A meaning to life, who really needs one?
I don't think I've ever heard of a baby who has been thought that life must have a meaning. We're simply poured into the mold that implies life must have one, and we accept it. Life's meaning. No man knows it, so no man is good enough to dictate it. So, perhaps God must exist.
But if you think about it, the meaning was never there. A flower never questions its existence, because it doesn't have the capacity to, nor the want. Neither does a goat, nor a dog, nor a cactus. It simply lives out its purpose (most probably to exist, produce offspring, then return to non-existence).
Except for the want and the capacity to, (Well, maybe not so much the want) we are very much tied to this birth, reproduction, death cycle. We may not want to know it, nor do we want anything to do with it, but we are tied to it in a way that makes us feel like we are more than it.
I have a theory that evolution ensures we're always trying to improve, trying to advance the race to a more sustainable state of existence. Even if it means plotting a revolution that may involve the murder of fellow human beings.
But that all sounds a little rash. Let's analyze.
A plot to overthrow an unfair state always comes across as a little rash, but looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, it may make sense.
An unfair state represents the alpha male tendency that is the failure of the animal species. It must be eradicated by means of revolt by the powerful many in order to maintain survival and expansion of the species.
From a larger scope the world makes more sense. We look at the West as a distant oppressor(especially Malaysians who are indirectly suppressed by the Western idea that the Asian is inferior(supported also indirectly by Anglo-American empire), but upon further inspection, what the west is doing is almost right for our species. They are the unjust ones, but they are also the ones who are forcing us out of our shells. We need the best of humanity to survive, not the laid back. They need us to compete and strive to be the best that we can be. And the poor Asian politicians think it's a game of suck-up. It isn't. It's probably bigger than we can imagine.
It may even mean that the survival of the species relies on the brightest minds this world has to offer, Asian or not.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thanks for the comment Sean! Here's a post-reply.
I was hoping to try and explain the open mind bit in the next post(that's why I numbered it), so you may have to wait a while for me to put it into words and publish it.
Until very recently I thought it was a person's choice whether or not they believed in God. I even felt that atheist pride for choosing not to believe.
And yes, there IS an apparent conscious decision made by the individual. That I do not deny. But take into consideration some of the things we know.
Think about your childhood. Think of a memory from when you were a kid. Something that's vivid and almost touchable. It is apparent that you are that kid, because those are your memories. But scientifically speaking, not trace of matter from 5 year old Sean is part of 19 year old Sean. If you've got a science background, you'll know that cells die and are replaced.
I don't know what that implies to choice DIRECTLY, but indirectly, it shows that that which is true, may not necessarily be that which is apparent.
Gabriel Gan told me that my method of reasoning would mean destroying the meaning of the word 'choice' itself. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get into. *shrugs*
So back to your question. Is it a choice, when we choose to break free from religion?
Our subconscious self does not make decisions. It is more of a determinant of choice, for the same reason punching in '2 + 2 =' on a calculator produces '4'. What we take to be choices, are just natural reactions due to the ways in which we were wired.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but I hate playing preacher. I prefer just expressing my formulas and getting people to try it out themselves. =)
And I think you probably made more sense than me!
I was hoping to try and explain the open mind bit in the next post(that's why I numbered it), so you may have to wait a while for me to put it into words and publish it.
Until very recently I thought it was a person's choice whether or not they believed in God. I even felt that atheist pride for choosing not to believe.
And yes, there IS an apparent conscious decision made by the individual. That I do not deny. But take into consideration some of the things we know.
Think about your childhood. Think of a memory from when you were a kid. Something that's vivid and almost touchable. It is apparent that you are that kid, because those are your memories. But scientifically speaking, not trace of matter from 5 year old Sean is part of 19 year old Sean. If you've got a science background, you'll know that cells die and are replaced.
I don't know what that implies to choice DIRECTLY, but indirectly, it shows that that which is true, may not necessarily be that which is apparent.
Gabriel Gan told me that my method of reasoning would mean destroying the meaning of the word 'choice' itself. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get into. *shrugs*
So back to your question. Is it a choice, when we choose to break free from religion?
