Assumptions:
Awareness is a significant part of reality.
Self-awareness is defined as the ability to recognize oneself as an object, and to be conscious of this recognition.
An often pondered question (yet perhaps not so often pondered as the meaning of life) regards the idea of awareness, or more specifically self-awareness. The main debate lies in whether or not one entity can be more aware than another. We ask ourselves what it means to be self-aware, whether we could possibly be more self-aware, and whether we are the only creatures that are truly self-aware. For example, is a dog aware that it is a dog? Is a pebble aware that it is a pebble? Is the Earth aware that it's the Earth? Is your neighbor even aware that he is a human being? Or are you reading this now perhaps the only one in the universe who is actually self-aware?
Indeed most people would agree that humans are much more self-aware than rocks or rivers or blades of grass. However, this perception stems primarily from intuition. Perhaps a basic rationale does exist, as neither rocks nor rivers nor grass blades have brains as part of their anatomical structure, and through various scientific experiments, we certainly can reason that the brain plays a key part in the thinking process for humans. Still, this is no more than an inductive line of thought, and there is no way we can prove in this manner that pebbles aren't thinking and judging us as we speak. As odd and counter-intuitive the notion of rocks thinking may seem, the point here lies in the fact that without deductive reasoning, we can't logically dispel this possibility. We cannot logically prove that a rhododendron, for example, is not aware that it is a rhododendron simply because we can never experience what it is like to be a rhododendron. Sure, we can imagine blooming up from the ground or sapping up sunlight for food or being sniffed by passersby, but we can never truly state what that experience feels like to the rhododendron itself. As far as concrete evidence is concerned, every plant may well be quite aware of its own existence, whether we like it or not. However, what we can do is legitimately reason that the chances of this are slim. Now, it may seem awfully silly to attempt to prove that rocks can't think, but the reason for presenting this argument brings us back to our original quest for understanding awareness. With a fuller understanding of the properties of awareness on the most fundamental level, we can bring ourselves closer to an understanding of conscious reality.
As stated earlier, it is impossible for one of us to occupy the existence of two independent entities in space. I cannot be a man and a flower at the same time; neither can I alternate between existing as each. However, it is possible to occupy the existence of two independent entities in time. Namely, you occupy your body and mind right now, yet you occupied a different mind and body ten years ago. Surely, at least to my knowledge, I am much more self-aware than I was ten years ago. Ten years ago I did not know that every piece of matter in the observable universe, including me, was made up of elementary particles, whose very existence is often completely unpredictable. I was just me, and these thoughts seldom crossed my mind. A few years ago, however, I began a slightly more driven search for self, and though I am of course far from reaching my destination, I can at least hope that I am slightly closer to it than I was ten years ago. In other words, I am slightly more aware now of my own existence and place in the cosmos than I was in the past. Likely, you as well are slightly more self-aware than you were in the past (even if you felt more aware of yourself ten years ago, the idea is that you have still gotten a taste of two differing levels of awareness). The proof lies in your memories. You actually experienced being less self-aware and you actually experienced being more self-aware. Therefore, without any scientific experiments or measurements of brain activity, you have proof than one entity can in fact be more aware than another!
This brings us back to pebbles. Are pebbles aware of their existence or not, and how can we rationalize one way or the other? From the above argument, we have proved, or at least reasoned that different levels of awareness certainly exist within reality. Therefore it makes sense to assume that if different entities in time can possess different levels of awareness, then different entities in space probably can as well (even Einstein proved that time and space are inseparable). So, it is overwhelmingly likely that certain entities in this universe are very aware, and that some are not aware at all.
As of yet we have simply illuminated the idea that self-awareness exists in different varieties, but we have not examined its true nature. This topic, because of its deep intricacy, deserves many pages on its own, and therefore I shall not discuss it presently in detail, but rather return to it on a later occasion. However, I ought to mention one of its more intriguing perplexities. If consciousness is simply an evolutionary effect, which has arisen solely because of chance and long periods of time (though continues to reproduce itself as time goes by), then it should follow that with the right technologies and patience, it should be possible to hypothetically "build" a conscious being. For example, let's say that scientists decide to assemble a conscious creature one atom at a time. If consciousness indeed stems from the interactions between neurons and electrical signals within the body, then there should logically be some exact, measurable and detectable point at which the scientists' creation becomes conscious; there would have to exist some specific nth atom, without which the "being" would not be self-aware, yet with which the creature would suddenly be able to recognize its own existence. Whether or not this is true, it seems incredibly exceptional that whole existence of consciousness could be governed by an arbitrary number of atoms in an arbitrary arrangement.
