So, it's almost time for exams but I decided to take a break from studying before I sleep to just blog for a bit. I like doing these kind of blogs - a post exam blog, where I talk about how I feel before exams so then I can reflect on it once the experience is over. I guess, that wasn't intended to be the point of this particular blog though, since I'm sure I've said the same thing before every exam I'm written/am ever going to write. I feel a bit nervous, but wish exams would come sooner to just be over with.
Do we just go through life constantly experiencing the same sort of reoccuring feelings about events that are more similar than we'd like to think? How limited just is our range of emotions?
Anyway, what I wanted to talk about today was Criteria. I was thinking today about how fortunate I was to acquire a job over the summer, and same with my sister as well. But we realized that both of our jobs (and probably most "good" jobs out there) are extremely difficult to attain and require meeting a lot of specific criteria. However, when it comes down to actually doing a job, I feel there's a sort of discrepancy between the criteria that's required to preform to task and the criteria that is used to asses/distinguish between potential candidates. Which is clearly unfair. Why are people being judged on seemingly irrelevant traits or abilities?
Perhaps this is just another way that society breeds people to be more competitive for reasons which seem both impractical and incomprehensible to me. If two people both have the ability to do a job, why bother delineating between them on the basis of traits which are not relevant to doing a particular job? Sometimes, I just don't understand things. It would be nice if things were more fair, even if it meant there had to be an element of randomness introduced into a job application process or what not. Maybe it gives people some sort of closure if things are deterministic...even if to the point where it's not really logical...?
Monday, December 5, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Society and Control
The last blog I wanted to write is a quick one about an idea I had when I was driving home with my dad and brother. We were discussing about how police give people speeding tickets and how it takes up a lot of police resources just in order for this task to be accomplished. I suggested that why not just have radar traps along the highway at intervals to track when a car is going over a certain speed and then tag their license plate. Despite the fact that it might be hard to actually get a good picture of someone’s license plate with a roadside camera my brother brought up an interesting point that people would actually hate this. And it’s definitely true. People would protest at the thought of not being able to bend the rules a little bit or at the thought of the fact that they would almost ALWAYS get caught for exceeding the speed limit.
Anyway, I didn’t mean for that anecdote to be too long it was just to lead into a more general thought I had about society. It seems that while people in society are constantly clamouring for control and order and stability, there is a definite need for the enforcement of laws to be somewhat ambiguous. In order words, there needs to be obvious imperfections in the laws and how they are enforced for people to really be happy. If everyone was flawlessly caught every time they broke a law, people would hate it. They would call it totalitarian and an invasion of their privacy. 1984-esque, no doubt? But at the same time, one could argue that these invasions of privacy or totalitarian laws are only to strengthen society by allowing no one to be above the law.
So it’s a real catch 22. People want security, but at the same time I guess they need to believe there’s little loopholes and not everything will be seriously enforced. In other words, I guess they need some room to breathe. Why is this the case? I’m not entirely sure. Apart from the obvious part about society failing, I don’t see the big deal as long as it was not another human judging us. Maybe a computer system that could analyze whether someone was doing something right/wrong without any bias. But this leads into a whole other philosophical debate…about humanity building god with it’s own hands and how counter-intuitive it would be for some kind of software entity to judge us since of course, it’s not even human. Yet the irony is, why would some kind of higher “god” be anything like a human anyway? As in, have emotions like a human…to be omnipotent would it not have to judge us in an unbiased way? I think it’s almost demeaning to ascribe human emotions to a truly omnipotent “god” or one which might’ve created us. How could we /possibly/ relate to its emotions? It’s like an ant trying to relate to a human. Either way, it doesn’t make much sense to me.
.
.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Lifestyles && Aspirations
I was listening to a discussion with my parents in the car about the how different the people were in North America as opposed to back home. The basic premise was that most people in NA are driven by the American Dream. That is, the dream to make money (ie. get a good job) and then buy progressively better material things that they apparently need. For example, a big house, fancy cars, swimming pool, yachts etc etc.
This was definitely in contrast to the Caribbean way of life where a job is merely something you need to live comfortably and the lifestyle is more focused on working towards the weekend - where you party/drink and have fun with family/friends. I don't want to say that obviously everyone in NA or The Caribbean conforms to these mindsets since I'm sure there's exceptions. But I think its safe to say, living in Canada after all, that there's a definite push towards the American Dream. Ever since we're young we know the goal is to get a job that pays well...but then what? Then we use to money to buy useless things, it seems. To use the quote from Fight Club:
I guess it doesn't really matter how you attain happiness as long as you're...happy by whatever means you've obtained it (no pun intended). But personally, it seems like it'd be more stressful to try the American Dream route. It's stressful enough to try and land a stable job without worrying about how to constantly acquire more wealth and buy more material things. Or maybe the best way would be a compromise between both things. Material things do make one happy once in a while but I feel like they only make me happy in a very shallow kind of way. But why should people make me any happier? Are we just wired this way? I guess humans inherently want to bond with others...or else society would never happen.
