How original do you really think you are? The world is populated by more than 6.5 billion people today. In the history of humanity there has been countless more. We are 99% similar to each human being we encounter on the streets, indeed, we are 99% similar to every human being that is alive today and even more similar to our immediate relatives. As far as genetics go it may be impossible to get any closer to "exactness" than an identical twin. Though they may be "genetically identical" they still retain individuality in that their experiences alter their values and perceptions on which they operate. It seems almost paradoxical that human beings feel compelled to assert a certain amount of uniqueness yet at the same time desire similarities enough to form groups.
Originality is definitely seen as a virtue to an extent. The kind of originality that leads to deviant behaviors such as you'll find in murderers, rascals, and the like are obviously shunned by most. Like everything the human mind contemplates originality is based on some value scale. Robert Jarvik, the guy that created the artificial heart, certainly receives praise for his originality in developing new technologies that help people who once had no hope. Of course what would you expect from someone married to the supposed smartest woman in the world.
There comes a problem with originality and discovery. So many people inhabiting this world today now have access to a wealth of knowledge that is readily available at the click of a mouse. While progress continues to be made on the human front less people in the world have to concern themselves about mere survival which allows more people to kick back, relax, and contemplate things. These curious pursuits lead to all sorts of great and obscure ideas. The eventual consequence of 6.5 billion people who are 99% similar and retain the ability to simply sit around thinking about things as they choose has led to a lot of similar thought.
Though we continue to think that we are each very unique, often it is instilled in us as children, it still stands to reason that we are overwhelmingly more similar than we are different. The implication in that is that if the first person to discover the wheel hadn't been whoever it was then it surely would have been discovered by someone else. The problem of originality then isn't merely having "original" ideas but being the first to broadcast them. If you don't make the discovery someone else eventually will! I heard that Alexander Graham Bell, the dude that is credited with inventing the telephone, registered his patent on the telephone mere minutes before someone else, who had supposedly developed a "better" version, attempted to register a patent for it. How true the story is I don't know but it would serve it's purpose even as an allegory.
I can't imagine there are many people, at least in the developed world, who haven't stumbled upon a situation where they believed they had discovered something original only to find that someone else had breakfasted or even marketed the discovery before they had. I remember this commercial for a patenting company that shows a rather irritated man struggling with the thought of someone else cashing in on "his idea". The poor man is left litost grumbling "I shoulda gotta patent". In my personal experience I can recall stumbling across a book who's author seemed to pull the thoughts I had directly from my brain. I was awed to find ideas I thought were greatly original compiled in a book (often using the same words I would have used) written by a man whom I had previously never heard of and who could have passed as an intellectual twin. Though I felt I lost some of my originality I must admit there comes a certain satisfaction in the validation of ideas in this manner. Even the creators of South Park, the cartoon that has parodied nearly everything in contemporary history, reveal the reality of originality in the cartoon business by declaring that "The Simpsons" have already done it in one of their sketches.
Another problem that is a consequence of like minded selfish creatures spending time discovering things is plaigerism. Knowingly copying someone else's core ideas and passing them off as your own is more or less plaigerism. Yet how can one tell if the intent was there. In law all that separates a criminal from a fool is intent. Plaigerism is a big deal to a lot of people and researchers have spent time developing software to root out plaigerism. See link below:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41458/title/Study_finds_lots_of_apparent_plagiarism
But how can one be truely certain that one idea has not simply been copied from another. Comedians get into battle over stolen material all the time.
Carlos Mencia is called out by Joe Rogan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M42BflUZry8
Someone claims that Dane Cook stole Demetri Martin's joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCiyR4-YLc
With so many comedians it is certain that they will eventually stuble upon similar lines of comedy. It is a fact of our human nature and shared experiences. One can never be sure of true plaigerism (unless it is confessed by the defendant). The only test would be to analyse the liklihood of each case, thereby developing some rough idea of the probability the case wasn't simply coincidence. Complexity of ideas is key.
