Humans are nothing more than advanced in the department of pattern recognition. Creative thought is no more than random interference of ideas. We are just quicker at this pattern recognition, as well as more adept at random interference. Humans are nothing more than chimps with faster brains.
Tangent 1: Pattern Recognition
How do we learn anything? We learn things through patterning. If we hear a car when we're crossing the street, we turn to see if there is one coming. Why? Because the probability of there being a car coming is high when one is heard, as we learn through pattern recognition. Through spending time around cars, we begin to realize that when there is a certain sound, there is usually a car. Additionally, we further discover that depending on what sound is made, a different car makes it, going at a different speed. All of this is pattern recognition.
Indeed, the entire foundation of the scientific method is based upon this cornerstone: A pattern is discovered, and then scientists attempt to find a counterexample or prove that it is true in all cases. If they prove it in all cases, then they create a general rule, often known as a natural law. Mathematicians do the same with number theory.
*Math Warning!*
Let's say that we just discovered an interesting phenomenon: Every odd number squared minus one, is evenly divisible by eight. That is to say that if k is any integer, then 2k+1 will be odd. Thus, ((2k+1)^2 - 1)/8 gives you an integer. The question becomes, why? And if so, can we prove it?
Quick answer: Because it does, and we can prove it.
Long answer: ((2k+1)^2 - 1)/8
= (4k^2 + 4k + 1 - 1)/8 Expansion of the bracket
= (4k^2 + 4k)/8 Addition of 1 and subtraction of 1 “cancel”
= 4(k^2 + k)/8 Factorization of 4
= (k^2 + k)/2 Simplification of the fraction
= (k+1)(k)/2 Factorization of k
Now, at this stage the proof takes a little bit of logic (which, itself, is pattern recognition). If k is odd, then k+1 is even, and hence divisible by two. If k is even, then k is divisible by two. Regardless, the final expression is always divisible by two.
*End of Math*
Double Tangent 1: Logic And Pattern Recognition
All of our logic can be classified as Aristotelian, which is to say that if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Think it through for a moment. If I love pizza, and pizza is my lunch, (and these are the only two factors), then I will love my lunch. Again, if I only love pizza and pizza is not my lunch, then it stands to reason that I will not love my lunch.
Now, how was this discovered? One possibility is that someone noticed that if one thing is true, and another is true, then together they are true. If the grass is green, and trees are green, then trees and grass are both green, so therefore they are the same colour. As the person saw more examples of this, they created a general theory of logic.
An alternate theory is that a person may have been asleep and then simply woke up with the idea which was inspired by a dream. This is known as spontaneous generation, and is often attributed to creative thought. But that is just random interference, and is not unique to humans.
Tangent 2: madRon recinnerfeet
Snakes on a Plane. There's a part in the movie, "Do you remember all those terrorists simulations? Well, I'm smack in the middle of one we didn't think of," or something along those lines. Upon seeing the trailers, I began to think that someone should do a parody and use the exact same quotes as those in the trailers, but instead of having the whole thing take place on a plane, have it take place in a field. The new movie would be called "Snakes on a Plain."
Now, some may call this creative thought, but instead I believe that it is random interference; the meshing of two ideas together in random configurations until one is found that works, and all other ones are rejected. I took the name, my subconscious looked through my mind to find things to associate with it, randomly encountered the word plain, substituted it, and voila.
This idea is so well known, computer programmers have used it. One computer programmer took this idea, wrote some code, and now the software can be put into any robot with limbs, and eventually the robot will find how to move the limbs most effectively through this method. No additional programming is needed, and if a limb should be removed, the software adapts through the same method.
Double Tangent 2: I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas
The human mind does random interference all the time, although it is more associated with the subconscious than conscious. When we dream, we take the day's events and randomly intersect them with each other. Through this, we discover things that we normally would not have, and make connections in a similar manner.
In the same way, we do this on a daily basis in everything we do. All creative thought can be traced back to random interference.
