The Optimist And The Pessimist

Pessimism: Every Dark Cloud Has A Silver Lining, But Lightning Kills Hundreds Of People Each Year Who Are Trying To Find It.

Optimism: At Least It Isn't Lava

There's an ever present battle between these two 'forces'. The optimist often sees himself/herself as a role model, a bright light in a dark room, a realist. The pessimist however, spites the optimist, stating that he or she has a myopic view of the world, while they, themselves are 'pure' realists. One often overlooks the fact that the optimist and pessimist sit on either side of the same coin. To continue the metaphor, I'd like to call the coin itself realist. Pessimism and optimism, on their own, are not logical states of mind at all. Optimism and pessimism are merely 'faces' of the realist; they are merely the realist's tools. One can look at a dreary situation with rigid, self-fulfilling pessimism, then become a 'deluded' optimist and see only potential. A realist, in my opinion, would be completely indifferent and/or neutral to the situation. A realist tries to look at a situation with eyes devoid of emotion and judgment, while the optimist and pessimist look through human eyes (being disgusted by people's morality, frailties, stupidity etc. etc. — all very much human criticisms.) Indifference is the core quality of realism, while human judgment allows for the existence of the pessimist and optimist. The more I think about it, the more I feel that this is largely an issue of semantics.

The Human Experience

What does it mean to be human? More importantly, what does it mean to be? Sentience, consciousness, sapience is not dependent on the 'human condition'. I like to see it like this: we are sentient beings having a human experience. If we are to evolve as a species, there must be a 'paradigm shift' of the human experience. The creature 'mankind' will be in a million years, (assuming we live that long) will mostly probably be shockingly different from what it is now. Simply observe the shifts in morality in the last 400 years, and you'll realize that the structures with which we govern our lives are very flexible. Once we realize this, we can break free.

A.I. Love?

Maybe we all need some. I've been thinking a lot recently about what constitutes life. As our technology improves, our ability to create better and better A.I. will increase as well. And as A.I. increases, will there be a point when a robot becomes 'alive', so to speak? We (humans) grant this ethereal quality of 'life' onto simple things like bacteria, but will never entertain the idea that our computers are as 'sentient', if not more so. The generally accepted definition of 'life' is something that can procreate. But this definition of life is faulty for one reason: procreation has nothing to do with higher order brain function, or brain function at all. If anything, reproduction is a very 'inert' process and has nothing to do with cognition. What I mean by life is to be sentient, sapient or conscious. So we can take this definition of life very lightly, and we shouldn't invest much thought into it. So if the procreation aspect of defining life is thrown out, how else can we define it? One could say that the domain of 'life' is exclusive to the biology here on earth, and that our common DNA unites us in the 'living brotherhood...". But does this definition really hold much weight? A good way to explain this would be by giving an example of an alien race. Say, though their own process of evolution, an alien race evolved to a level of intelligence that surpasses our own. If we met these aliens, would/could/should we say that they aren't conscious, sentient, alive? Should we be allowed to make this objection? Perhaps they evolved in a very different way to us; perhaps their DNA is completely different to ours; perhaps they don't even operate using DNA, like we do; perhaps they are silicon based life forms, unlike us, who are carbon based. I mean, if we give ourselves the freedom to say: "They aren't alive," these hypothetical aliens have the exact same right. Anyway, all of this leads me to the development of A.I. Given the above arguments, we really can't accept that life is exclusive to those that can procreate and have DNA. So then, where are the boundaries of this thing called 'life'? These boundaries are fuzzy, if not non-existent. Again, given the above arguments, I'd reason that if A.I. reaches a level of intelligence to match our own, it can, and must, be considered 'alive'. This brings up my next question though: can a robot with sufficient levels of A.I. fill the role of a human being? My short answer is: yes. There are no meaningful reasons to deny life to such a creation. One could say that they're simply following 'code', but at the same time, we could say that humans, and indeed all life as we know it, is following the 'code' of their DNA. I want to finish with an interesting quote I heard a few weeks back: "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but we will meanwhile agree to meet them halfway." And that leads me onto another topic, which I'll hopefully get to another time.

Unknown Songs (Dual Solioquy - Roy Buchanan)

From a guitarist's perspective, I find this song absolutely beautiful. I will rarely say this, but this song bleeds perfection. This is actually part 2 of the song (youtube doesn't allow for videos over ten minutes). I actually found this guy while going through my dad's CD collection. I'm glad I did. Anyway, Enjoy.

Caster Semenya - A Man Or A Woman? Does it matter?

