Last night I just saw an early premiere of the new Man of Tomorrow movie. For those of you who know me you all know that I have been anticipating this movie since as far as I can remember. Superman and Batman are endearing embelms of American culture and values to me. I found a connection with both of these iconic characters and their corpus of mythology. Superman represents all that is good and amazing about ourselves. A god amidst mortals who deeply desires to be one of the mortals but cannot. Who desires to be normal but isnt and who does good just to do good. Not out of some sense of duty, not to right a previous wrong, not to balance the scales or take revenge. He simply does it because he is good. He will always make the right choice and help others. Hence he is called a boy scout and many people find him boring because of that. I don't. I think I have imbibed in many of his values into my life. He represents integrity and time honored values of honesty, truth and compassion. Things I think that are sometimes thrown to the wayside by many of us in pursuit of our own joy and happiness.
The new movie attempts to bring Superman into the new age of gray that we live in. Without giving away plot details, Singer manages to capture a lingering feeling from the first two superman movies and present an entirely unique and evolved Superman. The first two Superman movies highlighted Superman's duality between Clark Kent and Superman. This movie is more about Superman than Clark. It is Superman's return and his place as the savior of the world. Superman protects people from physical harm and inspires them to look up to the skies. The special effects are astounding in this movie but I think for me they took a back seat to seeing the Man of Steel grace the screen and continue the story which had me wearing tights and capes all through my childhood, jumping off the stairs and standing in front of a fan so that the cape will flutter behind me like i've seen so many times. The Superman theme song still gives me goosebumps. Singer gives us a more divine Superman, a Superman who bears the burden of being super and knows it but nonetheless accepts it because this is who he is.
Superman has been made into something larger than life by Christopher Reeve who in the last decade of his life became Superman in more than just name. He used his fame and influence to try and fight for research to combat paralysis. This movie was made in memory of Christopher Reeve and his wife Diana Reeve. It is a fitting tribute.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Stem Cells and Motor Function
A recent study conducted by Douglas Kerr presents more evidence with the growing mountain of data as to why stem cell research is vital and necessary. (link: Neurons from Stem Cells) The article basically reports that Kerr and his team developed stem cells until they became neural precursors. Before I go any further, I just want to explain what a stem cell is and why there is so much fervor over it. I'm not a scientist but I have a basic background in science and read a few books on it, so if I make any mistakes just correct me. Stem cells are cells that are essentially undivided and undifferentiated, meaning that they haven't "decided" what type of cell they will end up becoming. Usually stem cells are taken from either the placenta or umbilical cord after birth or they are taken from an recently fertilized embroyo with around 50 to 150 cells already divided. These cells can then be therapeutically cloned so as to produce more stem cells and thereby have a chain of cells which are a genetic match of the donor organism. In short this process of cloning involves removing the nucleus of an egg and then replacing that nucleus with DNA from another organism. The egg will then be cultivated with the new DNA and begin to divide as if fertilized. After a week or so the cells are now now as totipotent stem cells as they can become ANY type of cell. As they divide and begin to become more differentiated they can be used for limited purposes. That is a very rudimentary overview of stem cells and at this stage it is about as much as I know, hopefully I'll read some more on it and gain a larger body of knowledge.
So in this study, Kerr took the eggs of a rat and cultivated them using the above method until they developed into neural precursors, which basically means cells that haven't developed into specific nerve cells or neurons. Kerr developed about 60,000 of these cells and injected them into the spinal column of paralyzed rats. These precursors developed into motor neurons and develop more based on the types of chemicals that they interact with. Essentially what occurred is that these cells, reformed the a few nerve connections in the spinal cord. These reformed connections even though only 1% gave the paralyzed rats partial recovery and movement. Consider the impact, now there is a possibility that paralyzed people might be able to move and regain control over their bodies. To put it into perspective, this was only done on rats cells and haven't been attempted on human cells yet. Next time, I'll discuss the controversy revolving around the stem cell debate.