Developing originality simply has to do with the amount of complexity inherent in an idea. The more complex a discovery is generally the less people will stumble upon the idea as soon. Statistically, if this universe we inhabit goes on forever and human beings are able to continue as a species all discoveries that can be made will be made. A person who is looking to develop their originality should invest some time into discoveries that are more complex in nature. Einstein, a symbol of superior intellect, developed original theories in physics, most notably his theory of "general relativity" yet it is certain that given enough time some other physicist/mathematician would have come along and made the discovery had he not.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Utilitarian Political Perfection
I feel like I am someone who is a member of a minority group among academics and scholars for my dissent on utilitarianism. It seems that most people follow at least a minimal level of utilitarianism in life, striving to maintain more good for more people in most circumstance and it seems to logically follow, at least at first glace. To merely accept that it is good advice to follow the majority belief is fallacious reasoning because sometimes the majority of people get it wrong. I do however, take from a strong majority belief caution in pursing my own attempt to find truth in a matter that has caused so many minds to polarize on one side of an issue. My argument, like so many debates in philosophy, is driven by a hypothetical scenario.
A perfect government: Government from a utilitarian perspective means that so long as the government is benefiting more people than it is harming then it is not merely preferable to institute utilitarian policies, rather it is the aim and such is necessary for the maintenance of the greater good. This form of government may follow whatever means necessary to reach those ends (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) regardless of the pain, misery, destruction, harm, etc. it does to others, no matter how egregious, ruthless, despicable, abominable, disgusting, etc. The hypothetical that comes to mind when I think of a perfect government under a utilitarian framework goes as follows. The masses elect their officials who represent them in both the house and the senate and those officials create laws and act as the collective oversight of all government actions. The president in this hypothetical is also elected by the members of congress, just like the U.S. government does today only there is no popular election by the masses. The president, the one who has to make all the tough choices and must retain the power of making split second decisions, is chosen solely by our elected representatives and is obligated to serve. They may use whatever criteria they desire for determining who the best potential candidate will be but after one is decided upon that person is made commander in chief regardless of their willingness to accept the position or not.
The person will have to be someone that has an immense stake in life, that is, they must have a lot to lose. Having family and friends that someone is extremely attached to emotionally is regarded as a positive to any official evaluating potential candidates. Any other items the person has in life that they are strongly attached to is also a plus because they can be exploited. Having the right "mindset" is also possible criteria. The mindset includes behavioral patterns that suggest the candidate has good reasoning abilities, functions normally, and any other psychological qualities that make the candidate best fit for the position. After the person has been selected they shall be taken away from all that they cherish in life. The government will then instruct the new commander in chief that everyone that he loves is expendable to their cause because they are the assurance the government has on the decision making power of the person. The president is now given access to all pertinent resources that is necessary to making decisions but is restricted in his abilities so far as he may seek "selfish" ends. Those selfish ends include attempting to save the persons he loves from any amount of harm that could befall them.
To establish the credibility in their threats the government threaten to cause or actually cause massive amounts of harm to those people or things that the president most deeply cares for such that the stress of seeing one's most cherished things in life being harmed will cause the president to function in a manner that is most conducive to making the best decisions. In this manner the president is not held back by pride or other decision impairing issues. They may also wish to threaten massive amounts of harm to the president himself. Nothing is off the table so long as it means the president will maintain the best effort he/she has in making decisions that benefit the country and the majority of its citizens. The ends in this scenario justify the means so even a constitution and laws can be thrown out the window if the security of the majority is at stake.
This scenario is very unlikely to ever happen so it's possibility is irrelevant. The hypothetical is meant to highlight the absurdity inherent in utilitarian ideals by isolating the important concepts so they can be analyzed in depth. If utilitarianism is accepted then it follows that all the actions taken by the government in this scenario are justified so long as they benefit the majority. This is the problem I have with utilitarian ethics. There is a difference between causing harm to another and failing to make them better off. We always have the option of helping others on our own accord. It is more than an equation of numbers and I think the utilitarians fail to see this.
