onlooker. Is the thought of losing extraordinary gain enough to play with Frank's mind? That's what the author is playing at - the fear of losing.
It seems totally logical to take the closed box.
Playing what if, what if Marco and Frank are in it together? It's a routine they play to mesmerize members of an audience for some future unravelling or misfortune? Hmmm. That's what happens when cynicism and too much TV combine.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
41. Getting The Blues
Synopsis - People in two spaceships are part of an experiment - in one ship, Muddy, they've never seen the colour sky blue; in the other ship, Waters, they've not seen any shade of blue at all. After 18 years, people on Muddy are asked if they could imagine a sky blue, a shade missing from a series of blue shades; and those on Waters are asked if they could imagine a whole new colour that makes green when added to yellow. Could they imagine these?
Initially, it all sounds too cruel but then one doesn't know what one is missing till one experiences it.
The experiment is about testing the effect of experiences and the human mind's ability to create. Psychologists and philosophers believe different things as to our 'initial' state. Some think we are a blank slate, taking in knowledge from experiences from birth. Others believe we are already preset with some knowledge and that guides us in making decisions. Another group thinks we all have all knowledge just that its unlocked.
It is very likely that the folks on Muddy could imagine sky blue. If one applies knowledge of lightening and darkening colours, then imagining a sky blue missing from a series of blues would be an easy task.
The unfortunate people on Waters not exposed to any shade of blue will find it hard to imagine the colour. What would one add to yellow to make green isn't an easy question to answer without any prior knowledge of the colour blue. Would it work to figure out what RGB code results in blue from green? I dunno. I'm not sure if the sum of experiences can muster enough creativity to develop a whole new colour, such a fundamental entity in our lives (Well, present lives at that. Imagining not waking up to blue skies). Unlike making a helicopter from one's knowledge of physics and mechanics as in the Leonardo Da Vinci example, this is something that's developing what i believe to be basic. It's sort of like discovering a new element or seeing hot pink for the first time (I was mesmerized by the colour when I came across it in art class when I was 8). But perhaps someone could imagine blue in such a circumstance. The power of our imagination is indescribable.
So what are we capable of? Many things. We just need to close our eyes and imagine. Let our experiences lead the way and our imagination help us fly.
Initially, it all sounds too cruel but then one doesn't know what one is missing till one experiences it.
The experiment is about testing the effect of experiences and the human mind's ability to create. Psychologists and philosophers believe different things as to our 'initial' state. Some think we are a blank slate, taking in knowledge from experiences from birth. Others believe we are already preset with some knowledge and that guides us in making decisions. Another group thinks we all have all knowledge just that its unlocked.
It is very likely that the folks on Muddy could imagine sky blue. If one applies knowledge of lightening and darkening colours, then imagining a sky blue missing from a series of blues would be an easy task.
The unfortunate people on Waters not exposed to any shade of blue will find it hard to imagine the colour. What would one add to yellow to make green isn't an easy question to answer without any prior knowledge of the colour blue. Would it work to figure out what RGB code results in blue from green? I dunno. I'm not sure if the sum of experiences can muster enough creativity to develop a whole new colour, such a fundamental entity in our lives (Well, present lives at that. Imagining not waking up to blue skies). Unlike making a helicopter from one's knowledge of physics and mechanics as in the Leonardo Da Vinci example, this is something that's developing what i believe to be basic. It's sort of like discovering a new element or seeing hot pink for the first time (I was mesmerized by the colour when I came across it in art class when I was 8). But perhaps someone could imagine blue in such a circumstance. The power of our imagination is indescribable.
So what are we capable of? Many things. We just need to close our eyes and imagine. Let our experiences lead the way and our imagination help us fly.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
40. The Rocking-horse Winner
Synposis - Paul has been able to bet on winning horses because he gets the name of the winning horse in head when he straddles his rocking horse at home. Magic? What's the source of his knowledge? Why is it believable?