A second conclusion, though, could be that consciousness slowly grows as the entity is constructed; as atoms are added to the creation, it sluggishly but surely becomes more aware of itself. In this case, it would follow that the consciousness would slowly decrease as well if the entity were to be deconstructed one atom at a time. As it became less and less conscious and aware, it would either reach another arbitrary point in which its consciousness suddenly evaporated, or else its level of consciousness would constantly approach zero, but never in fact reach it. If true, the latter scenario would imply that each individual atom actually embodied a miniscule portion of the creature's total consciousness, and thereby that each individual atom in our universe actually embodied a tiny bit of consciousness.
Again, though both of these conclusions seem "far-out," so-to-speak, and they are likely not the only conclusions that could be drawn from this "build-a-human" thought experiment, the point is simply to show that both consciousness and awareness are quite complex abstractions whose true nature is far from being well understood. However, I believe it is reasonable to assume that, according to either of the above possibilities, awareness is certainly strongly related to the complexity of the interactions among the fundamental constituents of each entity being examined. In other words, the more complex an entity, the more likely it is to be self-aware. Thus, we can rationally justify that though we as humans are self-aware, it is highly probable that many of the simpler entities in the universe are not as self-aware as are we.
Our universe therefore teems with various levels of consciousness and of awareness, and we as humans are lucky to be among the few types of entities complex enough to realize it.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Peculiar Application Of Dreams
Assumptions:
Lucid dreaming is an art that can be improved with practice and discipline.
Remembering dreams is an art that can be improved with practice as well.
Sleep and dreams have always been among the most spiritual, yet enigmatic subjects studied by humankind, and they have fascinated us since ancient ages. Although throughout history we have performed numerous experiments and suggested countless hypotheses in an effort to debunk the true nature of sleep, the fundamental aspects that give sleep its distinguishing mysteriousness have yet to be understood. However, from what we do know, much can still be accomplished, sans a complete and ultimate understanding. As inductive as this may seem (inductivism is technically not a basis for creating new knowledge, according to Karl Popper), it can perhaps serve as a link to powerful applications.
Though the notion of dreams and sleep has always captivated humanity, it has done so due primarily to our incredibly curious nature. Seldom do we ever consider the practical implications of dreams and the like. The hypothesis at the end of this argument may seem a touch "bizarre," even "far out" if you like, but I promise that even though it is based on certain assumptions, from thereon after each step and conclusion is logically derived.
The dreams that we experience in our nightly lives often involve simple problems, such as being chased by a villain or perhaps trying to discern why we are the only one taking our science exam without any clothes on. While these scenarios may seem inane or even ridiculous, the whole point herein lies in the fact that in a certain sense we can find simple solutions while still in "the dream world." The "solution" to being chased could be to run away and the "solution" to why you're naked in class may be that you forgot to put any clothes on in the morning (the dream morning, of course). As simplistic as the solutions to these problems may seem, the amazing fact lies in that we can in fact solve problems in our dreams! True, we may not always be able to choose which problems we solve in our dreams, but we can in fact solve them.
One way to sneak our way around this particular flaw of not being able to choose lies in the practice of lucid dreaming. For some at least, it is possible to develop the ability to control the act of dreaming. True, it is difficult work, but in many cases it is surely possible to be aware and in full control while dreaming. Therefore, it logically flows that it ought to be possible to choose which problems we attempt to solve while asleep. These problems could hence range from something as simple as counting your fingers to a complex math problem to a grand philosophical mystery.
If this practice is hypothetically plausible, its implications would be absolutely remarkable. Ergo, if the average person sleeps 8 hours per night, and perfects the ability to control the act of problem-solving while dreaming, then theoretically that person could increase his or her conscious lifespan by fifty percent. Great feats could theoretically be accomplished, and great mysteries could be solved. Whether or not this discipline would provide the dreamer with a good night sleep, however, has yet to be determined.
Lucid dreaming is an art that can be improved with practice and discipline.
Remembering dreams is an art that can be improved with practice as well.