Of course, I guess there's lots of other paths to happiness. I just think its interesting how paths to happiness can change so drastically across cultures/age groups/geographical regions. There could be things like religion that people could claim lead to happiness. In the end, what if happiness is just some neurotransmitter in the brain? What if it's really not as deep as our brains seem to think it is? What would be the point then, in order to work in some way to achieve this so called happiness?
This was definitely in contrast to the Caribbean way of life where a job is merely something you need to live comfortably and the lifestyle is more focused on working towards the weekend - where you party/drink and have fun with family/friends. I don't want to say that obviously everyone in NA or The Caribbean conforms to these mindsets since I'm sure there's exceptions. But I think its safe to say, living in Canada after all, that there's a definite push towards the American Dream. Ever since we're young we know the goal is to get a job that pays well...but then what? Then we use to money to buy useless things, it seems. To use the quote from Fight Club:
"Advertising has got us working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don't need"
Of course, that quote kind of exaggerates things as I'm sure not everyone in America hates their job. But its just the total capitalist mindset that I don't like. Initially, I thought like the Caribbean way of life seemed much more appealing and something I should strive for. I don't want my happiness to be dependent on material possessions which can be so fickle. But at the same time, why should happiness that's based on socializing with a person/people be any better? A person is perhaps just as fickle/fragile as a material object...maybe even more so.
I guess it doesn't really matter how you attain happiness as long as you're...happy by whatever means you've obtained it (no pun intended). But personally, it seems like it'd be more stressful to try the American Dream route. It's stressful enough to try and land a stable job without worrying about how to constantly acquire more wealth and buy more material things. Or maybe the best way would be a compromise between both things. Material things do make one happy once in a while but I feel like they only make me happy in a very shallow kind of way. But why should people make me any happier? Are we just wired this way? I guess humans inherently want to bond with others...or else society would never happen.
Of course, I guess there's lots of other paths to happiness. I just think its interesting how paths to happiness can change so drastically across cultures/age groups/geographical regions. There could be things like religion that people could claim lead to happiness. In the end, what if happiness is just some neurotransmitter in the brain? What if it's really not as deep as our brains seem to think it is? What would be the point then, in order to work in some way to achieve this so called happiness?
Are Pictures Worth 1000 Words?
I sometimes wish that I'd get more views on my blog. Or more accurately, that more people would read what I have to say and give some feedback. It's hard to tell how much a "view" really entails. It could be a misclicked link, a glance at a page, or someone starts reading and has a tl;dr moment and leaves.
I have often thought about including pictures to maybe capture the attention of others who stumble upon this blog. I chose not to do this for two reasons. First, I'm lazy and don't want to spend time finding pictures related to the topic I'm blogging about. Second, and most importantly, because I sort of don't like the "instant gratification" idea that pictures bring to a blog. In a age where we have sites like tumblr where most people just post a bunch of interesting pictures and call that a blog I think it's pretty useless. Pictures are good and can convey ideas but in an society where the internet allows one to access almost an infinite wealth of information with a few seconds of typing and clicks of a mouse, they only serve to worsen the problem. Look at facebook, for a example. Many people argue (myself included) that if you really -cough- stalk someone on facebook you could find out a lot about their life rather than taking the time to get to know them in person. These examples only serve to show that we're spoiled and have gotten far too use to having all this information at our fingertips to the point where we've forgotten the magic that comes with meeting someone completely new from the first time.
I guess the tl;dr version of this would be that pictures seem too convenient for me. So what if they are flashy and eye-catching? They should be used to enhance what a blogger writes about, and not the focus of it. The internet seems to make things impersonal and, I guess with my blog, I'm trying to make things personal again. I'm trying to write about how I feel and share it in the purest way I know how - through plain old text.
I have often thought about including pictures to maybe capture the attention of others who stumble upon this blog. I chose not to do this for two reasons. First, I'm lazy and don't want to spend time finding pictures related to the topic I'm blogging about. Second, and most importantly, because I sort of don't like the "instant gratification" idea that pictures bring to a blog. In a age where we have sites like tumblr where most people just post a bunch of interesting pictures and call that a blog I think it's pretty useless. Pictures are good and can convey ideas but in an society where the internet allows one to access almost an infinite wealth of information with a few seconds of typing and clicks of a mouse, they only serve to worsen the problem. Look at facebook, for a example. Many people argue (myself included) that if you really -cough- stalk someone on facebook you could find out a lot about their life rather than taking the time to get to know them in person. These examples only serve to show that we're spoiled and have gotten far too use to having all this information at our fingertips to the point where we've forgotten the magic that comes with meeting someone completely new from the first time.