"Just a feeling" is a reply I've heard more than once when I ask friends and family why they certain numbers at lottery. Well, that is the simple answer to a complicated mystery that binds men and women to a ephemeral force known as Lady Luck. We can't explain it but sometimes her magic makes us happy and richer.
In Paul's case, his knack of getting the name of horse to bet on by riding his childhood toy is one of those fortunate mysteries. It is indeed very fortunate that it has worked without fail for so long - an awesome way to make a living, no?
It is impossible to ascertain the source of Paul's answers as the author has pointed out and hence vouch for its credibility. (That makes it even more cool, haha.) The source of knowledge here is a true gift from the Gods. But Paul has faith in his methods. It's not let him down yet. And that pattern of events, over time, have come to solidify and qualify the source as believable.
Is this not the case with all other knowledge? For example, if someone who's been taking bus route 27 for years would take this first hand knowledge that bus 27 would bring him to work as gospel, the knowledge from first ride reinforced by countless other instances of the same outcome that followed. Belief substantiated by proof.
This perhaps is true for almost all useful knowledge we encounter. I write 'useful' because there's so much more we learn but do not use, like advanced calculus. It also holds true for science where hypothesis become truth when expected outcomes occur. I do remember however my Physics tutor reminding us that some of what we're learning especially the quantum mechanics bits could be false since no one can really see and study atoms and molecules at the molecular level so a lot of this field of science is substantiated based on outcomes, the 'if this happens when A and B come together and C occurs, it must mean this' kind of science. Belief substantiated by expected outcomes.
Whatever the source of knowledge, it boils down to belief. If Paul thinks his rocking horse is divinely giving him the answers he needs, so be it. An outsider may think it gimmicky but what the hay.
"Just a feeling" is a reply I've heard more than once when I ask friends and family why they certain numbers at lottery. Well, that is the simple answer to a complicated mystery that binds men and women to a ephemeral force known as Lady Luck. We can't explain it but sometimes her magic makes us happy and richer.
In Paul's case, his knack of getting the name of horse to bet on by riding his childhood toy is one of those fortunate mysteries. It is indeed very fortunate that it has worked without fail for so long - an awesome way to make a living, no?
It is impossible to ascertain the source of Paul's answers as the author has pointed out and hence vouch for its credibility. (That makes it even more cool, haha.) The source of knowledge here is a true gift from the Gods. But Paul has faith in his methods. It's not let him down yet. And that pattern of events, over time, have come to solidify and qualify the source as believable.
Is this not the case with all other knowledge? For example, if someone who's been taking bus route 27 for years would take this first hand knowledge that bus 27 would bring him to work as gospel, the knowledge from first ride reinforced by countless other instances of the same outcome that followed. Belief substantiated by proof.
This perhaps is true for almost all useful knowledge we encounter. I write 'useful' because there's so much more we learn but do not use, like advanced calculus. It also holds true for science where hypothesis become truth when expected outcomes occur. I do remember however my Physics tutor reminding us that some of what we're learning especially the quantum mechanics bits could be false since no one can really see and study atoms and molecules at the molecular level so a lot of this field of science is substantiated based on outcomes, the 'if this happens when A and B come together and C occurs, it must mean this' kind of science. Belief substantiated by expected outcomes.
Whatever the source of knowledge, it boils down to belief. If Paul thinks his rocking horse is divinely giving him the answers he needs, so be it. An outsider may think it gimmicky but what the hay.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
39. The Chinese Room
Synopsis - It is discovered that the woman behind a screen at a Chinese clairvoyant's booth is actually not deaf and mute. She in fact is a he, and also does not understand the spoken Chinese messages passed by customers from under the screen. He uses a computer to translate the messages, and write meaningful replies back in Chinese. So the jig is up. But is it wrong for a computer to replace a language-processing mind?
This is a strange one. The novelty behind a clairvoyant's booth in Beijing was that the fortune teller was a deaf and mute girl, Jun. No one was able to see her as messages were written and passed back and forth from under a screen. No customer cared if the output he received came from an unseen source until it was revealed that the mystic was a man, John, who relied on a computer as part of the fortune-telling process. The computer did not make the fortunes merely translated.