Our subconscious self does not make decisions. It is more of a determinant of choice, for the same reason punching in '2 + 2 =' on a calculator produces '4'. What we take to be choices, are just natural reactions due to the ways in which we were wired.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but I hate playing preacher. I prefer just expressing my formulas and getting people to try it out themselves. =)
And I think you probably made more sense than me!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Determinism 1
The objective of this post is to describe, in detail, why 'choice' is not a word that carries any relevance to the real world. I COULD be wrong, and nearly everyone I who has heard this theory from me thinks I'm delusional. I've also lost my ability to piece words together nicely, so this may get a little rough. Here goes.
Let's deal with the easy bit first; choices made by nature FOR us. No one chooses their genetic make-up, the culture into which they are soaked in, the way they're raised, the list goes on really. That much, we can infer to be true. Truth being a fact that's been tested enough times to be generally accepted as a fair reflection of the nature of things. My idea is this(it's not mine, but hey, NO ONE can truly own anything, though they can legally);
An extrapolation of the influence of external and internal forces(conscious and subconscious evaluations) on free will shows that choice is an illusion.
It's not that choice is outright FALSE. Choice is like superstition. It makes the world we live in easier to accept.
Ok, now to explain that idea.
Let's narrow the field down to behavioral choices, the typical gray area between free will and determinism. An individual's behavior is said to be determined by past experience, genetic make up, and free will. However, the perspective of the individual does not typically take this into account when behaving. When engaged in a conversation, the individual feels like he or she is choosing his or her words. But isn't it all part of a bigger mechanism? A conversation isn't something that occurs between two people.
A conversation cannot go many ways, but just one. Here's why.
When involved in a conversation, participants must know their boundaries, that is, how well they know the other person, what sort of topics would be relevant to a conversation with the other person, how the other person responds to rudeness or how the other person responds to dominating the conversation. These aren't always wild guesses. The accuracy of a person's boundary-judgment depends on how they interpret their past experience of conversations. This too, is determined by how much they think about their interactions with people, which in turn is determined by how socially inclined they are, which in turn is determined by many other factors. I don't think I have to list the factors that determine what makes an individual good at socializing out or maybe I just don't think I want to.
In a conversation involving two perfectly sane people, everything is pre-determined. Whether it starts with a "good morning" depends on the time of the day. No choice there. Whether or not they chose to meet in the morning depended on when they were mutually free to meet. Our schedules are rarely something we choose. Whether or not there is any hostility or humor depends on the moods of the two people, also determined by pre-conversation factors.
Atheism as well as religion aren't our own choices as well. A Christian who is born and raised Christian had no say in the matter. A person who continues practicing his religion does so because he or she is molded that way. When a person breaks free of his or her religion, it has to be an external force that sparks the change. Whatever the outside cause, the inside change is equally important. If the mind is open(an open mind is a trait that no one chooses, and open mindedness is rare. Most of us are open minded to certain ideas, but block off the rest. Again, it all depends on someone else's action), then the external force has a multiplied effect on the individual.
These 'invisible forces of determinism' can, and probably are easily mistaken as God. However, there is no degree of omniscience or self reflection in these invisible forces. They simply are. In fact, I think 'forces' is the wrong word. It's more of a series of events that influence each other. Unlike the ripple effect, these do not flow in a perfectly smooth pattern. If we were to use to ripple effect as an analogy for determinism, then the uneven lake floor and wind direction, that also effect the shape of the ripple must also be considered as part of the picture. In a sense, it's sort of a multiple ripple effect. Where each individual is its own ripple, unable to chose for itself its shape, but having no choice but to change itself as a natural reaction to other ripples or obstacles it encounters. That about sums it up.
Let's deal with the easy bit first; choices made by nature FOR us. No one chooses their genetic make-up, the culture into which they are soaked in, the way they're raised, the list goes on really. That much, we can infer to be true. Truth being a fact that's been tested enough times to be generally accepted as a fair reflection of the nature of things. My idea is this(it's not mine, but hey, NO ONE can truly own anything, though they can legally);
An extrapolation of the influence of external and internal forces(conscious and subconscious evaluations) on free will shows that choice is an illusion.
It's not that choice is outright FALSE. Choice is like superstition. It makes the world we live in easier to accept.
Ok, now to explain that idea.
Let's narrow the field down to behavioral choices, the typical gray area between free will and determinism. An individual's behavior is said to be determined by past experience, genetic make up, and free will. However, the perspective of the individual does not typically take this into account when behaving. When engaged in a conversation, the individual feels like he or she is choosing his or her words. But isn't it all part of a bigger mechanism? A conversation isn't something that occurs between two people.
A conversation cannot go many ways, but just one. Here's why.