Sleep and dreams have always been among the most spiritual, yet enigmatic subjects studied by humankind, and they have fascinated us since ancient ages. Although throughout history we have performed numerous experiments and suggested countless hypotheses in an effort to debunk the true nature of sleep, the fundamental aspects that give sleep its distinguishing mysteriousness have yet to be understood. However, from what we do know, much can still be accomplished, sans a complete and ultimate understanding. As inductive as this may seem (inductivism is technically not a basis for creating new knowledge, according to Karl Popper), it can perhaps serve as a link to powerful applications.
Though the notion of dreams and sleep has always captivated humanity, it has done so due primarily to our incredibly curious nature. Seldom do we ever consider the practical implications of dreams and the like. The hypothesis at the end of this argument may seem a touch "bizarre," even "far out" if you like, but I promise that even though it is based on certain assumptions, from thereon after each step and conclusion is logically derived.
The dreams that we experience in our nightly lives often involve simple problems, such as being chased by a villain or perhaps trying to discern why we are the only one taking our science exam without any clothes on. While these scenarios may seem inane or even ridiculous, the whole point herein lies in the fact that in a certain sense we can find simple solutions while still in "the dream world." The "solution" to being chased could be to run away and the "solution" to why you're naked in class may be that you forgot to put any clothes on in the morning (the dream morning, of course). As simplistic as the solutions to these problems may seem, the amazing fact lies in that we can in fact solve problems in our dreams! True, we may not always be able to choose which problems we solve in our dreams, but we can in fact solve them.
One way to sneak our way around this particular flaw of not being able to choose lies in the practice of lucid dreaming. For some at least, it is possible to develop the ability to control the act of dreaming. True, it is difficult work, but in many cases it is surely possible to be aware and in full control while dreaming. Therefore, it logically flows that it ought to be possible to choose which problems we attempt to solve while asleep. These problems could hence range from something as simple as counting your fingers to a complex math problem to a grand philosophical mystery.
If this practice is hypothetically plausible, its implications would be absolutely remarkable. Ergo, if the average person sleeps 8 hours per night, and perfects the ability to control the act of problem-solving while dreaming, then theoretically that person could increase his or her conscious lifespan by fifty percent. Great feats could theoretically be accomplished, and great mysteries could be solved. Whether or not this discipline would provide the dreamer with a good night sleep, however, has yet to be determined.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
On The Need To Belong: Part IV
Assumptions:
There is much pleasure in feeling proud.
I apologize now, if my criticisms of society have seemed too harsh. I must remind the reader that this is not a doctrine calling for drastic change or one that is directly attacking the underlying fundamentals of society. Instead it is simply meant to be taken as a consideration. If the reader can pull just one thought-provoking idea from these writings, then I will have completed my goal. Obviously, it would be impractical and nearly impossible for everyone to stop using "we" or "us" in conversation, and even I admit that this is nonsense. However, this is meant to serve as a theoretical ideal. If my assertions are at least somewhat sensible, then one would agree that the an ambition for world I have represented, not necessarily free from subjective thought, should be an immense emphasis on objective reasoning (much more so than it is emphasized today). It is something we as humans ought to strive for, but one that we can never reach. Although this may sound a bit paradoxical, as mentioned before in the opening words of this blog, just because we cannot reach our destination does not mean that we cannot keep getting closer.
Amazing is the feeling of pride, yet terrifying in one's recognition of it. In an enormous crowd of peers, trapped together in a great hall and listening intently to a powerful speech, it becomes easy and feels so natural to cheer with them. So fluidly does our mind regress into the notion that only the people immediately surrounding us exist, and so quickly do we forget that there are so many others beyond those four encompassing walls. The feeling that arises when placed within a group exhilarates the soul so powerfully and bites into the essence that comprises our instinct. And we give in, because the sensation drugs us, we are lured by its siren-like call. It is ironic how heartily we emphasize our individuality, but then clump ourselves together and throw it away! Pride corrupts the mind and we follow it. But alas, our only hope is to recognize this and fight against it. If we continue to pride ourselves by labels, culture, nationalities, or the like, then even though we may unite with those who share our labels, we may end up falling apart as a human race. But again, this is not meant to be pessimistic! This discussion simply exists to serve as a warning and perhaps to help guide us in the right direction.