So what's the problem? The girl is a man. She/he is not deaf nor mute. She/he does not read Chinese. A computer is used to translate questions and predictions passed under the screen. Does the customer then lose out in the purchase of services? Yes and no. A customer still gets his fortune but not under the same circumstances he thought were in place. If the ultimate outcome is the prediction on a piece of paper was it, yes all is ok. If the delivery was essential to the outcome, then there is a failure in expectations. Sort of like knowing the answer to a complicated math problem without showing the sums. Similarly it could also be like fried chicken being presented beautifully on platter, not knowing the waiter dropped the pieces on the kitchen floor earlier.
Baggini wants the reader to look into the metaphysical aspect of having a brain. Is it purely a machine or need it be attached to an external living entity which understands how a problem is solved to qualify as a mind? It seems so. I know my brain processes the light signals entering my eyes into meaningful information but at the same time the eyes, the optic nerves and neurons simply can't give that meaningful information on their own. The sum is greater than its parts.
Can a computer not replace its functions to some degree? Yes of course but it's a lot more work to develop artificial intelligence. The computer in the story translated the Chinese but was not used to develop the clairvoyant messages. Perhaps the translations themselves weren't exact and John had to apply an unexact science to figure out what the messages were. It is this unscientific, fuzzy logic that makes us human, and our brains very powerful.
When does a computer have a mind? I don't know but it'll be creepy if it thought like us.
This is a strange one. The novelty behind a clairvoyant's booth in Beijing was that the fortune teller was a deaf and mute girl, Jun. No one was able to see her as messages were written and passed back and forth from under a screen. No customer cared if the output he received came from an unseen source until it was revealed that the mystic was a man, John, who relied on a computer as part of the fortune-telling process. The computer did not make the fortunes merely translated.
So what's the problem? The girl is a man. She/he is not deaf nor mute. She/he does not read Chinese. A computer is used to translate questions and predictions passed under the screen. Does the customer then lose out in the purchase of services? Yes and no. A customer still gets his fortune but not under the same circumstances he thought were in place. If the ultimate outcome is the prediction on a piece of paper was it, yes all is ok. If the delivery was essential to the outcome, then there is a failure in expectations. Sort of like knowing the answer to a complicated math problem without showing the sums. Similarly it could also be like fried chicken being presented beautifully on platter, not knowing the waiter dropped the pieces on the kitchen floor earlier.
Baggini wants the reader to look into the metaphysical aspect of having a brain. Is it purely a machine or need it be attached to an external living entity which understands how a problem is solved to qualify as a mind? It seems so. I know my brain processes the light signals entering my eyes into meaningful information but at the same time the eyes, the optic nerves and neurons simply can't give that meaningful information on their own. The sum is greater than its parts.
Can a computer not replace its functions to some degree? Yes of course but it's a lot more work to develop artificial intelligence. The computer in the story translated the Chinese but was not used to develop the clairvoyant messages. Perhaps the translations themselves weren't exact and John had to apply an unexact science to figure out what the messages were. It is this unscientific, fuzzy logic that makes us human, and our brains very powerful.
When does a computer have a mind? I don't know but it'll be creepy if it thought like us.
Friday, March 26, 2010
38. I Am A Brain
Synopsis - When Ceri Braum had her deteriorating body disposed of and her brain kept alive, linked to a mike, speaker and camera, she wasn't quite as happy as she thought she would be. Was being all brain good enough to represent her a person?
I remember an episode of the Twilight Zone where a doctor disassembled the body of a man and hooked him up to an array of sensors so that he could live without his body. It all went well with the brain resting in a jar of fluid in a lab and taking in all the sanitized cleanliness around it. The man's wife then appeared, taunted the brain with vile words and then kissed the doctor full on. The brain felt anger and betrayal but could not do anything but sit there helpless.