When involved in a conversation, participants must know their boundaries, that is, how well they know the other person, what sort of topics would be relevant to a conversation with the other person, how the other person responds to rudeness or how the other person responds to dominating the conversation. These aren't always wild guesses. The accuracy of a person's boundary-judgment depends on how they interpret their past experience of conversations. This too, is determined by how much they think about their interactions with people, which in turn is determined by how socially inclined they are, which in turn is determined by many other factors. I don't think I have to list the factors that determine what makes an individual good at socializing out or maybe I just don't think I want to.
In a conversation involving two perfectly sane people, everything is pre-determined. Whether it starts with a "good morning" depends on the time of the day. No choice there. Whether or not they chose to meet in the morning depended on when they were mutually free to meet. Our schedules are rarely something we choose. Whether or not there is any hostility or humor depends on the moods of the two people, also determined by pre-conversation factors.
Atheism as well as religion aren't our own choices as well. A Christian who is born and raised Christian had no say in the matter. A person who continues practicing his religion does so because he or she is molded that way. When a person breaks free of his or her religion, it has to be an external force that sparks the change. Whatever the outside cause, the inside change is equally important. If the mind is open(an open mind is a trait that no one chooses, and open mindedness is rare. Most of us are open minded to certain ideas, but block off the rest. Again, it all depends on someone else's action), then the external force has a multiplied effect on the individual.
These 'invisible forces of determinism' can, and probably are easily mistaken as God. However, there is no degree of omniscience or self reflection in these invisible forces. They simply are. In fact, I think 'forces' is the wrong word. It's more of a series of events that influence each other. Unlike the ripple effect, these do not flow in a perfectly smooth pattern. If we were to use to ripple effect as an analogy for determinism, then the uneven lake floor and wind direction, that also effect the shape of the ripple must also be considered as part of the picture. In a sense, it's sort of a multiple ripple effect. Where each individual is its own ripple, unable to chose for itself its shape, but having no choice but to change itself as a natural reaction to other ripples or obstacles it encounters. That about sums it up.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Capitalism is spreading bullshit across the globe, much like jam across toast
Of the 5 unpublished posts that have been half written, I chose to complete this, as it means the most to me.
Please remember that capitalism isn't merely about private ownership, in capitalist countries, many goods are public(traffic lights, street lights, roads, schools) and in Communist countries many things are privately owned(cars, furniture, clothes).
Well, obviously capitalism is easy. Easy, at least for people to relate to. But the world is counter intuitive. So much of what we know to be true was not ascertained by merely observing what happens in everyday life. In most cases, some form of investigation was required.
Capitalism, especially the sort that is exported by the West, is easy to get into because it's basis is in human nature.
but Ernesto Guevara had this to say,
This system blinds people also to invisible forces. People are lost in the idea of the self made man. I won't deny that for most of my life I thought that a man was measured this way as well. But no one realizes that there are forces that give them more opportunities to succeed than others. Capitalism uses freedom as a front to expand it's borders, but freedom is at an untold cost.
Instead of putting the rest of my content into paragraphs, I'll have to do a Nietzsche, that is, to continue in point form.
What I don't like about capitalism:
1) It seems to have skipped ahead of itself, saying, "look, at the rate we're progressing, we'll be on Pluto in no time!" without realizing 'we' means 'us privileged few'. If all the world cash spent on military funding OR fast food OR bail-outs were diverted to providing farmlands for the poor, we'd be able to advance as a human race instead of forgetting those who sew our clothes in sweatshops.
2) When I look at the endless rows of tissue papers, coffee beans, potato chips, etc, I'm not amazed by the capitalists capacity to produce, I'm thinking, "don't we need just one or two brands, making, supplying and researching specialized products?" Instead, we're packed with a billion different labels. Even Proton and Perodua are wasteful. Why would we need TWO Malaysian car companies that don't know how to make cars? This IS NOT an insult to their efforts, all I'm saying is that they are simply re-badge-ing old Japanese cars without having the right skills for the job. I'm aware of the dangers posed by monopolies, but I do not withdraw my previous statement. I am confident that consumers have no idea what their dollar votes do and that the capitalist system is to blame(more on this later)
3)Marketing. You see, the one thing about capitalism that does it some degree of justice is the demand-supply graph. In many socialist countries, severe famine has occurred because they lack privately owned farms, so farmers don't get to price food according to the the aforementioned graph(which usually makes things easier). Essentially, what the demand-supply graph does is it sets (y) price when (x) quantity is provided. Without going into detail, it's an efficient way to make sure resources are efficiently allocated. So, when a product isn't favored, it drops out of the market and is replaced. When there's marketing, it all goes topsy turvy. With marketing, firms MAKE you WANT things by exploiting your emotions. McDonalds puts up a poster of a juicy looking burger, all of a sudden demand SPIKES, even though you KNOW that the actual burger is going to look tiny and pathetic and will probably taste like salted cardboard. I fail to see how marketing makes people aware of quality goods. What happens if McDonalds spends 80% of its cash on advertising and 20% on the burger, while Carl Jr Burgers spends 20% of its cash on advertising and 80% on the burger? You still pay the full 100%(maybe even more), but you're more likely to cast your dollar votes in the inferior product.