There is much pleasure in feeling proud.
I apologize now, if my criticisms of society have seemed too harsh. I must remind the reader that this is not a doctrine calling for drastic change or one that is directly attacking the underlying fundamentals of society. Instead it is simply meant to be taken as a consideration. If the reader can pull just one thought-provoking idea from these writings, then I will have completed my goal. Obviously, it would be impractical and nearly impossible for everyone to stop using "we" or "us" in conversation, and even I admit that this is nonsense. However, this is meant to serve as a theoretical ideal. If my assertions are at least somewhat sensible, then one would agree that the an ambition for world I have represented, not necessarily free from subjective thought, should be an immense emphasis on objective reasoning (much more so than it is emphasized today). It is something we as humans ought to strive for, but one that we can never reach. Although this may sound a bit paradoxical, as mentioned before in the opening words of this blog, just because we cannot reach our destination does not mean that we cannot keep getting closer.
Amazing is the feeling of pride, yet terrifying in one's recognition of it. In an enormous crowd of peers, trapped together in a great hall and listening intently to a powerful speech, it becomes easy and feels so natural to cheer with them. So fluidly does our mind regress into the notion that only the people immediately surrounding us exist, and so quickly do we forget that there are so many others beyond those four encompassing walls. The feeling that arises when placed within a group exhilarates the soul so powerfully and bites into the essence that comprises our instinct. And we give in, because the sensation drugs us, we are lured by its siren-like call. It is ironic how heartily we emphasize our individuality, but then clump ourselves together and throw it away! Pride corrupts the mind and we follow it. But alas, our only hope is to recognize this and fight against it. If we continue to pride ourselves by labels, culture, nationalities, or the like, then even though we may unite with those who share our labels, we may end up falling apart as a human race. But again, this is not meant to be pessimistic! This discussion simply exists to serve as a warning and perhaps to help guide us in the right direction.
On The Need To Belong: Part III
Regarding the topic of "us vs. them," we have arrived at the fact that almost every time one uses the pronoun "us" rather than "I" instead, that person necessarily differentiates him/herself and those similar from the rest of the world, or even the rest of the universe. Of course, I have been constantly using "we" to describe some group of individuals, those who I am describing in this blog. I suppose "we" could refer to all human beings, or it could mean all who read this. I, in fact, do not know exactly to whom "we" refers, but I would like to think that it applies at least to all human beings. However, so long as humans are not alone in the universe as sentient creatures, it is likely that all beings capable of thought, consciousness, and awareness have at some point formulated the concept of "we," and have at some point gathered themselves into groups as well. Therefore, we see that it is not only difficult to escape the use of "we" or "us" in every day conversation, but that it is also difficult to even pinpoint where we can safely and objectively define the border between "us" and "them." In the most extreme case, "us" could refer to everything in the universe. In this case, simply by definition, there can be no "them" for the universe encompasses all of reality (disregarding a few theories of cosmology, for now). Ergo, perhaps this is the most "pure" use of "us." Unfortunately, for the present purposes of this argument, it is impractical to define "us" as the entire universe. Our main concern currently, however selfish it may seem, ought to be the preservation of humanity, so that humankind may progress even further in its understanding of itself and of the universe. Ergo, if we continue to assume that division and subjective biases are "bad things," then logically this argument arrives at the point that "we" should refer to all humans. Using "we" or "us" to describe a nation, sports team, school, or culture, sadly yet implicitly erects an invisible wall that slices through the very arena of humanity.
It may seem as though so far, these writings have seemed awfully pessimistic. However, this is far from my intention. Obviously there are times when behaving in groups does not lead to all out war. For example, in the United States, state borders divide up the country, yet it is infrequent that states actually go to war with each other (except of course during the civil war). Also, surely peewee soccer teams do not overtly hate each other with passion. The inherent problem, therefore, regards the subtleties of the changing mindset that occur as a person dons a label or joins a group (they are, of course, effectively the same thing). As we mature and grow up in society, we become used to the group mindset, and we regrettably learn to judge any situation we may happen upon first from our own group's perspective. Of course, as all groups are guilty of this same practice, clearly no particular perspective prevails. But still, we continue to view the universe primarily through the lens that we have always held pressed against our eye. Nearly no one considers another's opinion without his or her own opinion constantly in mind. When we learn in high school to write argumentation essays, we are told to do much research about the opposing side, so that we can write an objective paper. Ironically though, the purpose of gathering data from the opposing side is not to expose the truths or good ideas of the other side, but rather to poke holes in the other side's arguments, to find flaws in their reasoning. As humans, we are unique (among animals, at least) in our ability to simulate a situation from a perspective other than our own, to view it pretending to wear someone else's shoes. It is utterly sad, then, that so many of us hide away that ability in exchange for the incredible high we get in trying to prove our own opinions as right.