Tangent 3: Bananas? Chimps And Chumps
In general, we're no different than animals. They may take 150 tries to see that they cannot go one way, but the next time they only take 100 or so. This is simply pattern recognition, albeit at a much slower rate that us highly evolved humans can. Animals, our distant cousins, work the same way we do, in regards to pattern recognition.
Do they have creative thought? Obviously they must, if all it is is random interference. Proof of this is found all over the animal kingdom, such as the gorilla who signed "tomato toothpaste" for ketchup.
Summation:
As far as I can see, we are no more "evolved" than any other animal, except in the fact that we can "learn" quicker than other species. We all use pattern recognition, and we all experience random interference. If you, however, would care to disagree, then please do comment on this blog. I will use my previous ascertained knowledge on the English language (through pattern recognition) to reply to you in hopefully witty way (barring any unforeseen problem with my ability to experience random interference). Oh, and good luck on finding the pattern in my title.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Earrings: A Defense?
Girls do it all the time. They put jewelry on themselves, do up their hair, and then paint their fingernails. The question of why has long been answered: they do it in order to enhance their appearance. However, I wish to dispute this closed idea, and instead offer my own analysis: they do it as a defense.
First, why do we shield our bodies with clothing? We do it to protect ourselves from both the extremities, as well as others' peering eyes. I put forth the idea that we hide our bodies as a preventative measure: we don't want people to see something they can ridicule.
Think about it for a moment: if people insulted what you were wearing, then you wouldn't be nearly as hurt as if they insulted you directly. So what would you logically do? Try to distract people from you more and more, until people were so distracted that they didn't see you anymore, but instead what you wore.
Perhaps this is part of what females do; they wear earrings, elaborately make their hair, and paint their nails, all in an effort to distract attention from themselves. The underlying truth of this is simple: we are all vulnerable, and wish to protect ourselves. Magicians use this method all the time; they distract you from what they truly try to accomplish (redirection). Similarly, we dress up when going to a ball in order to impress others, and reduce the chance that people ridicule you on who you are. It would make sense that on a day when you are being judged by others, you would protect yourself by wearing garb to disguise you.
So, if we wear things to distract others so they cannot ridicule us, then why do we not wear a suit of armour itself, instead of these trinkets, which serve that purpose? Despite the physical problems with the idea itself, there is also the fact that we wish to bond with others, and completely hiding ourselves from ridicule is a problem. With this in mind, we let ourselves be vulnerable, and we let people interact with us, so that we too can gain emotional support.
So, what does this prove? Simply put, something that we have always known: those who are shallow and wish to decorate themselves with beauty enhancing things, wish to hide who they truly are, for fear of rejection.
First, why do we shield our bodies with clothing? We do it to protect ourselves from both the extremities, as well as others' peering eyes. I put forth the idea that we hide our bodies as a preventative measure: we don't want people to see something they can ridicule.
Think about it for a moment: if people insulted what you were wearing, then you wouldn't be nearly as hurt as if they insulted you directly. So what would you logically do? Try to distract people from you more and more, until people were so distracted that they didn't see you anymore, but instead what you wore.
Perhaps this is part of what females do; they wear earrings, elaborately make their hair, and paint their nails, all in an effort to distract attention from themselves. The underlying truth of this is simple: we are all vulnerable, and wish to protect ourselves. Magicians use this method all the time; they distract you from what they truly try to accomplish (redirection). Similarly, we dress up when going to a ball in order to impress others, and reduce the chance that people ridicule you on who you are. It would make sense that on a day when you are being judged by others, you would protect yourself by wearing garb to disguise you.
So, if we wear things to distract others so they cannot ridicule us, then why do we not wear a suit of armour itself, instead of these trinkets, which serve that purpose? Despite the physical problems with the idea itself, there is also the fact that we wish to bond with others, and completely hiding ourselves from ridicule is a problem. With this in mind, we let ourselves be vulnerable, and we let people interact with us, so that we too can gain emotional support.