It's a fact that the brain controls most of what the body does. Our thoughts and memories start and are stored in the brain. These help us learn and solve problems. The brain controls the body to a great degree. If we are defined ny our actions and the actions themselves are usually the result of our thoughts, it's easy to accept the brain as the definition of who we are. This logic is perhaps individualistic.
From a other person point of view, speech, touch and even facial expressions define who a person is. Human-human interaction goes beyond the brain. We look into people's eyes, react to a smile, ask about a frown, nudge shoulders, and connect through in so many ways. Though these actions may start in the brain as thoughts but it is the physical execution of these thoughts through our bodies that define us from a social standpoint. Connections are made from the heart. Perhaps after a while with the brain.
A brain can't climb a mountain. A brain can't make curry chicken. A brain can't drive a car. The brain can develop ideas and envision outcomes but it needs the body to take up and fulfill the challenge. Actions speak louder than thoughts and words.
I believe that yes a brain is our control center but we are little, hollow, even purposeless without the body.
I remember an episode of the Twilight Zone where a doctor disassembled the body of a man and hooked him up to an array of sensors so that he could live without his body. It all went well with the brain resting in a jar of fluid in a lab and taking in all the sanitized cleanliness around it. The man's wife then appeared, taunted the brain with vile words and then kissed the doctor full on. The brain felt anger and betrayal but could not do anything but sit there helpless.
It's a fact that the brain controls most of what the body does. Our thoughts and memories start and are stored in the brain. These help us learn and solve problems. The brain controls the body to a great degree. If we are defined ny our actions and the actions themselves are usually the result of our thoughts, it's easy to accept the brain as the definition of who we are. This logic is perhaps individualistic.
From a other person point of view, speech, touch and even facial expressions define who a person is. Human-human interaction goes beyond the brain. We look into people's eyes, react to a smile, ask about a frown, nudge shoulders, and connect through in so many ways. Though these actions may start in the brain as thoughts but it is the physical execution of these thoughts through our bodies that define us from a social standpoint. Connections are made from the heart. Perhaps after a while with the brain.
A brain can't climb a mountain. A brain can't make curry chicken. A brain can't drive a car. The brain can develop ideas and envision outcomes but it needs the body to take up and fulfill the challenge. Actions speak louder than thoughts and words.
I believe that yes a brain is our control center but we are little, hollow, even purposeless without the body.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
37. Nature The Artist
Sypnosis - The curator of a museum loves a piece of rock she believes was carved into present artistic magnificence by a famous artist. When the truth is revealed, that the rock is merely a rock unshaped by man, she is flabbergasted and worse, needs to decide if it belongs in her museum alongside other 'real' works of art?
I've always thought of art as something that evokes a response. Applause or criticism, a response no less. In that vein, almost everything around qualifies as art. But there's a trick to it. Not everything qualifies. Plastic packets of food at a supermarket may look ordinary but if one stood far away and caught the big picture, one would a riot of rectangular shaped colours. To me that's interesting, and worthy of a photograph. I'm the train as I write this so let's take a localized example - a hand grab. On its own it might be a boring piece of plastic but when a line of them with different hands grasping for support at various angles, all of a sudden the visual becomes interesting. The lowly hand grab describes the human need for external strength and support in this wavering, unsteady modern existence. Art is everywhere. It all depends on how we want to look at it.
The author has brought across some examples of how the definition of a work of art has transcended brush and canvas to more ordinary, in fact, everyday objects. From Mona Lisa to Duchamp's urinal. From traditional, and sometimes a protrayal of fantasy, to modern and sometimes very real. Abstract pieces have gone for millions at auctions. Art schools teach all manner of art these days and traditional brush and palette techniques are a mere smidgen of what's taught. So it would quite impossible to put a rigid definition of what by its nature is meant to develop with creative expression.
If we are open to what art could be, then perhaps the boundaries are also not important. If the curator's museum had a specific role to display works from specific artists, then the rock would have no place there. If the curator was cool with nature's creations on display (especially one which did not require tending or cleaning up after) then the rock would be a perfect, accidental overstayer.