It may seem as though so far, these writings have seemed awfully pessimistic. However, this is far from my intention. Obviously there are times when behaving in groups does not lead to all out war. For example, in the United States, state borders divide up the country, yet it is infrequent that states actually go to war with each other (except of course during the civil war). Also, surely peewee soccer teams do not overtly hate each other with passion. The inherent problem, therefore, regards the subtleties of the changing mindset that occur as a person dons a label or joins a group (they are, of course, effectively the same thing). As we mature and grow up in society, we become used to the group mindset, and we regrettably learn to judge any situation we may happen upon first from our own group's perspective. Of course, as all groups are guilty of this same practice, clearly no particular perspective prevails. But still, we continue to view the universe primarily through the lens that we have always held pressed against our eye. Nearly no one considers another's opinion without his or her own opinion constantly in mind. When we learn in high school to write argumentation essays, we are told to do much research about the opposing side, so that we can write an objective paper. Ironically though, the purpose of gathering data from the opposing side is not to expose the truths or good ideas of the other side, but rather to poke holes in the other side's arguments, to find flaws in their reasoning. As humans, we are unique (among animals, at least) in our ability to simulate a situation from a perspective other than our own, to view it pretending to wear someone else's shoes. It is utterly sad, then, that so many of us hide away that ability in exchange for the incredible high we get in trying to prove our own opinions as right.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
On The Need To Belong: Part II
Assumptions:
Many people are eager to label themselves and their beliefs.
Our goal as a species is to survive.
Let us now return to the question of why, rather than how, we as humans are so compelled to organize ourselves in groups. Sometimes the protection given by the group is neither obvious nor direct. However, what we may not realize is that we are constantly allying ourselves with others, whether they are present or not. Each time a person dons a label, such as Republican, Democrat, Christian, Jew, American, Swede, Intellectual, Passive-aggressive, or anything of the type, that person associates him or herself immediately with others who bear the same title. Therefore, it is truly unfortunate that we are so often pushed in society to "take a stand," "have strong opinions," "pick a side," "fight for what you believe in," etc. We thus ill-fatedly result in assuming labels that only partly encompass our actual beliefs (whether they are concrete or not). By branding ourselves with the insignia of groups, we inherently associate each of our own beliefs with the "package" of beliefs dictated by the group. Why must every presidential candidate with a reasonable chance of success represent a political party? Anyone who calls him or herself a moderate is scorned by others as indecisive, or as not having strong enough opinions, even if that person has strived to take only the good from each "side." Surely not everyone who bears the title "Republican" is a fanatic religious zealot, and surely not everyone who bears the title "Democrat" likens him or herself to a "communist pig-dog."
Yet, as we age and mature with bias implanted in our neurons, we separate ourselves from others, and group ourselves accordingly. We nearly always slip down into the categories of "us" and "them." Every moment that we associate ourselves with a group of people or a "type" of person, each of our "I"'s becomes an "us." Unfortunately, and here is the key point of the whole argument, every time an "us" comes into existence, a "them" is implicit. By unifying ourselves based on ideas, interests, and beliefs, we immediately separate ourselves from those who do not share those ideas, interests, and beliefs. As cliché as this may sound, this is how wars start, albeit indirectly. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" carries much reason. When a school unites, or when a country unites, it is able to stand strongly and firmly for what it "believes in." However, as soon as one group of people (so long as it is not all people on Earth), label themselves as "united," they build a wall between themselves and all the others. If anything, if we are to survive as a species, then our species must unite, not separate ourselves into countries, religious groups, cultures, or even peewee soccer teams.
Many people are eager to label themselves and their beliefs.
Our goal as a species is to survive.