4)The power of the few. Bill Moyers once talked about mythology. After reading his book on myth I no longer saw the need to nit-pick every aspect of religion. I thought it was at LEAST semi-justified. When he talked about systems, he explained that most systems were to aid the individual but at a collective level. Societies usually understand common wants, then create a system that benefits the many. But what makes people miserable? Layoffs, quitting, going to work from Monday - Friday, and not having money, to name a few(that relate to capitalism). This system no longer benefits the individual. Ever since the rise of corporation, only a handful of owners enjoy the benefits of capitalism compared to the millions of employees. A million people will work to fatten the wallets of their slave driver, called the CEO in the modern world.
5)Consumption. Humans never NEEDED to buy this much before. The fact is, when combined with the wretched powers of marketing, capitalism is willing and able to feed a single person with a weeks worth of food. Money talks. In the modern capitalist world it screams. Landfills are one of the many by-products of capitalism. A firm is not obligated to deal with the product it sells once it leaves the shelf, unless of coarse, there's a warranty. Even then, who deals with all the packaging? Who's to blame for the tons of unused plastic? Who pays for the ads and excessive amount of boxing and wrapping that comes with something as tiny as a pen?
6)Opportunity cost. Firms are reminded by economists of the dangers of sharing, helping, caring or even spending money on research, as every dollar spent is a lost income opportunity. Why spend money finding a safer, more intelligent product if the rival product is going to do that next week? We can just copy his designs! What about the Haitians? There is real money to be made in the country North of it where we can supply our food and make real money out of it(unless they advertise their efforts, then it becomes a soulless act of kindness).
7)Transfer of blame. A corporation like McDonalds is NOT a human. It cannot feel, speak or decide. When a CEO is blamed, he shrugs and excuses himself by saying he's acting in the interest of the share holders. When the share holders are blamed, they shrugged and say they were not involved in the decision making process. A modern day public firm is an organization that is completely unblamable. The laws that protect it are the laws of capitalism, the law of the land. Externalities are absolutely disgusting. It is what happens when someone (like a person living in a 3rd world country) is directly effected by a transaction made between some other person and a firm. Basically, if Toyota sells ME a car, and I pollute YOUR air, it's YOUR problem, not mine or Toyota's.
7)It is legal to be unfair. That is what capitalism stands for. And that is what's worst about it.
Please remember that capitalism isn't merely about private ownership, in capitalist countries, many goods are public(traffic lights, street lights, roads, schools) and in Communist countries many things are privately owned(cars, furniture, clothes).
Well, obviously capitalism is easy. Easy, at least for people to relate to. But the world is counter intuitive. So much of what we know to be true was not ascertained by merely observing what happens in everyday life. In most cases, some form of investigation was required.
Capitalism, especially the sort that is exported by the West, is easy to get into because it's basis is in human nature.
but Ernesto Guevara had this to say,
It is very easy to claim that in capitalism, the individual has the option
to satisfy or to express true human nature. A child has one toy, and wants two. That child gets two toys and wants four. This is human nature, isn't it?
But when a whole society behaves in the same way
or when it becomes a monopoly, oppressing the less fortunate is that human nature?
This system blinds people also to invisible forces. People are lost in the idea of the self made man. I won't deny that for most of my life I thought that a man was measured this way as well. But no one realizes that there are forces that give them more opportunities to succeed than others. Capitalism uses freedom as a front to expand it's borders, but freedom is at an untold cost.
Instead of putting the rest of my content into paragraphs, I'll have to do a Nietzsche, that is, to continue in point form.