I've always thought of art as something that evokes a response. Applause or criticism, a response no less. In that vein, almost everything around qualifies as art. But there's a trick to it. Not everything qualifies. Plastic packets of food at a supermarket may look ordinary but if one stood far away and caught the big picture, one would a riot of rectangular shaped colours. To me that's interesting, and worthy of a photograph. I'm the train as I write this so let's take a localized example - a hand grab. On its own it might be a boring piece of plastic but when a line of them with different hands grasping for support at various angles, all of a sudden the visual becomes interesting. The lowly hand grab describes the human need for external strength and support in this wavering, unsteady modern existence. Art is everywhere. It all depends on how we want to look at it.
The author has brought across some examples of how the definition of a work of art has transcended brush and canvas to more ordinary, in fact, everyday objects. From Mona Lisa to Duchamp's urinal. From traditional, and sometimes a protrayal of fantasy, to modern and sometimes very real. Abstract pieces have gone for millions at auctions. Art schools teach all manner of art these days and traditional brush and palette techniques are a mere smidgen of what's taught. So it would quite impossible to put a rigid definition of what by its nature is meant to develop with creative expression.
If we are open to what art could be, then perhaps the boundaries are also not important. If the curator's museum had a specific role to display works from specific artists, then the rock would have no place there. If the curator was cool with nature's creations on display (especially one which did not require tending or cleaning up after) then the rock would be a perfect, accidental overstayer.
Monday, March 22, 2010
36. Pre-emptive Justice
Synopsis - Minority Report the movie sort of covers it. The police predict who's going to commit a crime and arrest them before they do it. Though crime is down by staggering numbers, some feel that it isn't right to punish people for crimes not yet committed.
It is a very good, cool movie. A peek into the future where cars you don't need to drive park in your apartment, holograms follow you in a store, and your eyes let the world know your past and present.
And like in the movie, things started going wrong when evil people in charge of the predicting waifs did bad things, did more bad things to cover up their folly and hence manipulated justice.
So the basics - is it ok to lock people up for a future crime? This is one of those situations where the folks in favour of this system assume that they are the best people to make that decision, that they are morally and ethically superior and they would never be arrested under this system. And that's a problem. We assume the profiles of criminals quite readily. Uneducated riff raff from broken homes are the ones responsible for all thefts, murders and shootups, perhaps all evil intent. Today's crimes are also not so basic. Theft and murders are biblical wrongdoings, and fail in complexity to white collar hoodwinking, cyberattacks and intercontinental mafia gangland drug-fuelled vendettas. Smart people commit smarter crimes. Who are we then to judge the goodness of man?
Trust is an important issue. Can we trust the 'machine' that predicts the crime and criminal so accurately? Just because it had provided precise 'hits' so far, it doesn't mean it's not infallible. If it started to make mistakes, would we recognize them? How far along would the police go before innocents were errorneously but unwittingly put behind bars? Will we be committing one crime to supposedly prevent another?
If a machine, trusted without exception, told someone that he'd be committing a crime next week and would now be arrested, could it be seeding the thought in this person instead of properly assessing the threat? With the seed, this person might come to believe that he actually would have committed a crime in the future. From 'no wat' we might get 'maybe' which then would, under the right psychological conditions, stretch to a 'yes I did it, no, I would have done it! Oh I am a bad person. Oh thank you machine for preventing this tragedy!' Well maybe.
I'm more for innocent till proven guilty or a confession is tortured out (kidding). Crossing this line is tricky ground and almost no legal system would enjoy treading on highly circumstantial ground.
It is a very good, cool movie. A peek into the future where cars you don't need to drive park in your apartment, holograms follow you in a store, and your eyes let the world know your past and present.
And like in the movie, things started going wrong when evil people in charge of the predicting waifs did bad things, did more bad things to cover up their folly and hence manipulated justice.