Let us now return to the question of why, rather than how, we as humans are so compelled to organize ourselves in groups. Sometimes the protection given by the group is neither obvious nor direct. However, what we may not realize is that we are constantly allying ourselves with others, whether they are present or not. Each time a person dons a label, such as Republican, Democrat, Christian, Jew, American, Swede, Intellectual, Passive-aggressive, or anything of the type, that person associates him or herself immediately with others who bear the same title. Therefore, it is truly unfortunate that we are so often pushed in society to "take a stand," "have strong opinions," "pick a side," "fight for what you believe in," etc. We thus ill-fatedly result in assuming labels that only partly encompass our actual beliefs (whether they are concrete or not). By branding ourselves with the insignia of groups, we inherently associate each of our own beliefs with the "package" of beliefs dictated by the group. Why must every presidential candidate with a reasonable chance of success represent a political party? Anyone who calls him or herself a moderate is scorned by others as indecisive, or as not having strong enough opinions, even if that person has strived to take only the good from each "side." Surely not everyone who bears the title "Republican" is a fanatic religious zealot, and surely not everyone who bears the title "Democrat" likens him or herself to a "communist pig-dog."
Yet, as we age and mature with bias implanted in our neurons, we separate ourselves from others, and group ourselves accordingly. We nearly always slip down into the categories of "us" and "them." Every moment that we associate ourselves with a group of people or a "type" of person, each of our "I"'s becomes an "us." Unfortunately, and here is the key point of the whole argument, every time an "us" comes into existence, a "them" is implicit. By unifying ourselves based on ideas, interests, and beliefs, we immediately separate ourselves from those who do not share those ideas, interests, and beliefs. As cliché as this may sound, this is how wars start, albeit indirectly. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" carries much reason. When a school unites, or when a country unites, it is able to stand strongly and firmly for what it "believes in." However, as soon as one group of people (so long as it is not all people on Earth), label themselves as "united," they build a wall between themselves and all the others. If anything, if we are to survive as a species, then our species must unite, not separate ourselves into countries, religious groups, cultures, or even peewee soccer teams.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
On The Need To Belong: Part I
Assumptions:
Most humans feel an innate need to group themselves.
One of the goals of society is progress.
Certain statements can be closer to the truth than others.
Truth is important.
One of the most unfortunate, yet inherent human desires is the need to belong. Throughout all of human history, people have sought to become part of a group, have sought to fit in with others. The "blame," of course, rests on no one's shoulders in particular, for it is no more than instinct and evolution at their finest. However, even though all animals succumb often to the will of their instincts, we as humans have the ability to recognize this fundamental part of our nature (whether we as humans can uniquely recognize this is a subject for later debate), and we have the ability to act on it. We as a species on earth are in fact self-aware. We as a species are no longer bound by instinct in our behavior. We can consciously take almost any of our "animal-like" instinct and reverse it. Yet, undeniably there exist certain instincts upon which we almost always fall back. One of these instincts is the need to belong. I am of course a human being, and therefore no exception at all. I constantly feel the pull towards groups of people, as most others probably do as well. In fact, I have not yet even mentioned why something so natural ought not be such the important part of our existence as it is today, and truthfully, it is hard to at first imagine why anyone might have such qualms with this issue. Although this is a key factor in the present argument, I shall discuss it later.
First, we must ask ourselves why. No rational progress can ever be made without first understanding the fundamental "why" behind the behavior. Why do we sit with friends at lunch? Why do we join sports teams from such an early age? Why do so many people have their nation's flag waving in their front yard? The answer is in no way obvious. Dawkins would say that we evolved this way, that our species slowly changed in a way such that those genes for congregating in groups managed to survive through the course of history, while those for solitude withered away. More specifically, those individuals that lived in groups gained protection from said groups, and therefore survived, whereas those that roamed alone were more easily done away with by environmental influences.
In a more societal context, the protection idea boils down to the fact that people enjoy being supported ideologically by their peers much more than they enjoy being regarded as nonsensical outsiders. We humans thrive on others agreeing with our viewpoints and our notions. That is the reason why we gather around with our likenesses at political rallies and why we memorize chants to scream at our favorite (or least favorite) sports teams. As soon as we have others on our "side," it becomes much easier to face our "enemies" or to laugh sans guilt or shame at rival sports teams. Quite rarely does anyone want to be the sole supporter of an idea or team or country when the opposition carries 10,000 supporters. When we are protected by others, the chance of being the first to be knocked down in battle dramatically decreases. This is evolutionary. However, as the technological era has progressed (especially due to the advent of modern medicine), we humans have managed to stave off evolutionary advancement.