So, what does this prove? Simply put, something that we have always known: those who are shallow and wish to decorate themselves with beauty enhancing things, wish to hide who they truly are, for fear of rejection.
Friday, November 17, 2006
"a" versus "ur"
It's a question that's plaqued the philisopical for thousands of years: Are we who we are due to our genetics, or due to our experiences, and if it's both, then in what ratio? This essential question is woven into a myriad of ponderings that stem from it: Do people change, and if so, how much? Is that really just the nature of the beast? Can an old dog learn new tricks?
More importantly, however, is the question of where do our genes end and our life experiences begin?
I won't deny that our genetics lay the foundation for our being. In the few moments we're alive, our actions are solely based on our genetics (where’s the grub?). But when do we start to change due to our experiences? And do we? Just because you learn calculus or how to play the piano doesn't mean that they decision and aptitude didn't come from your genes. (It also doesn’t mean that it didn’t come from the chocolate bar you just ate.)
Let me attempt to tackle this question in sequence. First, how can your genes give you an aptitude for playing the piano? It seems like a rather impossible feat, seeing as how pianos have only been around for a relatively small portion of time. How could our genetic structure adapt to hold information about playing the piano? (Besides magic, although magic is awesome.) My answer is simple: it doesn't. Instead, it categorizes talent.
Most people who have a talent for something have a talent for related things. I have a talent for math, and so this lends itself to a talent for physics as the majority of physics is mathematics. Similarly, someone who has a talent for words is most likely good at debating. (Or rapping, even if that’s just a lot of “mofo”ing.) The counter point to this line of thinking is what about specific, out of the ordinary talents? There are people who are horrible in math, but can do pattern analysis exceptionally well. Why is this?
Overlap. Just like any properly drawn Venn diagram, we have overlap in our talents. A natural interest in art may lead to an ability to look at a picture and recognize a pattern present in it. (Or acting really snobby.) They may not seem related, but they are. Additionally, a talent in music may come from math skills (for recognizing numerical patterns) and an appreciation for art (in order to make said patterns appealing to the ear).
This being said, we can end up with highly refined talents, such as being able to visualize the complex structure of biological components of a theoretical plant. Our genetic structure could not specifically give us the talent for this, but the interference from our other talents did. Just as two musicians harmonize to create music, so too does your genetic structure conduct your talents.
Now, have you ever noticed how some people work so hard on a certain area, and just can't get it? Or people try to give up smoking but can't? (Winners don’t do drugs kids!) Perhaps you've seen people continually fall into the same problems, no matter how hard they try. Currently, it's up for debate as to whether or not these things occur do to the nature of the person, or who they've become to be and their mental roadblocks.
Many people study very hard and try their best to understand engineering, and just cannot. One theory is that they were born without the ability to learn it. Another theory is, however, that they failed once and then they expected that they'd fail again. This expectation then occurred, resulting in their continued annoyance at engineering and the belief that they could not succeed in it. (Some people might just argue that they shouldn’t even attempt engineering, as it’s a waste of their life anyway.) Alternatively, they could have been told at a young age that they couldn't build a fort cool enough, so again they got discouraged, and the same result was the outcome.
These two theories are at the heart of the nature versus nurture the debate. Some people want to know that they have free will and can control their own life. Others would like to be able to dismiss their failures as simply fate (all while silently cursing their parents).
What does it matter though? So what if we're all pre-programmed automatons? Who cares if eating that second chocolate bar was your own choice, you fat worthless slob? I'll tell you who: me. I care.
Should I get rid of my friend who thinks that soap operas are the holy grail of television? If she can't change, then who cares about her? If she can, then I'll just strap her down in front of some Terminator and cure her of the disease. Enough is enough though! These philosophers would tell us that if she doesn't change, then it could just be because of some mental roadblock baloney.