I guess the tl;dr version of this would be that pictures seem too convenient for me. So what if they are flashy and eye-catching? They should be used to enhance what a blogger writes about, and not the focus of it. The internet seems to make things impersonal and, I guess with my blog, I'm trying to make things personal again. I'm trying to write about how I feel and share it in the purest way I know how - through plain old text.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The truth about goodbye
Sometimes, I don't really understand goodbyes. They always feel awkward and like things are unresolved for some reason. Maybe its because you don't notice someone or something is gone until you can't see them again anymore. I guess its just hard for anyone to believe beforehand that something or someone who was present almost everyday in your life will just go away.
Anyway, the reason I think goodbyes are awkward sometimes is because it's difficult for me to really be genuine about it all. I mean even though I know someone is leaving and I might not see them again its just hard to me accept or try to emulate how I'm going to feel once I realize they are really gone. It's very different I guess knowing something is true and experiencing it on your own.
Anyway, the reason I think goodbyes are awkward sometimes is because it's difficult for me to really be genuine about it all. I mean even though I know someone is leaving and I might not see them again its just hard to me accept or try to emulate how I'm going to feel once I realize they are really gone. It's very different I guess knowing something is true and experiencing it on your own.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Brave New World
"Happiness is never grand"
- Brave New World
- Brave New World
I want to apologize to all you anonymous readers out there (if you even exist) for not blogging in a while. It wasn't that I had much going on in my life, I probably had quite a bit of free time. I've been trying to remedy this lately and make my days more meaningful by filling them with such things as gaming, hopefully doing some organic chem and finishing several books. I worry about having these meaningless days that I won't even remember, sometimes. Either way, I'd like to really apologize to myself. I was re-reading my older blogs at work yesterday and they gave me the motivation I needed to get out of this non-blogging rut. Of course, this post is supposed to be about a book. I'll ramble on about memories and the past later.
A few weeks ago I finished reading the classic novel Brave New World by Huxley. Coincidentally, Huxley (the author) is also the half brother of the Huxley who won the Nobel Prize in Physiological for coming up with mathematical models that dictate how action potentials travel down neurons. Pretty cool piece of trivia, I thought.
At first I was expecting Brave New World to be similar to the classic 1984 by Orwell. I was wrong on most accounts. While they are definitely about a future setting, they share little in common. Overall, I found Brave New World felt more like a scientific/philosophy paper that didn't really devote enough time to the story or development of the plot. You didn't really feel anything for the characters and it was basically like the story was only a mechanism for Huxley to express his ideas about a future society. Which, in retrospect, it probably is.
So, I'm going to try and not talk about the actual plot of Brave New World too much, since I didn't think there was anything that interesting there. But I would like to discuss the ideas. Brave New World portrays a society where people are controlled by "happiness" rather than fear as in 1984. People are divided into classes at birth with Alphas being the highest (the intellectual thinkers) and Epsilons being the lowest (factory workers). Other classes include Beta and Gammas whose intellectual abilities are determined, as you might've guessed, by their position in the Greek Alphabet. The society of BNW aims to make people happy in two ways. For one, they eliminate the feeling of closeness or intimacy between individuals. There is no such thing as a family, or significant other. As a mantra in the book goes "Everyone belongs to everyone else". Thus, people can have sex with whomever they like and as many people as they like. The book implies that people usually date for maybe a week or a bit more and then move onto someone else. Without such a feeling of intimacy between individuals it greatly reduces the probability that one will feel grief or pain upon seeing another person leave.
The second way people are made is through a new drug called Soma. Soma is basically like getting high without any of the negative side-effects. It's used to make one fall into a sleep (sometimes) where they are happy. However, it is shown that taking TOO much Soma will kill you. Of course, this threshold is far beyond what the average citizen takes. Soma also offers a release from physical pain, thus eliminating another way of feeling sad. The other interesting aspects of their society is that conditioning of very young children make everyone happy with their social class. Also, aging does not occur for the citizens at BNW. Everyone is young forever, until 60 where they are automatically killed. Also, the book implies that there is very little scientific research or updates that will ever be made to the society as it seems pretty stable as it is now.
It's pretty obvious to see that BNW tries to blur the line between dystopia and utopia. Whereas the denizens of a 1984-esque society are constantly impoverished, underfed and have poor living conditions, people in a BNW kind of society are, essentially, content with their lives. But this contentment only stems from the stability that they have. Is content through stability enough? Or is this society actually more of a nightmare due to the fact that everyone is TOO stable? Throughout the course of the novel, this is realized by some of the Alpha Plus citizens (the most intellectual thinkers). Many of them are not happy with their lives even though they realize they are free from at least emotional or physical pain. They want a type of intimacy with others or something more than what society can give them now. In a way, is this selfish? Can society never fill the void of not having an intimate relationship with another? What about religion? Drugs?
But the society of BNW is interesting because, to me, it shows that people can be happy without experiencing sadness or pain. For a long time, I use to think that happiness could only be achieved through experiencing rough times in your life as well. But, I feel now that happiness can come from stability. However, for a person who is truly a thinker, this kind of happiness through stability will never be enough. There needs to be something more. Maybe its some selfish intimate relationship you have with another that no one else does, or maybe it's some other passion for science/nature/people.