The unfortunate aspect of all of this lies in the very essence of our need to have our ideas agreed upon by others. Nearly every paper written, speech given, or editorial published is created for a solitary purpose. Each one of these forms of expression carries with it the goal of convincing the reader or listener to agree with the author or speaker regarding whatever subject matter is being presented. We (myself included) receive such an incredible high from being "right" and such an incredible low from being "wrong," or at least from perceiving that we are right or wrong. This in itself may be the hardest aspect of human nature to overcome if we are to transcend our instinctual, evolutionary qualities. The goal of any conversation ought not to be to pick one side and burn down the other, but rather to measure each side objectively and perhaps arrive at a slightly more valid truth.
We learn in school (at least these days) to be as objective as possible. However, we also learn how to pose a convincing argument, by taking objective truths and exploiting them as tools to propogate certain opinions. Herein lies an extraordinary, yet almost perpetually overlooked contradiction! On the one hand, we are expected to use real and reliable facts, but on the other hand we are simultaneously expected to use them to convey personal opinions instead. All too often do we search and study only the "pros" of one "side" and only the "cons" of the other. Whether or not each fact in an argument is true means almost nothing if they are used in such a subjective way. The purpose of argument ought to be to expose truth, whether or not the writer agrees with his own statements (for if his findings are indeed proven true, he shall come to accept it). The debate over whether or not there can exist absolute truth is irrelevant at this point and will be dealt with later. Any conversation, though, which does not bring its creators closer to truth, has no impact on either society, intelligence, or the universe as a whole.
Most humans feel an innate need to group themselves.
One of the goals of society is progress.
Certain statements can be closer to the truth than others.
Truth is important.
One of the most unfortunate, yet inherent human desires is the need to belong. Throughout all of human history, people have sought to become part of a group, have sought to fit in with others. The "blame," of course, rests on no one's shoulders in particular, for it is no more than instinct and evolution at their finest. However, even though all animals succumb often to the will of their instincts, we as humans have the ability to recognize this fundamental part of our nature (whether we as humans can uniquely recognize this is a subject for later debate), and we have the ability to act on it. We as a species on earth are in fact self-aware. We as a species are no longer bound by instinct in our behavior. We can consciously take almost any of our "animal-like" instinct and reverse it. Yet, undeniably there exist certain instincts upon which we almost always fall back. One of these instincts is the need to belong. I am of course a human being, and therefore no exception at all. I constantly feel the pull towards groups of people, as most others probably do as well. In fact, I have not yet even mentioned why something so natural ought not be such the important part of our existence as it is today, and truthfully, it is hard to at first imagine why anyone might have such qualms with this issue. Although this is a key factor in the present argument, I shall discuss it later.
First, we must ask ourselves why. No rational progress can ever be made without first understanding the fundamental "why" behind the behavior. Why do we sit with friends at lunch? Why do we join sports teams from such an early age? Why do so many people have their nation's flag waving in their front yard? The answer is in no way obvious. Dawkins would say that we evolved this way, that our species slowly changed in a way such that those genes for congregating in groups managed to survive through the course of history, while those for solitude withered away. More specifically, those individuals that lived in groups gained protection from said groups, and therefore survived, whereas those that roamed alone were more easily done away with by environmental influences.
In a more societal context, the protection idea boils down to the fact that people enjoy being supported ideologically by their peers much more than they enjoy being regarded as nonsensical outsiders. We humans thrive on others agreeing with our viewpoints and our notions. That is the reason why we gather around with our likenesses at political rallies and why we memorize chants to scream at our favorite (or least favorite) sports teams. As soon as we have others on our "side," it becomes much easier to face our "enemies" or to laugh sans guilt or shame at rival sports teams. Quite rarely does anyone want to be the sole supporter of an idea or team or country when the opposition carries 10,000 supporters. When we are protected by others, the chance of being the first to be knocked down in battle dramatically decreases. This is evolutionary. However, as the technological era has progressed (especially due to the advent of modern medicine), we humans have managed to stave off evolutionary advancement.