So how the hell can we find the answer? If we test one of the theories, and seemingly disprove it, then the other philosophers just go "That was meant to happen due to their genes!" or "They chose to stay that way!" The truth is, if we can't prove it either way, and the results are the same, then the why doesn't matter.
“I don't give a damn”, I guess is the right attitude. If your friend can't stop watching soap operas, either accept it or move on. It's either the nature of the beast, or their stupidity. And that's the real point. So, eat that second chocolate bar, because even money says that it's not your fault. And I'd take those odds any day. Just remember, the result will be that it will damage your teeth anyway, so make sure to brush. That is, unless you're not meant to...
Who knows what we’re programmed to do… Was I meant to write this?... Will I become homophobic?... Will I start a mass revolution involving elephants painted pink flying through the skies in hot air balloons, ready to do my evil, if hippie-idealist, bidding?!...
I hate my parents.
More importantly, however, is the question of where do our genes end and our life experiences begin?
I won't deny that our genetics lay the foundation for our being. In the few moments we're alive, our actions are solely based on our genetics (where’s the grub?). But when do we start to change due to our experiences? And do we? Just because you learn calculus or how to play the piano doesn't mean that they decision and aptitude didn't come from your genes. (It also doesn’t mean that it didn’t come from the chocolate bar you just ate.)
Let me attempt to tackle this question in sequence. First, how can your genes give you an aptitude for playing the piano? It seems like a rather impossible feat, seeing as how pianos have only been around for a relatively small portion of time. How could our genetic structure adapt to hold information about playing the piano? (Besides magic, although magic is awesome.) My answer is simple: it doesn't. Instead, it categorizes talent.
Most people who have a talent for something have a talent for related things. I have a talent for math, and so this lends itself to a talent for physics as the majority of physics is mathematics. Similarly, someone who has a talent for words is most likely good at debating. (Or rapping, even if that’s just a lot of “mofo”ing.) The counter point to this line of thinking is what about specific, out of the ordinary talents? There are people who are horrible in math, but can do pattern analysis exceptionally well. Why is this?
Overlap. Just like any properly drawn Venn diagram, we have overlap in our talents. A natural interest in art may lead to an ability to look at a picture and recognize a pattern present in it. (Or acting really snobby.) They may not seem related, but they are. Additionally, a talent in music may come from math skills (for recognizing numerical patterns) and an appreciation for art (in order to make said patterns appealing to the ear).
This being said, we can end up with highly refined talents, such as being able to visualize the complex structure of biological components of a theoretical plant. Our genetic structure could not specifically give us the talent for this, but the interference from our other talents did. Just as two musicians harmonize to create music, so too does your genetic structure conduct your talents.
Now, have you ever noticed how some people work so hard on a certain area, and just can't get it? Or people try to give up smoking but can't? (Winners don’t do drugs kids!) Perhaps you've seen people continually fall into the same problems, no matter how hard they try. Currently, it's up for debate as to whether or not these things occur do to the nature of the person, or who they've become to be and their mental roadblocks.
Many people study very hard and try their best to understand engineering, and just cannot. One theory is that they were born without the ability to learn it. Another theory is, however, that they failed once and then they expected that they'd fail again. This expectation then occurred, resulting in their continued annoyance at engineering and the belief that they could not succeed in it. (Some people might just argue that they shouldn’t even attempt engineering, as it’s a waste of their life anyway.) Alternatively, they could have been told at a young age that they couldn't build a fort cool enough, so again they got discouraged, and the same result was the outcome.
These two theories are at the heart of the nature versus nurture the debate. Some people want to know that they have free will and can control their own life. Others would like to be able to dismiss their failures as simply fate (all while silently cursing their parents).
What does it matter though? So what if we're all pre-programmed automatons? Who cares if eating that second chocolate bar was your own choice, you fat worthless slob? I'll tell you who: me. I care.
Should I get rid of my friend who thinks that soap operas are the holy grail of television? If she can't change, then who cares about her? If she can, then I'll just strap her down in front of some Terminator and cure her of the disease. Enough is enough though! These philosophers would tell us that if she doesn't change, then it could just be because of some mental roadblock baloney.