So the basics - is it ok to lock people up for a future crime? This is one of those situations where the folks in favour of this system assume that they are the best people to make that decision, that they are morally and ethically superior and they would never be arrested under this system. And that's a problem. We assume the profiles of criminals quite readily. Uneducated riff raff from broken homes are the ones responsible for all thefts, murders and shootups, perhaps all evil intent. Today's crimes are also not so basic. Theft and murders are biblical wrongdoings, and fail in complexity to white collar hoodwinking, cyberattacks and intercontinental mafia gangland drug-fuelled vendettas. Smart people commit smarter crimes. Who are we then to judge the goodness of man?
Trust is an important issue. Can we trust the 'machine' that predicts the crime and criminal so accurately? Just because it had provided precise 'hits' so far, it doesn't mean it's not infallible. If it started to make mistakes, would we recognize them? How far along would the police go before innocents were errorneously but unwittingly put behind bars? Will we be committing one crime to supposedly prevent another?
If a machine, trusted without exception, told someone that he'd be committing a crime next week and would now be arrested, could it be seeding the thought in this person instead of properly assessing the threat? With the seed, this person might come to believe that he actually would have committed a crime in the future. From 'no wat' we might get 'maybe' which then would, under the right psychological conditions, stretch to a 'yes I did it, no, I would have done it! Oh I am a bad person. Oh thank you machine for preventing this tragedy!' Well maybe.
I'm more for innocent till proven guilty or a confession is tortured out (kidding). Crossing this line is tricky ground and almost no legal system would enjoy treading on highly circumstantial ground.
Friday, March 19, 2010
35. Last Resort
Synopsis - Winston feels his country is going nowhere in the war with Germany. Hitler was going to win and he would be subject to the menace of the Third Reich. He had to do something, anything to create a devastating blow to the enemy forces. He decides that he should be a suicide bomber.
People behave strangely in times if crisis. Given that most of us do not live in a crisis most of the time, such behaviour appears irrational and perhaps inhumane. Here's where we must put ourselves into the shoes of others and walk a mile. As circumstances change dramatically, from peaceful to war-torn, from stocked larder to empty, dusty shelves, we begin to sympathize and understand the root cause of their actions. It is deplorable that people use, perhaps even manipulate, others to turn themselves into human bombs. Their motivations are higher. They fight not for a job in an office, they fight for their lives, water, food and freedom. They fight for their religion. On a daily basis no less. These situations are difficult to comprehend outright. Many in developed and developing countries would not last a day in Palestine yet we decry the actions of those with no homes and food for their families, no jobs to earn money from, no room to move. It's a sad, desperate situation. And we all know what desperate times call for.
In the example of the dangerous air force bombing missions, honour was bestowed on those who were successful and those who perished on their missions. The Japanese kamikaze missions had the blessings of their emperor and these pilots knew they would be revered honourably. The case seems similar for suicide bombers. Most Palestinians think that a strike, any strike, against the enemy is a noble deed. Once again, it requires a measure of empathy to agree with their methods.
On TV, we're bombarded with images of death and destruction on an almost daily basis. The guns, bombs anx violence genre does very well at the cinemas too. We hear of destruction and violence on the news all the time. Parents buy their kids toy guns and shhot em up computer games. Our modern lives are inundated with such imagery and savagery. We don't need special wartime circumstances to envision suicide bombers wiping out scores if innocents in a market. Many of us are perfectly desensitized. That's sad too. Does it mean we'd turn into suicide bombers at a moment's thought?Maybe. Perhaps impressionable teens who like vampire movies might perceive this as a chance for immortality. I think there's a need for us to acknowledge the perceptions of reality and fantasy among some of our youth before they start treading on loose ground.
People behave strangely in times if crisis. Given that most of us do not live in a crisis most of the time, such behaviour appears irrational and perhaps inhumane. Here's where we must put ourselves into the shoes of others and walk a mile. As circumstances change dramatically, from peaceful to war-torn, from stocked larder to empty, dusty shelves, we begin to sympathize and understand the root cause of their actions. It is deplorable that people use, perhaps even manipulate, others to turn themselves into human bombs. Their motivations are higher. They fight not for a job in an office, they fight for their lives, water, food and freedom. They fight for their religion. On a daily basis no less. These situations are difficult to comprehend outright. Many in developed and developing countries would not last a day in Palestine yet we decry the actions of those with no homes and food for their families, no jobs to earn money from, no room to move. It's a sad, desperate situation. And we all know what desperate times call for.