The unfortunate aspect of all of this lies in the very essence of our need to have our ideas agreed upon by others. Nearly every paper written, speech given, or editorial published is created for a solitary purpose. Each one of these forms of expression carries with it the goal of convincing the reader or listener to agree with the author or speaker regarding whatever subject matter is being presented. We (myself included) receive such an incredible high from being "right" and such an incredible low from being "wrong," or at least from perceiving that we are right or wrong. This in itself may be the hardest aspect of human nature to overcome if we are to transcend our instinctual, evolutionary qualities. The goal of any conversation ought not to be to pick one side and burn down the other, but rather to measure each side objectively and perhaps arrive at a slightly more valid truth.
We learn in school (at least these days) to be as objective as possible. However, we also learn how to pose a convincing argument, by taking objective truths and exploiting them as tools to propogate certain opinions. Herein lies an extraordinary, yet almost perpetually overlooked contradiction! On the one hand, we are expected to use real and reliable facts, but on the other hand we are simultaneously expected to use them to convey personal opinions instead. All too often do we search and study only the "pros" of one "side" and only the "cons" of the other. Whether or not each fact in an argument is true means almost nothing if they are used in such a subjective way. The purpose of argument ought to be to expose truth, whether or not the writer agrees with his own statements (for if his findings are indeed proven true, he shall come to accept it). The debate over whether or not there can exist absolute truth is irrelevant at this point and will be dealt with later. Any conversation, though, which does not bring its creators closer to truth, has no impact on either society, intelligence, or the universe as a whole.
On Logic
Much of this blog is based on logic and rationale. As of now, I am going to assume that this is a fair method of argument, perhaps the most pure that we know of today. Of course, even things such as simple logic may one day be disproved. Even something as simple as an "if, then" clause may indeed be false, no matter how intuitive it seems. Logic, of course, has allowed us to derive the entire study of mathematics as well as all of its emergent counterparts. And we do have much reason to put faith in logic, for when we build bridges that are mathematically designed, they stay up, and with enough calculations, we can even predict the motion of the stars. Logic as of now has yet to fail us (disregarding quantum mechanics, perhaps?). However, as pure and golden as logic may seem, we can never truly prove that it will always hold. Hopefully though, for the time being, I can reasonably assume that logic is a good basis for argument. Again, if anyone disagrees with this, then he or she is more than welcome to disagree with anything else I may have to say, and the disagreement will be reasonable. I will try my best to, at the beginning of each entry that presents an argument, note all of the assumptions I am using, such that with hope any disagreements with my conclusions can be traced back to disagreements with my initial assumptions.
With those words of caution, let us proceed!
With those words of caution, let us proceed!
The Untitled Church
The name of this blog is Untitled Church, mostly for lack of a better one. However, this name does in fact carry with it certain implications. Foremost, it is far from a church, and I am hesitant to even call it a school of thought. The following is instead a collection of ideas meant not to serve as any sort of doctrine, but rather to simply present themselves for consideration. Many of the ideas and goals presented from here on out are obviously unreachable. That is without question. However, just because you can never build a ladder that reaches the stars does not mean that you can't keep getting closer one rung at a time. The goals presented often represent ideals, truly existent only in a utopia. But naturally, by definition, a utopia is unreachable by the hands of humankind. (In a way, this is amazing, for if perfection were attainable, by the time we reached it, purpose would have run out, and we would be left with nothing more for which to strive.) Of course, I have just implied that the ideals outlined in this blog represent perfection. To say that would go against most of what this whole scripture is about. A significant part of this also deals with objectivity, so I would in no way like to imply that the following ideas are indeed pure or correct. Instead, as I have previously mentioned, they are to be considered, at least. Perhaps they will seem original and thought-provoking, and perhaps they will seem timeworn and drab. It is up to you to decide. Moreover, if at anytime you find yourself at odds with the words on this blog, I warmly accept your disagreement, so long as it is logical and respectful. If this does occur, please email me, for I would love to hear the ideas of others, as that is one of the most fundamental tenets of the nature of discovery and of progress.
That being said, let us begin. (Note: the organization of this blog is not at all final, for I am writing down thoughts simply in the order that they come to mind!)
- Reverend Richard K. Pang
That being said, let us begin. (Note: the organization of this blog is not at all final, for I am writing down thoughts simply in the order that they come to mind!)
- Reverend Richard K. Pang
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)