So how the hell can we find the answer? If we test one of the theories, and seemingly disprove it, then the other philosophers just go "That was meant to happen due to their genes!" or "They chose to stay that way!" The truth is, if we can't prove it either way, and the results are the same, then the why doesn't matter.
“I don't give a damn”, I guess is the right attitude. If your friend can't stop watching soap operas, either accept it or move on. It's either the nature of the beast, or their stupidity. And that's the real point. So, eat that second chocolate bar, because even money says that it's not your fault. And I'd take those odds any day. Just remember, the result will be that it will damage your teeth anyway, so make sure to brush. That is, unless you're not meant to...
Who knows what we’re programmed to do… Was I meant to write this?... Will I become homophobic?... Will I start a mass revolution involving elephants painted pink flying through the skies in hot air balloons, ready to do my evil, if hippie-idealist, bidding?!...
I hate my parents.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
It's like... one of those optical illusions...
Since I don't have time to go into anything indepth, I just wish to say:
Isn't it interesting that the one time you know for sure that you're above someone else, and that you shouldn't waste your time on that person any more, is the minute you find out that they think they're better than you?
Isn't it interesting that the one time you know for sure that you're above someone else, and that you shouldn't waste your time on that person any more, is the minute you find out that they think they're better than you?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Stone Cold Shoulder
In a completely logical world, we would not have friends. (A completely logical world being one which people do not do things for emotional reasons, and ignore the influence of them.) A logical person would instead have associates, people who they would meet for information, nothing more.
No one would get together for fun, but instead for a purpose. We would congregate to discuss problems which face us as a whole, and we would do things that would benefit us and society. Games would not be played, and cards would not be dealt. Instead, we would increase our lifespan at the gym while casually discussing the existence of an almightily being with the chap whom we may never meet again, but just happened to be riding a stationary bicycle next to us.
Indeed, friendship would be pointless. If you felt emotion, you would act illogically. In essence, we would be weakening our self, corrupting our pure state of logic with petty whims. Besides, friendship requires risk, and emotional risk would be pointless as it would only lead to the potential for emotional gain, and emotional gain does not provide a logical person with anything. Truly, friendship is pointless if a person is logical.
Instead, your relationships would be trivial, both people only talking if they got knowledge out the endeavour. It would illogical to fraternize with people who could not benefit you with knowledge, and so the world would become highly divided. We would separate into classes of the most intellectual, and the least, with all the hues in between. Sure, teachers would still be ever-present, as it would be logical to attempt to educate people as much as possible, (it would ultimately lead to the betterment of all society) but there would still be segregation amongst the upper echelons of the educated.
Friendship would only serve to make the structure less efficient, as the most promising of people would trivialize their time with discussions with people intellectually beneath them. The entire ideal of continual betterment through productive discussion would be in jeopardy. Thus, friendship must be eliminated in a truly logical society.
We do not live there, however.
If a person tries to live by these ideas (do not create lasting friendships as once you are done discussing things which benefit you with the person, they are no longer useful, and creating a friendship with them only means that you are emotionally attached and therefore have to stay with them after their usefulness has come to an end), they would most likely be rejected in our society.
Humans thrive on friendship. We create them even though they are riddled with problems. We need to know that out there, there is someone who cares for our emotional well-being, because our emotional well-being influences our productivity. If someone just formed trivial relationships based on the sole purpose of gaining information through them, then one person would feel like they were taken advantage of. It is rare to ever find a relationship of any kind dissolved by mutual consent.
Someone who does not care about your emotional state shows that they are uncompassionate towards you, and you become bitter towards them. We do not like people who do not value us, and we feel betrayed. However, there is no real betrayal, as it is their nature (I call Star Trek fans to the beautiful Scorpion monologue by Chakotay in Voyager’s Scorpion, Part I). Do we curse the wind when it blows in the middle of winter? Some of us might, but in the end we all realize that it will not change, and instead put on something warmer to protect our self.