But this brings me to the question of Soma. What about drugs? Do we underestimate their ability to make us happy? I've been reading a lot of neuroscience lately and, at the end of the day, all the feelings, emotions, and thoughts we have are just a product of electrical connections in our brain. Well, along with neurotransmitters. What if people had access to a drug which simply made them feel happy all the time? What need then, for even living a life as we see today? Of course, I doubt this will ever happen. But it's curious to think what if drugs were to evolve and become more like Soma and have less detrimental side effects. Of course, its described in the novel that Soma only brings about a "shallow happiness". It's a comforting thought to think that there is still something special about attaining happiness through our life and in our own unique way. It's always a nice feeling to think that we are unique and we live our lives in a unique way. But are we? Are we bold enough to say that the way we find happiness is so special that it can't be replicated in any other way? I wish this were the case, sometimes but maybe it's just as easy as tweaking some synapses in your brain.
I think I'll end off this discussion by saying that stability is a very useless thing in the long term. While it can bring about a shallow kind of happiness, I don't feel like it makes life worth living as much as change does. I'm not talking about a radical change everyday. But I just don't see the point in wanting my life to be stable for as long as I'm alive. It's like the difference between just standing beside a treadmill and running on a treadmill at a constant speed. Sure, in one scenario you're moving faster than the other, but relative to YOURSELF, you aren't changing your speed on the treadmill at all. You might be moving, but nothing is changing. So why does it even matter that you were running the first place?
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Book Analysis
I recently finished reading Catcher in the Rye again for the second time. It still definitely remains one of my all time favourite novels and for good reason. But I'm not writing this post to talk about why I think Catcher in the Rye is a great novel, it's more of an analysis type post.
When I read Catcher in the Rye for the first time in Grade 11 I think what I liked (and remembered) most about it was Holden's observations of the phoniness in adults. I believe that I thought that I could relate to his insightful view of the world where he sees many establishments (such as school) and adults as "phony". I could relate to this, as being in high school, I felt that many things were indeed "phony" especially some of the people that I knew at the time. I could understand how Holden would just like to get away from it all, and become a recluse and a "deaf mute" in his own words. Basically, I felt as if I could relate most to Holden with regards to his life at school (swearing, curse words etc) and how he felt about the majority of the people there. Additionally, it made me think about the inappropriate "fuck yous" that I had often seen inscribed in hallways/bathrooms. Oh ALSO, I thought that I could definitely relate to Holden's "teenage angst" being at that stage in my life. I felt as if I just had some sort of inherent frustration towards establishment and people who seemed phony. It's tough to explain.
Life is interesting in that sometimes you don't really notice how much you've changed. It's hard to say what I found interesting back in Grade 11, but I think that I got most of it down. What really intrigued me is that parts of the books that I focused on more now that I was older. It's hard to believe that Grade 11 was almost 3 years ago. God, I feel old and somewhat depressed just typing that line out. The first thing I noticed when reading this time was more related to Holden's immature and his ability to seem truly like a child at times. I think this is perhaps more evidence pointing to the fact that I_have_matured. Either that, or I've just turned into a huge phony. The bottom line is that Holden doesn't seem as astute as I first thought but he gives an interesting perspective on society nonetheless even if it is a very biased one.
One of the main themes I also realized through Holden's immaturity is that society and the people it in are complicated. Holden is confused because on his adventure his interaction with others do not perfectly fit the perspective of society he has created for himself - a place where all adults are phonies and all children are innocent. For example, Holden's conversations with the Nuns on the subway confuses him because it helps him realize there are seemingly "good" adults out there.
Now the average reader might think that Holden is just stupid. Of course society and people are complex. Of course things aren't black and white. But I feel Holden's problem is one which echoes in the everyday lives of many people, including myself. Many people tend to create unrealistic views of the world where things do have black and white categories. And similar to Holden, people feel threatened and downright ignore any evidence that might challenge their views. I think Holden's situation is an indication that once again we need to start reflecting and thinking "outside the box".
But, more specifically, on Holden's view about all adults being phonies I can't say that I'm entirely convinced as I was when I first read the novel. Once again, my experiences in university have broaden my perspective on the different types of adults (and just people that there are out in the world).
Another major theme is innocence, especially in children. Innocence is a big thing I discovered when first coming to university. Now that it's been almost a year I feel that I've seen, done, and been exposed to far "darker" things that I would've liked. Looking back now, I was pretty innocent in high school. But I can't say I agree with Holden wanting to rub off all the "fuck you's" in elementary schools. Sooner or later, people have to be exposed to the way of the world. A better option would be to try and change the mentality of the people rather than simply delaying an inevitable truth.