For another extremely interesting ethical dilemma that does well to hash out utilitarian tendencies click the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
A perfect government: Government from a utilitarian perspective means that so long as the government is benefiting more people than it is harming then it is not merely preferable to institute utilitarian policies, rather it is the aim and such is necessary for the maintenance of the greater good. This form of government may follow whatever means necessary to reach those ends (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) regardless of the pain, misery, destruction, harm, etc. it does to others, no matter how egregious, ruthless, despicable, abominable, disgusting, etc. The hypothetical that comes to mind when I think of a perfect government under a utilitarian framework goes as follows. The masses elect their officials who represent them in both the house and the senate and those officials create laws and act as the collective oversight of all government actions. The president in this hypothetical is also elected by the members of congress, just like the U.S. government does today only there is no popular election by the masses. The president, the one who has to make all the tough choices and must retain the power of making split second decisions, is chosen solely by our elected representatives and is obligated to serve. They may use whatever criteria they desire for determining who the best potential candidate will be but after one is decided upon that person is made commander in chief regardless of their willingness to accept the position or not.
The person will have to be someone that has an immense stake in life, that is, they must have a lot to lose. Having family and friends that someone is extremely attached to emotionally is regarded as a positive to any official evaluating potential candidates. Any other items the person has in life that they are strongly attached to is also a plus because they can be exploited. Having the right "mindset" is also possible criteria. The mindset includes behavioral patterns that suggest the candidate has good reasoning abilities, functions normally, and any other psychological qualities that make the candidate best fit for the position. After the person has been selected they shall be taken away from all that they cherish in life. The government will then instruct the new commander in chief that everyone that he loves is expendable to their cause because they are the assurance the government has on the decision making power of the person. The president is now given access to all pertinent resources that is necessary to making decisions but is restricted in his abilities so far as he may seek "selfish" ends. Those selfish ends include attempting to save the persons he loves from any amount of harm that could befall them.
To establish the credibility in their threats the government threaten to cause or actually cause massive amounts of harm to those people or things that the president most deeply cares for such that the stress of seeing one's most cherished things in life being harmed will cause the president to function in a manner that is most conducive to making the best decisions. In this manner the president is not held back by pride or other decision impairing issues. They may also wish to threaten massive amounts of harm to the president himself. Nothing is off the table so long as it means the president will maintain the best effort he/she has in making decisions that benefit the country and the majority of its citizens. The ends in this scenario justify the means so even a constitution and laws can be thrown out the window if the security of the majority is at stake.
This scenario is very unlikely to ever happen so it's possibility is irrelevant. The hypothetical is meant to highlight the absurdity inherent in utilitarian ideals by isolating the important concepts so they can be analyzed in depth. If utilitarianism is accepted then it follows that all the actions taken by the government in this scenario are justified so long as they benefit the majority. This is the problem I have with utilitarian ethics. There is a difference between causing harm to another and failing to make them better off. We always have the option of helping others on our own accord. It is more than an equation of numbers and I think the utilitarians fail to see this.
For another extremely interesting ethical dilemma that does well to hash out utilitarian tendencies click the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Despite Recession, Things Aren't That Bad
I think that most people are tuning into the news these days and seeing too much negativity directed at the economy. Of course the news media tends to focus on stories that are stressful to consumers but people need to remember to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Everyone is hearing terms like "crisis" and "recession" and comparisons to The Great Depression everywhere in the news media. All this negativity is making its way into social circles at work and at home with people wondering "when is America going to crash?"
The economic problem looks so devastatingly terrible for Americans because that is what people are focused on at this moment. U.S. operations in Iraq are going swimmingly so there isn't much of a story there and it is only natural that we shift our attention to the next issue of concern. But I have to say, although it is an issue of concern, things really aren't that bad. Americans are still on the top, globally speaking and on the whole. While children are still starving in Africa fat Americans are still able to visit their favorite fast food restaurants and gorge their gullets...and at a cheaper price too! With this whole economic crisis going on consumers are more reluctant to spend money and many businesses are offering super deals from everything from food to airfare. I'm going on vacation to China in May and I purchased round trip tickets to fly there for under $800. That's a steal, and with the U.S. dollar still outmatching the ever growing Chinese yuan 6.82 - 1 I expect a great trip at a very reasonable price.