What I don't like about capitalism:
1) It seems to have skipped ahead of itself, saying, "look, at the rate we're progressing, we'll be on Pluto in no time!" without realizing 'we' means 'us privileged few'. If all the world cash spent on military funding OR fast food OR bail-outs were diverted to providing farmlands for the poor, we'd be able to advance as a human race instead of forgetting those who sew our clothes in sweatshops.
2) When I look at the endless rows of tissue papers, coffee beans, potato chips, etc, I'm not amazed by the capitalists capacity to produce, I'm thinking, "don't we need just one or two brands, making, supplying and researching specialized products?" Instead, we're packed with a billion different labels. Even Proton and Perodua are wasteful. Why would we need TWO Malaysian car companies that don't know how to make cars? This IS NOT an insult to their efforts, all I'm saying is that they are simply re-badge-ing old Japanese cars without having the right skills for the job. I'm aware of the dangers posed by monopolies, but I do not withdraw my previous statement. I am confident that consumers have no idea what their dollar votes do and that the capitalist system is to blame(more on this later)
3)Marketing. You see, the one thing about capitalism that does it some degree of justice is the demand-supply graph. In many socialist countries, severe famine has occurred because they lack privately owned farms, so farmers don't get to price food according to the the aforementioned graph(which usually makes things easier). Essentially, what the demand-supply graph does is it sets (y) price when (x) quantity is provided. Without going into detail, it's an efficient way to make sure resources are efficiently allocated. So, when a product isn't favored, it drops out of the market and is replaced. When there's marketing, it all goes topsy turvy. With marketing, firms MAKE you WANT things by exploiting your emotions. McDonalds puts up a poster of a juicy looking burger, all of a sudden demand SPIKES, even though you KNOW that the actual burger is going to look tiny and pathetic and will probably taste like salted cardboard. I fail to see how marketing makes people aware of quality goods. What happens if McDonalds spends 80% of its cash on advertising and 20% on the burger, while Carl Jr Burgers spends 20% of its cash on advertising and 80% on the burger? You still pay the full 100%(maybe even more), but you're more likely to cast your dollar votes in the inferior product.
4)The power of the few. Bill Moyers once talked about mythology. After reading his book on myth I no longer saw the need to nit-pick every aspect of religion. I thought it was at LEAST semi-justified. When he talked about systems, he explained that most systems were to aid the individual but at a collective level. Societies usually understand common wants, then create a system that benefits the many. But what makes people miserable? Layoffs, quitting, going to work from Monday - Friday, and not having money, to name a few(that relate to capitalism). This system no longer benefits the individual. Ever since the rise of corporation, only a handful of owners enjoy the benefits of capitalism compared to the millions of employees. A million people will work to fatten the wallets of their slave driver, called the CEO in the modern world.
5)Consumption. Humans never NEEDED to buy this much before. The fact is, when combined with the wretched powers of marketing, capitalism is willing and able to feed a single person with a weeks worth of food. Money talks. In the modern capitalist world it screams. Landfills are one of the many by-products of capitalism. A firm is not obligated to deal with the product it sells once it leaves the shelf, unless of coarse, there's a warranty. Even then, who deals with all the packaging? Who's to blame for the tons of unused plastic? Who pays for the ads and excessive amount of boxing and wrapping that comes with something as tiny as a pen?
6)Opportunity cost. Firms are reminded by economists of the dangers of sharing, helping, caring or even spending money on research, as every dollar spent is a lost income opportunity. Why spend money finding a safer, more intelligent product if the rival product is going to do that next week? We can just copy his designs! What about the Haitians? There is real money to be made in the country North of it where we can supply our food and make real money out of it(unless they advertise their efforts, then it becomes a soulless act of kindness).
7)Transfer of blame. A corporation like McDonalds is NOT a human. It cannot feel, speak or decide. When a CEO is blamed, he shrugs and excuses himself by saying he's acting in the interest of the share holders. When the share holders are blamed, they shrugged and say they were not involved in the decision making process. A modern day public firm is an organization that is completely unblamable. The laws that protect it are the laws of capitalism, the law of the land. Externalities are absolutely disgusting. It is what happens when someone (like a person living in a 3rd world country) is directly effected by a transaction made between some other person and a firm. Basically, if Toyota sells ME a car, and I pollute YOUR air, it's YOUR problem, not mine or Toyota's.
7)It is legal to be unfair. That is what capitalism stands for. And that is what's worst about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