Speaking of changes in University one of the feelings I can relate more with Holden now is the somewhat childish wish that things could be unchanging and preserved. When Holden goes into the museum he wishes that the world could be still forever just like the figures in glass cases that he sees. After going off to university, the world seems to be moving at an alarming pace - much faster than I ever wanted it to. I think we all have a need for consistency somewhere in our lives.
Perhaps the last way I felt I could connect with Holden is just through his ability to simply want someone to talk to who he didn't think was a phony. Throughout the entire novel, he basically spends the whole time searching for someone that he can just relate to but when he actually likes someone (like the Nuns) circumstances force them apart or he ends up just getting stick of someone after a while and thinking they are phony. This has really paralleled my first year of university, in a way. I feel like I've been searching for someone to relate to or even care about in but I end up either not liking them after hanging out with them for a while or just thinking they are sort of phony - just like the masses of people. However, while I have met people who do stand out to me there are always some circumstances which make it impossible for me to really get to know them any better. I think sometimes, as Dessi said, I just expect too much.
The last line in the novel is "Don't ever tell anyone anything, if you do you end up missing everybody." Holden says that even though he hated some of the people he went to boarding school with at the time he eventually misses them in the end. I feel that I understand this line more now too. There's plenty of people I didn't particularly like or even care about that I went to high school with. But sometimes when I see them on facebook, or talk to them briefly on msn I can't help but miss them in a way. At the time of leaving, I didn't care that I wouldn't see them again. But some things in life just need time to saturate. Will I feel the same way about the people I've met in University as well?
When I read Catcher in the Rye for the first time in Grade 11 I think what I liked (and remembered) most about it was Holden's observations of the phoniness in adults. I believe that I thought that I could relate to his insightful view of the world where he sees many establishments (such as school) and adults as "phony". I could relate to this, as being in high school, I felt that many things were indeed "phony" especially some of the people that I knew at the time. I could understand how Holden would just like to get away from it all, and become a recluse and a "deaf mute" in his own words. Basically, I felt as if I could relate most to Holden with regards to his life at school (swearing, curse words etc) and how he felt about the majority of the people there. Additionally, it made me think about the inappropriate "fuck yous" that I had often seen inscribed in hallways/bathrooms. Oh ALSO, I thought that I could definitely relate to Holden's "teenage angst" being at that stage in my life. I felt as if I just had some sort of inherent frustration towards establishment and people who seemed phony. It's tough to explain.
Life is interesting in that sometimes you don't really notice how much you've changed. It's hard to say what I found interesting back in Grade 11, but I think that I got most of it down. What really intrigued me is that parts of the books that I focused on more now that I was older. It's hard to believe that Grade 11 was almost 3 years ago. God, I feel old and somewhat depressed just typing that line out. The first thing I noticed when reading this time was more related to Holden's immature and his ability to seem truly like a child at times. I think this is perhaps more evidence pointing to the fact that I_have_matured. Either that, or I've just turned into a huge phony. The bottom line is that Holden doesn't seem as astute as I first thought but he gives an interesting perspective on society nonetheless even if it is a very biased one.
One of the main themes I also realized through Holden's immaturity is that society and the people it in are complicated. Holden is confused because on his adventure his interaction with others do not perfectly fit the perspective of society he has created for himself - a place where all adults are phonies and all children are innocent. For example, Holden's conversations with the Nuns on the subway confuses him because it helps him realize there are seemingly "good" adults out there.
Now the average reader might think that Holden is just stupid. Of course society and people are complex. Of course things aren't black and white. But I feel Holden's problem is one which echoes in the everyday lives of many people, including myself. Many people tend to create unrealistic views of the world where things do have black and white categories. And similar to Holden, people feel threatened and downright ignore any evidence that might challenge their views. I think Holden's situation is an indication that once again we need to start reflecting and thinking "outside the box".
But, more specifically, on Holden's view about all adults being phonies I can't say that I'm entirely convinced as I was when I first read the novel. Once again, my experiences in university have broaden my perspective on the different types of adults (and just people that there are out in the world).
Another major theme is innocence, especially in children. Innocence is a big thing I discovered when first coming to university. Now that it's been almost a year I feel that I've seen, done, and been exposed to far "darker" things that I would've liked. Looking back now, I was pretty innocent in high school. But I can't say I agree with Holden wanting to rub off all the "fuck you's" in elementary schools. Sooner or later, people have to be exposed to the way of the world. A better option would be to try and change the mentality of the people rather than simply delaying an inevitable truth.
Speaking of changes in University one of the feelings I can relate more with Holden now is the somewhat childish wish that things could be unchanging and preserved. When Holden goes into the museum he wishes that the world could be still forever just like the figures in glass cases that he sees. After going off to university, the world seems to be moving at an alarming pace - much faster than I ever wanted it to. I think we all have a need for consistency somewhere in our lives.