Still the unemployment rate is up and is higher than it has been since the 1980s. More people in the U.S. are seeking aid from the government and charities to keep themselves and their families afloat. Businesses are going bankrupt and many businesses are in the red leaving many entrepreneurs uncertain about their futures. People are losing their homes because they cannot afford them any longer, and the list goes on.
Though the unemployment rate is up in the U.S. it is still lower than that of some European countries. The very countries which maintain a comparable standard of living to the U.S.'s are also watching the U.S. dollar gain over their Euro. Big businesses like AIG, Circuit City, and the American auto industry are barely hanging on having to cut costs by laying off employees, closing businesses, limiting resources, issuing pay cuts, and borrowing from the federal government. Yet, most businesses are doing okay and many are actually doing quite well. Discount stores like Wal-Mart along with food industry companies are some of the companies doing well in this economy.
What's happened? People are wasting less because they are feeling pinched. Businesses are offering great deals to consumers still buying. And most people, MOST people in America, are doing fine. Though people have lost their jobs or their homes because of hard economic times and are barely eking out an existence people forget that even in times of great prosperity there will still be people who lose their homes or get laid off. So, whether it happens in a recession or not it still sucks for those affected. Americans still have it great. We can still drive our huge cars, eat out at restaurants - though "we've had to cut back to only once a month", and spend more time at home enjoying the simple pleasures in life like reading or spending more time with the family.
No one is starving in the U.S. No one is tossed out of house an office without some place to turn. The only problem is that our expectations are much higher than the rest of the world's population. We expect more. We are used to living such lavish lifestyles and when we have to give a bit of it up it breaks our corroded little hearts. Being born an American today is like hitting the lottery of existence in this world. Just be happy that you weren't born in Nigeria, The Democratic Rep. of The Congo, N. Korea, the slums of India, or any other struggling country or society.
The economic problem looks so devastatingly terrible for Americans because that is what people are focused on at this moment. U.S. operations in Iraq are going swimmingly so there isn't much of a story there and it is only natural that we shift our attention to the next issue of concern. But I have to say, although it is an issue of concern, things really aren't that bad. Americans are still on the top, globally speaking and on the whole. While children are still starving in Africa fat Americans are still able to visit their favorite fast food restaurants and gorge their gullets...and at a cheaper price too! With this whole economic crisis going on consumers are more reluctant to spend money and many businesses are offering super deals from everything from food to airfare. I'm going on vacation to China in May and I purchased round trip tickets to fly there for under $800. That's a steal, and with the U.S. dollar still outmatching the ever growing Chinese yuan 6.82 - 1 I expect a great trip at a very reasonable price.
Still the unemployment rate is up and is higher than it has been since the 1980s. More people in the U.S. are seeking aid from the government and charities to keep themselves and their families afloat. Businesses are going bankrupt and many businesses are in the red leaving many entrepreneurs uncertain about their futures. People are losing their homes because they cannot afford them any longer, and the list goes on.
Though the unemployment rate is up in the U.S. it is still lower than that of some European countries. The very countries which maintain a comparable standard of living to the U.S.'s are also watching the U.S. dollar gain over their Euro. Big businesses like AIG, Circuit City, and the American auto industry are barely hanging on having to cut costs by laying off employees, closing businesses, limiting resources, issuing pay cuts, and borrowing from the federal government. Yet, most businesses are doing okay and many are actually doing quite well. Discount stores like Wal-Mart along with food industry companies are some of the companies doing well in this economy.
What's happened? People are wasting less because they are feeling pinched. Businesses are offering great deals to consumers still buying. And most people, MOST people in America, are doing fine. Though people have lost their jobs or their homes because of hard economic times and are barely eking out an existence people forget that even in times of great prosperity there will still be people who lose their homes or get laid off. So, whether it happens in a recession or not it still sucks for those affected. Americans still have it great. We can still drive our huge cars, eat out at restaurants - though "we've had to cut back to only once a month", and spend more time at home enjoying the simple pleasures in life like reading or spending more time with the family.