In the example of the dangerous air force bombing missions, honour was bestowed on those who were successful and those who perished on their missions. The Japanese kamikaze missions had the blessings of their emperor and these pilots knew they would be revered honourably. The case seems similar for suicide bombers. Most Palestinians think that a strike, any strike, against the enemy is a noble deed. Once again, it requires a measure of empathy to agree with their methods.
On TV, we're bombarded with images of death and destruction on an almost daily basis. The guns, bombs anx violence genre does very well at the cinemas too. We hear of destruction and violence on the news all the time. Parents buy their kids toy guns and shhot em up computer games. Our modern lives are inundated with such imagery and savagery. We don't need special wartime circumstances to envision suicide bombers wiping out scores if innocents in a market. Many of us are perfectly desensitized. That's sad too. Does it mean we'd turn into suicide bombers at a moment's thought?Maybe. Perhaps impressionable teens who like vampire movies might perceive this as a chance for immortality. I think there's a need for us to acknowledge the perceptions of reality and fantasy among some of our youth before they start treading on loose ground.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
34. Don't Blame Me
Synopsis - Marge, Midge and Mungo are before a judge who must pass sentence over crimes they did, supposedly on the advice of others. Who then is to blame?
Who calls himself 'Mungo'?
Our lives start out absorbing the wisdom if others. Kids listen to parents and guardians, and learn that pots on stoves are usually hot and best left alone, playing in the rain can make one sick and a hosts of other life lessons. Unfortunately superstitions, bias and other quirks are equally handed down. Imagine if your parents told you to hurt cats because they are the spawn of the devil. Such advice, adequately drilled, would be detrimental to both child and nearby cats.
So givers should bear some responsibility over the actions of the recipient where applicable. And the 'where applicable' is a very important part of the argument. In today's context, the 'did you get it in writing?' or 'in black' circumstance makes for awesome finger pointing (the fleeting spoken word is never enough). Legally there's some measure of importance if advice is transmitted on paper. Perhaps also culpability of any crime as an outcome of the advice is also better assigned if the source of advice, and the advice proper, are known on paper. Always read the caveats though. Many who sue for losses from professional advice often miss out of waivers of culpability in little fine print at the bottom if the page.
We can't run away from seeking advice from professionals. How society defines professionals is a related debate. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and those with a piece of paper acknowledging their talent/skill are certifiably responsible for the advice they give. Astrologers, palm readers and psychics on the other hand can get away with everything but blaming it on the stars. Societies like Hong Kong and India put a lot of trust in feng shui masters and astrologers, and many seemingly absurd things are done on their advice. When absurd becomes criminal, the legal systems have to manage this situation with open minds on tiny paths. Blame is very hard to pin on such persons.
The judge in this story sought advice from his peers, other judges who serve to apply logic, reason and compassion to criminal adjudications. We presume their professional capabilities in this field. Their advice is usually right.
Who calls himself 'Mungo'?
Our lives start out absorbing the wisdom if others. Kids listen to parents and guardians, and learn that pots on stoves are usually hot and best left alone, playing in the rain can make one sick and a hosts of other life lessons. Unfortunately superstitions, bias and other quirks are equally handed down. Imagine if your parents told you to hurt cats because they are the spawn of the devil. Such advice, adequately drilled, would be detrimental to both child and nearby cats.
So givers should bear some responsibility over the actions of the recipient where applicable. And the 'where applicable' is a very important part of the argument. In today's context, the 'did you get it in writing?' or 'in black' circumstance makes for awesome finger pointing (the fleeting spoken word is never enough). Legally there's some measure of importance if advice is transmitted on paper. Perhaps also culpability of any crime as an outcome of the advice is also better assigned if the source of advice, and the advice proper, are known on paper. Always read the caveats though. Many who sue for losses from professional advice often miss out of waivers of culpability in little fine print at the bottom if the page.