If you're not familiar with this story, I'll try to sum it up. Caster Semenya, born 7 January 1991 in Pietersburg, is a South African middle-distance runner. Semenya won gold in the 800 m at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics with a time of 1:55.45 in the final, a personal best and the fastest time in the world that year. 'Her' gender has come under question by the International Association of Athletics Federations, because if 'she' is male, it would raise questions about competitiveness. Anyway, this story made me think about general competitiveness in sports. It is widely accepted that males and females should compete in groups of their own when it comes to sports, but separating people based on physical differences leads to gray areas. Should East African runners have a class of their own because they generally win their events? Should 6 foot males only compete against other 6 foot males? Should people with advantageous bone structures for a particular physical event be put in a class of their own? We're all born with our own particular body, with its flaws and advantages, so do we ever compete on equal ground? Some people are just born with a natural advantage for certain physical tasks. I guess it's just about where we draw this imaginary line. This raises questions about general competitiveness, not only in sport, but in life as well. I'm not really sure where I'm going with all this...

Dogs Are Smarter Than We First Thought.

Researchers have found that dogs are capable of understanding up to 250 words and gestures, can count up to five and can perform simple mathematical calculations.

Using tests originally designed to demonstrate the development of language, pre-language and basic arithmetic in human children, the researchers were able to show that the average dog is far more intelligent than they are given credit for.

"The average dog is about as bright linguistically as a human two-year-old," said Professor Stanley Coren, a leading expert on canine intelligence at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver who has carried out the work.

The Problem of Consciousness

I read an interesting article in Scientific American about consciousness. The nature of consciousness is really bizarre on multiple levels. No one can say for certain what 'consciousness' is - or even what around us has consciousness. Is a bee conscious? A new born baby? Electricity? These might seem like silly questions, but they are valid ones. Is consciousness housed in our brainwaves - or are our brainwaves the 'consciousness'? If the electrical activity in the brain can give rise to consciousness, could the electrical activity in a television give rise to a primitive form of consciousness? To give an extreme example: does your television scream out a cry of existential angst every time you turn it on, only to disappear a second later? Reality just seems to get more and more bizarre. Here's a link to the article if you're interested.

Unknown Songs (On earth as it is in heaven)

Ah, generally my musical tastes are weird, but I'll share them anyway. Music is one of the few things that puts me in a good mood. I will regularly fill this blog with songs that I believe are undeservedly unknown. I hope you enjoy it.

Enlightenment

Enlightenment is a word that is clouded in secrecy. What is it? More importantly, how to I get 'it'? Through a process of trial and error, I've come to realize that Enlightenment (in my opinion) is simply the ability to be happy at any given moment. Say, for example, you drop a mug of hot coffee on your toe and the hot liquid splashes all over the floor - most of us would be pissed (I know I would). But, at the same time, why not think: "Hey, I'm darn lucky that the hot Coffee didn't land on my leg - that would've hurt like hell."... It's about subtly changing our view on an otherwise dreary situation and attempt to turn it into a situation of thanks.

Let me just say that, in my opinion, the greatest obstacle to achieving a happy and fulfilled life is this: fear. This little bastard is behind all our problems. I tend not to want to (or dislike) dealing in absolutes, given my 'agnostic' approach to life, but I have to stick to one absolute here, and that is: rid yourself of all fear. There is no purpose for it. So much of the fear we experience today is completely irrational. By looking at my own life, I have come to realize that 'all' my fears are irrational. I am not in imminent danger of death or anything like that. All that is wrong is that I (and most socially anxious people) value ourselves solely through the eyes of others, while completely ignoring the most important eyes of all: our own. Sometimes I laugh at how much I've destroyed my life because of an absolutely irrational fear of constant judgment. People can only ever have opinions about you, and an opinion is just that: an opinion - not a 'fact' or 'truth'... just little ol' human opinion. Ah, I'm sure I could explain this concept better... I hate how language only allows us to convey a tiny part of our emotional spectrum.

Meh, I feel like a preacher now...

The Skeptic

Well, I guess I'd call myself an Agnostic, but I'm not really interested in the issue of God, so being an Ignostic might allow for me to shy away from the concept of God. Because, in all honesty, debating God's existence is futile endeavor of note (I regret the countless days I've spent debating 'his/her/its existence). But I guess I just want people to appreciate and embrace a skeptical lifestyle (constructive skepticism of course). When I talk to people about issues and they show 100% certainty in their opinions, I get really pissed because of their stance - because, there's an inherent approach to life that they have, that I've tried to destroy in my own (if that makes sense). Absolute certainty is the most dangerous thing thing in life - as it leads to a form of militant fundamentalism. I remember a quote that went something like this: "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!"

What does it feel like to be so assured of one's beliefs? I certainly haven't a clue. I guess I am fraught with skepticism at the moment, which I try to embrace to the best of my abilities.

The Futility of Anger

Sometimes I feel like anger is the most useless of all emotions - rarely does it solve any problems. I get infuriated when I allow myself to get angry, which, by its very nature, is futile.