Perhaps the last way I felt I could connect with Holden is just through his ability to simply want someone to talk to who he didn't think was a phony. Throughout the entire novel, he basically spends the whole time searching for someone that he can just relate to but when he actually likes someone (like the Nuns) circumstances force them apart or he ends up just getting stick of someone after a while and thinking they are phony. This has really paralleled my first year of university, in a way. I feel like I've been searching for someone to relate to or even care about in but I end up either not liking them after hanging out with them for a while or just thinking they are sort of phony - just like the masses of people. However, while I have met people who do stand out to me there are always some circumstances which make it impossible for me to really get to know them any better. I think sometimes, as Dessi said, I just expect too much.
The last line in the novel is "Don't ever tell anyone anything, if you do you end up missing everybody." Holden says that even though he hated some of the people he went to boarding school with at the time he eventually misses them in the end. I feel that I understand this line more now too. There's plenty of people I didn't particularly like or even care about that I went to high school with. But sometimes when I see them on facebook, or talk to them briefly on msn I can't help but miss them in a way. At the time of leaving, I didn't care that I wouldn't see them again. But some things in life just need time to saturate. Will I feel the same way about the people I've met in University as well?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
2+2=5
Is it possible that 2+2 = 5 could be true if everyone thinks it is? Who even said that 2+2 = 4? Is this some inherent property of the universe? Even if it is "true", why should it matter to humanity?
George Orwell thought so and, for some sad reason, I'm starting to think so too. Once again, I think this mentality is just another depressing truth I've discovered as I move along this tread mill of life.
For those not familiar with the particular scene in 1984, it's when O Brien informs Winston that the fundamental truth of the universes all depend on what the Party says. 2+2 = 5 if the Party wills it. Objects don't fall to the earth because of gravity, they fall because the Party wants them too. Of course, at first, Winston thinks this is absurd. But slowly, he comes to realize that when only you believe something to be true you begin to doubt the sanity of your own thoughts - despite how outlandish the thoughts of the masses might seem.
I have found myself in similar situations many times, but none of them are more profound than when it comes to memories. I pride myself on having what I consider to be quite an astute memory, I tend to be able to recall minor details and generate powerful recollections if I really think about it. The point, recently, I was creeping someone from my past on my facebook and all of a sudden all these memories suddenly started coming back to me. And the thing is, they probably seem trivial to anyone but me. I doubt the person in question even remembers the events that transpired. So that leaves me with the question - should it even be called real?
The logical response is, "Well of course, it did happen after all" but the more practical point of view is that perhaps sadly, those memories only exist in my mind now. What if that information really exists no one else but in my head now? Only existing in some complicated set of synaptic connections and even that might fade away in time. And that information might be lost forever. It's something that scares me a lot, to be honest. I think I have a big problem with things just disappearing without me knowing.
Are we constantly losing parts of who we used to be? And parts of who we are? Or are they just hidden beneath the surface? Anyway, I digress. The point is that, what if no one else even remembers but me? I might as well have made up a story in my head about that person and called it the "truth". In fact, what if the time comes when I can't even distinguish between what memories are real and perhaps the little additions I've subconsciously made to my memories to make things seem better? Maybe that's already happened to me.
The point is, does it even matter if you remember the truth or not? If no one is around to verify or remember it with you? It's like that old saying about a tree falling in the woods. But I believe that it is important to remember the truth. But maybe it's just too hard if no one else is there to believe with you. Maybe if everyone else believes that 2+2 = 5 then that's simply enough for it to be true. Of course, I do think that using scientific examples is a bad idea, since perhaps they can be proven empirically. But what about memories? No one can verify that the memories I still hold in my mind are accurate, because memories aren't something that can be "proven" like a mathematical proof or what not.
I think the point I want to get across to myself is that as I get older, I feel scared that everyone else will simply "forget" old memories of the past that seem important to me. And then, will I really be able to call them anything? I just wish sometimes that humans were more like computers, with reliable space where information can be stored. Instead, we're left not only knowing where information is stored but relying on others to validate that information. I guess the bottom line is that I shouldn't need others remembering to validate what I supposedly know to be true. But...memories just don't seem as special if no one is around to remember the things that you do. Then you just feel crazy.
George Orwell thought so and, for some sad reason, I'm starting to think so too. Once again, I think this mentality is just another depressing truth I've discovered as I move along this tread mill of life.
For those not familiar with the particular scene in 1984, it's when O Brien informs Winston that the fundamental truth of the universes all depend on what the Party says. 2+2 = 5 if the Party wills it. Objects don't fall to the earth because of gravity, they fall because the Party wants them too. Of course, at first, Winston thinks this is absurd. But slowly, he comes to realize that when only you believe something to be true you begin to doubt the sanity of your own thoughts - despite how outlandish the thoughts of the masses might seem.
I have found myself in similar situations many times, but none of them are more profound than when it comes to memories. I pride myself on having what I consider to be quite an astute memory, I tend to be able to recall minor details and generate powerful recollections if I really think about it. The point, recently, I was creeping someone from my past on my facebook and all of a sudden all these memories suddenly started coming back to me. And the thing is, they probably seem trivial to anyone but me. I doubt the person in question even remembers the events that transpired. So that leaves me with the question - should it even be called real?