No one is starving in the U.S. No one is tossed out of house an office without some place to turn. The only problem is that our expectations are much higher than the rest of the world's population. We expect more. We are used to living such lavish lifestyles and when we have to give a bit of it up it breaks our corroded little hearts. Being born an American today is like hitting the lottery of existence in this world. Just be happy that you weren't born in Nigeria, The Democratic Rep. of The Congo, N. Korea, the slums of India, or any other struggling country or society.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Thought on Marriage; Further Thoughts on Relationships
Marriage has several different claims of definition and depending on the culture it involves different requirements. Typically, it is the recognition of a contract by a group or larger society of beings (often a governmental entity is involved) in which two or more persons agree (or not) to remain obligated to one another for the purposes of love and love making. Often it involves procreation, but to many a man's relief such has failed to become a reality.
Relationships: During break-ups I have often heard a proclamation that follows some where along the lines of "well, I guess I didn't know who you really were." I think most people can relate to a situation in which they have heard some one voice their reasons in such a way. However, it is my intention to decode and dismiss such lines of reasoning because they are fallacious.
When two people meet, they match up, and they fall in love they develop certain expectations of one another based on their interpretations of past experiences they have had with each other. That isn't the end of the story though. Those expectations people develop for one another are based on the expectations each person involved has developed through out their lives experiencing the world and drawing conclusions based upon patterns they have perceived, that is, how their mind interprets reality. Good relationships are like a climax of all the most important expectations a person has for what they believe will make them happy.
Most relationships don't work. They don't work for several reasons. People aren't born unto this world equipped with all the knowledge that is conducive to living a happy existence. Most relationships don't work out because people are getting together at developmental stages in their lives in which they are often very fickle. Each person that exists is constantly taking in new information based on experiences they have in the world and they use the information to develop a logical construction of what reality is, but this construction is always provisional because the information that drives people to develop their personal theories about how reality actually is relies on input that is constantly being updated. People change.
Every person should be viewed as a being that develops ideas based on a provisional understanding of reality, that is, a being that operates on ideas which can change according to the discovery of elements fundamental to their understanding. This means that every person is a person in progress (whether you think they fit the bill or not) they are constantly experiencing the world and ADJUSTING their developmental frameworks about what they think is the best road to happiness.
So, now that any person should utter any phrase that reasons along the lines that "a person is what any other person expects" should ring fallacious. All we have are our experiences to use to develop our ideas about what we think reality is. We use these concepts to develop our understanding of people and we consequently develop expectations based on those ideas. Every social entity should realize that every being is influenced by their environment such that WHEN their environment changes significantly a significant change in the expectation of that person should logically follow.
Formula: The following is a formula I will use to represent the fundamental idea I am attempting to convey...
You meet Dave. You and Dave develop a relationship. That relationship grows. While you remain mostly the same Dave's circumstances change significantly. He develops expectations based on his new circumstances. Those circumstances may or may not be conducive to the health of you relations with Dave and consequently your expectations of happiness WITH Dave. Dave changes to adapt to his new environment; you either adapt to that change by adjusting your expectations of Dave or you do not. If you do not you and Dave will be in misalignment and the relationship you share will suffer.
People are afraid of the unknown sometimes because they don't know what to expect and part of having a healthy relationship with someone depends on being able to expect certain things from people. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that push them away from certain relationships. Think all the way back to your childhood. Your emotional attachments to others are derived from expectations you have placed on others and their attachments are based on their expectations of you. To think of others as unchanging is fallacious such that saying "I guess he/she wasn't who I thought he/she was" is wrong. Everyone changes. Finding someone whose change is conducive to your own gets harder as more time passes.
Relationships: During break-ups I have often heard a proclamation that follows some where along the lines of "well, I guess I didn't know who you really were." I think most people can relate to a situation in which they have heard some one voice their reasons in such a way. However, it is my intention to decode and dismiss such lines of reasoning because they are fallacious.
When two people meet, they match up, and they fall in love they develop certain expectations of one another based on their interpretations of past experiences they have had with each other. That isn't the end of the story though. Those expectations people develop for one another are based on the expectations each person involved has developed through out their lives experiencing the world and drawing conclusions based upon patterns they have perceived, that is, how their mind interprets reality. Good relationships are like a climax of all the most important expectations a person has for what they believe will make them happy.
