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.
Friday, April 23, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)