The logical response is, "Well of course, it did happen after all" but the more practical point of view is that perhaps sadly, those memories only exist in my mind now. What if that information really exists no one else but in my head now? Only existing in some complicated set of synaptic connections and even that might fade away in time. And that information might be lost forever. It's something that scares me a lot, to be honest. I think I have a big problem with things just disappearing without me knowing.
Are we constantly losing parts of who we used to be? And parts of who we are? Or are they just hidden beneath the surface? Anyway, I digress. The point is that, what if no one else even remembers but me? I might as well have made up a story in my head about that person and called it the "truth". In fact, what if the time comes when I can't even distinguish between what memories are real and perhaps the little additions I've subconsciously made to my memories to make things seem better? Maybe that's already happened to me.
The point is, does it even matter if you remember the truth or not? If no one is around to verify or remember it with you? It's like that old saying about a tree falling in the woods. But I believe that it is important to remember the truth. But maybe it's just too hard if no one else is there to believe with you. Maybe if everyone else believes that 2+2 = 5 then that's simply enough for it to be true. Of course, I do think that using scientific examples is a bad idea, since perhaps they can be proven empirically. But what about memories? No one can verify that the memories I still hold in my mind are accurate, because memories aren't something that can be "proven" like a mathematical proof or what not.
I think the point I want to get across to myself is that as I get older, I feel scared that everyone else will simply "forget" old memories of the past that seem important to me. And then, will I really be able to call them anything? I just wish sometimes that humans were more like computers, with reliable space where information can be stored. Instead, we're left not only knowing where information is stored but relying on others to validate that information. I guess the bottom line is that I shouldn't need others remembering to validate what I supposedly know to be true. But...memories just don't seem as special if no one is around to remember the things that you do. Then you just feel crazy.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Self Aware
I'm going to take a break from blogging about events in my day to day life and try to take a step outside the box. So without further ado...
So, I was reading this Neuroscience textbook on Monday just for general interest and ended up reading some sections completely unrelated to my research. One of the sections had to do with the theory of sleep, dreams and how they affect our brain. The other had to do with emotions and how people respond to them. However, the section I found the most fascinating was a small section about self-awareness and how it makes humans unique.
The section posed the idea that humans are clearly different from both animals (though we have no way of knowing this) and machines (we know this for sure) in that humans are self aware. More specifically, if I was to look in the mirror I can recognize and realize that the person staring back at me is...physically who I am and what others see me as. I have the very special ability to recognize myself and recognize the fact that I do exist. Whatever "existing" really means.
I believe that this is perhaps one of the only ways humans are really fundamentally different from machines. The more I read about neuroscience the more the brain seems like a biological computer. Albeit, a very complex computer which operates in a way that we can't understand or really compare that fully to how modern computers operate. But it pretty much seems like neurons process inputs and generate outputs to other neurons through means of electrical/chemical signals. Really, while I think the brain is complicated and how it functions is mysterious I don't think it makes humans special. If we really are special.
Anyway, back to why we are different from machines. A machine does not really know it's a machine, it does not know if it exists or why it exists for the function that it does. All it does is "do". Humans, for better or for worse, have the ability to question ALL that we do. What I really want to get into is something that both angers and saddens me about people sometime. That people sometimes seem to forgo perhaps the one attribute which makes us unique just for the sake of simplicity. Of course, I'm talking about self awareness.
I recently read "Breakfast of Champions" by Kurt Vonnegut. This basic plot of this book is that a man goes crazy because he gets the idea that everyone else around him is really a machine and that he is the only one who can really "think". As such, he has no problem killing or hurting other people because he simply sees them as just machines. Now, apart of the violence, I believe this is a very interesting premise. In a depressing sense, it seems like too many people nowadays are simply too focused on just moving forward in life, but they aren't taking the time to step back and really THINK about WHY. They aren't taking a step back to look at themselves in a mirror in a both figurative and possibly even literal sense. I see inklings of this trait in people all the time (even in myself), people so caught up in things for no reason other than the sake of having something to be "caught up" in. This could extend to so many areas - school, religion, relationships. It's depressing almost. It's depressing that sometimes society tries to strip us of the one thing that could possibly make humans unique in exchange for cooperation and conformity.
To whoever is reading this, including myself, I urge that perhaps you take some time to step back and look outside the box. Way outside the box. Think of WHY the things you think are important are really important. And if they should be important. Of course, I realize this kind of thinking is bad for you to an extent. There are those rare times where this state of thinking makes me feel much like the man in that Kurt Vonnegut novel I was just talking about. I sometimes feel like everyone else around me is just caught up in trivial things that have no real significance to well...anything, but perhaps some selfish part of their character. Then I invariably think about my own life, and the things I hold dear to me. Even they seem quite pointless as well. But pointless compared to what? Maybe I mean pointless compared to the capacity in which we have to think and imagine.