Most relationships don't work. They don't work for several reasons. People aren't born unto this world equipped with all the knowledge that is conducive to living a happy existence. Most relationships don't work out because people are getting together at developmental stages in their lives in which they are often very fickle. Each person that exists is constantly taking in new information based on experiences they have in the world and they use the information to develop a logical construction of what reality is, but this construction is always provisional because the information that drives people to develop their personal theories about how reality actually is relies on input that is constantly being updated. People change.
Every person should be viewed as a being that develops ideas based on a provisional understanding of reality, that is, a being that operates on ideas which can change according to the discovery of elements fundamental to their understanding. This means that every person is a person in progress (whether you think they fit the bill or not) they are constantly experiencing the world and ADJUSTING their developmental frameworks about what they think is the best road to happiness.
So, now that any person should utter any phrase that reasons along the lines that "a person is what any other person expects" should ring fallacious. All we have are our experiences to use to develop our ideas about what we think reality is. We use these concepts to develop our understanding of people and we consequently develop expectations based on those ideas. Every social entity should realize that every being is influenced by their environment such that WHEN their environment changes significantly a significant change in the expectation of that person should logically follow.
Formula: The following is a formula I will use to represent the fundamental idea I am attempting to convey...
You meet Dave. You and Dave develop a relationship. That relationship grows. While you remain mostly the same Dave's circumstances change significantly. He develops expectations based on his new circumstances. Those circumstances may or may not be conducive to the health of you relations with Dave and consequently your expectations of happiness WITH Dave. Dave changes to adapt to his new environment; you either adapt to that change by adjusting your expectations of Dave or you do not. If you do not you and Dave will be in misalignment and the relationship you share will suffer.
People are afraid of the unknown sometimes because they don't know what to expect and part of having a healthy relationship with someone depends on being able to expect certain things from people. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that push them away from certain relationships. Think all the way back to your childhood. Your emotional attachments to others are derived from expectations you have placed on others and their attachments are based on their expectations of you. To think of others as unchanging is fallacious such that saying "I guess he/she wasn't who I thought he/she was" is wrong. Everyone changes. Finding someone whose change is conducive to your own gets harder as more time passes.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Time
Time is motion. Time is the movement of each elemental unit of matter. It is not possible to not have motion (absolute zero) so there is no event at which it can be said there is no time. This means that motion is infinite from all instances, that is, time doesn't have a beginning nor does it have an end.
Time at any point is the history of collisions of matter from any and all points preceding it. Consequently, time is non-reversible. In order to go back in time all matter would have to reverse, but with no force capable of doing so means that revisiting past points in time are impossible. There can be no force capable of reversing all matter because that force would still involve matter that is composed of forward moving matter.
There is no choice, no free will, no other way things could have been. To say that things could have been any other way constitutes flawed reasoning. Since we know that the matter that composes all objects is the same as what makes up what we call life all known matter moves only as it can unimpeded by the illusion of free will. One that would question this should think about the reasons behind all actions. No human action is without a reason, except in matters of reflex, and any reflex is certainly determined. If it has a reason then it has a cause and is bound by such a relation to ad infinitum.
We all just watch the beauty of the motions playing out like a movie. There can be no other way, so that "reality is perfection". There is still meaning even in the illusory because the feelings are still genuine.
Time at any point is the history of collisions of matter from any and all points preceding it. Consequently, time is non-reversible. In order to go back in time all matter would have to reverse, but with no force capable of doing so means that revisiting past points in time are impossible. There can be no force capable of reversing all matter because that force would still involve matter that is composed of forward moving matter.
There is no choice, no free will, no other way things could have been. To say that things could have been any other way constitutes flawed reasoning. Since we know that the matter that composes all objects is the same as what makes up what we call life all known matter moves only as it can unimpeded by the illusion of free will. One that would question this should think about the reasons behind all actions. No human action is without a reason, except in matters of reflex, and any reflex is certainly determined. If it has a reason then it has a cause and is bound by such a relation to ad infinitum.
We all just watch the beauty of the motions playing out like a movie. There can be no other way, so that "reality is perfection". There is still meaning even in the illusory because the feelings are still genuine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