We can't run away from seeking advice from professionals. How society defines professionals is a related debate. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and those with a piece of paper acknowledging their talent/skill are certifiably responsible for the advice they give. Astrologers, palm readers and psychics on the other hand can get away with everything but blaming it on the stars. Societies like Hong Kong and India put a lot of trust in feng shui masters and astrologers, and many seemingly absurd things are done on their advice. When absurd becomes criminal, the legal systems have to manage this situation with open minds on tiny paths. Blame is very hard to pin on such persons.
The judge in this story sought advice from his peers, other judges who serve to apply logic, reason and compassion to criminal adjudications. We presume their professional capabilities in this field. Their advice is usually right.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
33. The Free Speech Booth
Synopsis - The People's Republic has announced that its citizens could now say whatever they wanted, even if it was hurtful to the government, as part of a policy of allowing free speech. The only caveat is that these words must only be spoken in free speech booths, closed off from the rest of society. Now is that really free speech?
People want to heard. There's some point in being able to say whatever whenever but who's listening? As the author has pointed out, there are consequences to words said. Some good, some bad but always reacted to. The free speech booth is a mere empty capsule with no audience (though I suspect any government that's critical of any dissent probably bugged each scream portal). Yes it could be therapeutic to enter a booth and scream some innanity. In the end, who'd care except the person who tried the contraption out. No audience, no effect.
But let's try this. What if many people gathered about these free speech booths, patiently waited for their turn among thousands to go hurl an obscenity to the powers that be (albeit to themselves and categorically only themselves), and came out refreshed to have coffee with waiting, satisfied comrades? Would that strike fear among the People's Republic? A silent meeting of critical thinkers.
In Singapore, there is a Speaker's Corner which is hardly utilized. It's a sizeable green space where one can talk freely within terms if course. Registration of intent is required prior. An audience is never guaranteed - one probably has to bring one's own. Not exactly a platform for free speech in a country ranked very low for press freedom but an attempt that unintentionally mimics the free speech booth and perhaps it's associated charms? No one even uses Speaker's Corner to tell stories.
Should there be limits to free speech? Odd question to ask. What is free speech with limits? Not free at all. But we should be wary of the consequences. The author has provided examples of how words could eventually cause hurt. Fire! Fire!
Perhaps we are more concerned about the individual consequences of free speech, libel and such. Some governments will lock you up and throw away the key if you talk too much. I 'd bet the People's Republic would.
People want to heard. There's some point in being able to say whatever whenever but who's listening? As the author has pointed out, there are consequences to words said. Some good, some bad but always reacted to. The free speech booth is a mere empty capsule with no audience (though I suspect any government that's critical of any dissent probably bugged each scream portal). Yes it could be therapeutic to enter a booth and scream some innanity. In the end, who'd care except the person who tried the contraption out. No audience, no effect.
But let's try this. What if many people gathered about these free speech booths, patiently waited for their turn among thousands to go hurl an obscenity to the powers that be (albeit to themselves and categorically only themselves), and came out refreshed to have coffee with waiting, satisfied comrades? Would that strike fear among the People's Republic? A silent meeting of critical thinkers.
In Singapore, there is a Speaker's Corner which is hardly utilized. It's a sizeable green space where one can talk freely within terms if course. Registration of intent is required prior. An audience is never guaranteed - one probably has to bring one's own. Not exactly a platform for free speech in a country ranked very low for press freedom but an attempt that unintentionally mimics the free speech booth and perhaps it's associated charms? No one even uses Speaker's Corner to tell stories.
Should there be limits to free speech? Odd question to ask. What is free speech with limits? Not free at all. But we should be wary of the consequences. The author has provided examples of how words could eventually cause hurt. Fire! Fire!
Perhaps we are more concerned about the individual consequences of free speech, libel and such. Some governments will lock you up and throw away the key if you talk too much. I 'd bet the People's Republic would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)