Perhaps this is an instance where we must simply accept that some people do not wish to form lasting relationships with others. It is a shame though, as it means that while they will never feel the pain of being hurt by caring for someone and finding out that they do not care back, they will never be able to experience the elation when a friend helps them out.
And that is the true purpose of this blog: To say that we should appreciate our friends more. They put up with our faults, understand us, and even when we do something wrong, they still stick with us. For I may hurt you today, and you may hurt me tomorrow, but if we can not work through our differences, then we are not worth the breath of another. We all will stumble at one point or another, and what we need, most of all, is someone there, right beside us, offering a hand and saying “I forgive you for all the pain you have caused me.” That, is love. And truly, love is blind.
No one would get together for fun, but instead for a purpose. We would congregate to discuss problems which face us as a whole, and we would do things that would benefit us and society. Games would not be played, and cards would not be dealt. Instead, we would increase our lifespan at the gym while casually discussing the existence of an almightily being with the chap whom we may never meet again, but just happened to be riding a stationary bicycle next to us.
Indeed, friendship would be pointless. If you felt emotion, you would act illogically. In essence, we would be weakening our self, corrupting our pure state of logic with petty whims. Besides, friendship requires risk, and emotional risk would be pointless as it would only lead to the potential for emotional gain, and emotional gain does not provide a logical person with anything. Truly, friendship is pointless if a person is logical.
Instead, your relationships would be trivial, both people only talking if they got knowledge out the endeavour. It would illogical to fraternize with people who could not benefit you with knowledge, and so the world would become highly divided. We would separate into classes of the most intellectual, and the least, with all the hues in between. Sure, teachers would still be ever-present, as it would be logical to attempt to educate people as much as possible, (it would ultimately lead to the betterment of all society) but there would still be segregation amongst the upper echelons of the educated.
Friendship would only serve to make the structure less efficient, as the most promising of people would trivialize their time with discussions with people intellectually beneath them. The entire ideal of continual betterment through productive discussion would be in jeopardy. Thus, friendship must be eliminated in a truly logical society.
We do not live there, however.
If a person tries to live by these ideas (do not create lasting friendships as once you are done discussing things which benefit you with the person, they are no longer useful, and creating a friendship with them only means that you are emotionally attached and therefore have to stay with them after their usefulness has come to an end), they would most likely be rejected in our society.
Humans thrive on friendship. We create them even though they are riddled with problems. We need to know that out there, there is someone who cares for our emotional well-being, because our emotional well-being influences our productivity. If someone just formed trivial relationships based on the sole purpose of gaining information through them, then one person would feel like they were taken advantage of. It is rare to ever find a relationship of any kind dissolved by mutual consent.
Someone who does not care about your emotional state shows that they are uncompassionate towards you, and you become bitter towards them. We do not like people who do not value us, and we feel betrayed. However, there is no real betrayal, as it is their nature (I call Star Trek fans to the beautiful Scorpion monologue by Chakotay in Voyager’s Scorpion, Part I). Do we curse the wind when it blows in the middle of winter? Some of us might, but in the end we all realize that it will not change, and instead put on something warmer to protect our self.
Perhaps this is an instance where we must simply accept that some people do not wish to form lasting relationships with others. It is a shame though, as it means that while they will never feel the pain of being hurt by caring for someone and finding out that they do not care back, they will never be able to experience the elation when a friend helps them out.
And that is the true purpose of this blog: To say that we should appreciate our friends more. They put up with our faults, understand us, and even when we do something wrong, they still stick with us. For I may hurt you today, and you may hurt me tomorrow, but if we can not work through our differences, then we are not worth the breath of another. We all will stumble at one point or another, and what we need, most of all, is someone there, right beside us, offering a hand and saying “I forgive you for all the pain you have caused me.” That, is love. And truly, love is blind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)