In a way, I think the ability of self awareness is humanity's most damning trait. For those who don't recognize it, they are missing out on what could make the human experience unique and might be simply stuck in a rut. For those who do embrace it and think about it occasionally they realize that maybe nothing in life will be good enough to compete with this fundamental idea of knowing we exist. It's a real catch 22 and the ultimate way life has found to troll us all. It's almost like giving someone the gift of being able to see colors but forcing them to live in a world that is predominantly monochrome (black and white). Of course, they know there's A BIT of color (blues, greens, reds etc) out there...but its so scarce some people would rather just pretend they only know about black and white. But for those who DO accept other colors are out there, they might never find them or never find enough of them. That's how I see the world, at least.
But I don't think I'll turn back, and I hope I never fall back into things which I think are pointless. I'd rather take nothing than something. Really, this might not even be a choice at all. Perhaps nothing was all there ever was.
So, I was reading this Neuroscience textbook on Monday just for general interest and ended up reading some sections completely unrelated to my research. One of the sections had to do with the theory of sleep, dreams and how they affect our brain. The other had to do with emotions and how people respond to them. However, the section I found the most fascinating was a small section about self-awareness and how it makes humans unique.
The section posed the idea that humans are clearly different from both animals (though we have no way of knowing this) and machines (we know this for sure) in that humans are self aware. More specifically, if I was to look in the mirror I can recognize and realize that the person staring back at me is...physically who I am and what others see me as. I have the very special ability to recognize myself and recognize the fact that I do exist. Whatever "existing" really means.
I believe that this is perhaps one of the only ways humans are really fundamentally different from machines. The more I read about neuroscience the more the brain seems like a biological computer. Albeit, a very complex computer which operates in a way that we can't understand or really compare that fully to how modern computers operate. But it pretty much seems like neurons process inputs and generate outputs to other neurons through means of electrical/chemical signals. Really, while I think the brain is complicated and how it functions is mysterious I don't think it makes humans special. If we really are special.
Anyway, back to why we are different from machines. A machine does not really know it's a machine, it does not know if it exists or why it exists for the function that it does. All it does is "do". Humans, for better or for worse, have the ability to question ALL that we do. What I really want to get into is something that both angers and saddens me about people sometime. That people sometimes seem to forgo perhaps the one attribute which makes us unique just for the sake of simplicity. Of course, I'm talking about self awareness.
I recently read "Breakfast of Champions" by Kurt Vonnegut. This basic plot of this book is that a man goes crazy because he gets the idea that everyone else around him is really a machine and that he is the only one who can really "think". As such, he has no problem killing or hurting other people because he simply sees them as just machines. Now, apart of the violence, I believe this is a very interesting premise. In a depressing sense, it seems like too many people nowadays are simply too focused on just moving forward in life, but they aren't taking the time to step back and really THINK about WHY. They aren't taking a step back to look at themselves in a mirror in a both figurative and possibly even literal sense. I see inklings of this trait in people all the time (even in myself), people so caught up in things for no reason other than the sake of having something to be "caught up" in. This could extend to so many areas - school, religion, relationships. It's depressing almost. It's depressing that sometimes society tries to strip us of the one thing that could possibly make humans unique in exchange for cooperation and conformity.
To whoever is reading this, including myself, I urge that perhaps you take some time to step back and look outside the box. Way outside the box. Think of WHY the things you think are important are really important. And if they should be important. Of course, I realize this kind of thinking is bad for you to an extent. There are those rare times where this state of thinking makes me feel much like the man in that Kurt Vonnegut novel I was just talking about. I sometimes feel like everyone else around me is just caught up in trivial things that have no real significance to well...anything, but perhaps some selfish part of their character. Then I invariably think about my own life, and the things I hold dear to me. Even they seem quite pointless as well. But pointless compared to what? Maybe I mean pointless compared to the capacity in which we have to think and imagine.
In a way, I think the ability of self awareness is humanity's most damning trait. For those who don't recognize it, they are missing out on what could make the human experience unique and might be simply stuck in a rut. For those who do embrace it and think about it occasionally they realize that maybe nothing in life will be good enough to compete with this fundamental idea of knowing we exist. It's a real catch 22 and the ultimate way life has found to troll us all. It's almost like giving someone the gift of being able to see colors but forcing them to live in a world that is predominantly monochrome (black and white). Of course, they know there's A BIT of color (blues, greens, reds etc) out there...but its so scarce some people would rather just pretend they only know about black and white. But for those who DO accept other colors are out there, they might never find them or never find enough of them. That's how I see the world, at least.
But I don't think I'll turn back, and I hope I never fall back into things which I think are pointless. I'd rather take nothing than something. Really, this might not even be a choice at all. Perhaps nothing was all there ever was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)