So in this study, Kerr took the eggs of a rat and cultivated them using the above method until they developed into neural precursors, which basically means cells that haven't developed into specific nerve cells or neurons. Kerr developed about 60,000 of these cells and injected them into the spinal column of paralyzed rats. These precursors developed into motor neurons and develop more based on the types of chemicals that they interact with. Essentially what occurred is that these cells, reformed the a few nerve connections in the spinal cord. These reformed connections even though only 1% gave the paralyzed rats partial recovery and movement. Consider the impact, now there is a possibility that paralyzed people might be able to move and regain control over their bodies. To put it into perspective, this was only done on rats cells and haven't been attempted on human cells yet. Next time, I'll discuss the controversy revolving around the stem cell debate.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Logic and Rationality, Part 1
Its been a while since I've last posted and a lot has happened which has been food for thought. So let me start with this topic. I've been reading a lot of political polemics and debates. These people love to use the term logical or rational in almost every argument. It makes a lot of sense when you consider that many of the people engaging in polemics are lawyers and as such they love to use the term logic or rational to buttress their arguments. The sad part is that they don't know what logic really means. Usually, the term logic or rational as used in these types of argument refers to simple inferences. So the question arises what is logic and rational?
Logic is simply a method of reasoning but there are three types of logic: deduction, induction and abduction. Deduction is deriving the conclusions from the premises. Here is an example:
Premise A: All men are evil
Premise B: Plato is a man
Conclusion: Plato is evil
Its a simple syllogism of three steps. The conclusion is necessary from the premises, in other words, there is no new knowledge gained in the process. The statement itself can be perfectally valid, meaning if you don't assume the existence of anything outside of the statement. The problem occurs at the empirical level, the statement might not be true when applied to the real world. Like above, not all men are evil so the conclusion is not necessary because Plato might or might not be evil. In other words, deductive logic doesn't fully work in the real world but makes for a powerful tool in philosophical discussion and speculation.
Induction is deriving the conclusion from the most probable facts. For example:
Premise A: Where there is smoke there is fire
Example: Like in the kitchen
Counter Example: Unlike in the water
Observation: There is smoke on the hill
Conclusion: There is fire
Induction is a system of reasoning based on what is observed and what will most probably be the conclusion. The five step syllogism above comes to the conclusion based on observable and knowable situations. If there are situations where there is smoke but no fire the conclusion will not be absolute but might still be valid. In otherwords, the validity of the conclusion is not entirely based on the internal validity of the statement but with external validity found in the real world. While in deductive logic the premises must lead to the conclusion, in inductive logic the premises coupled with our intuition will most probably lead the conclusion. Inductive logic is the logic of probabilities. It is used by scientists to show the most probable conclusion.
The final system of logic is Abduction. Abduction begins with an hypothesis then works backward to find the if the hypothesis is correct. It is the method of reasoning used by scientists and researchers. For example:
Facts: If i throw something up it will come down
Hypothesis: There is an force which pulls objects towards each other
Or;
Facts: Human beings possess 98% genetic similarity to chimps
Hypothesis: Human beings over a period of time evolved away from chimps
Basically both those hypothesis are not more or less valid, from a strictly logical necessity prespective, from an idea that God does all the gravity or created us to be related to chimps. Essentially, Abduction is an attempt to develop a rationale for the facts, in fact Abduction does not possess any real logical validity. Induction is probabilities and deduction is internal structural necessity.
So what is rational? Rational has less to do with deductive logic and more to do with common sense based on the wealth of knowledge availible to us. For example, 3000 years ago it was rational to believe that lightning and thunder was rained down by Zeus or the rumbling volcano are the mighty Titans of myth trying to break out of the chains that have them bound in Tartarus. This is not the case if we apply the same explanations nowadays, we would consider such thoughts or ideas from individuals in our time and from big cities to be irrational based on ignorance. Such thoughts can be logical on the otherhand as long we set up the syllogism appropriately such as:
1. All thunder and lightning is caused by Zeus
2. there is thunder and lightning in Florida
con: The lightning and thunder in florida is caused by Zeus
The statement is logical but utterly irrational. Just something to think about next time we try and use logic and rationality in our arguments.
Logic is simply a method of reasoning but there are three types of logic: deduction, induction and abduction. Deduction is deriving the conclusions from the premises. Here is an example:
Premise A: All men are evil
Premise B: Plato is a man
Conclusion: Plato is evil
Its a simple syllogism of three steps. The conclusion is necessary from the premises, in other words, there is no new knowledge gained in the process. The statement itself can be perfectally valid, meaning if you don't assume the existence of anything outside of the statement. The problem occurs at the empirical level, the statement might not be true when applied to the real world. Like above, not all men are evil so the conclusion is not necessary because Plato might or might not be evil. In other words, deductive logic doesn't fully work in the real world but makes for a powerful tool in philosophical discussion and speculation.
Induction is deriving the conclusion from the most probable facts. For example:
Premise A: Where there is smoke there is fire
Example: Like in the kitchen
Counter Example: Unlike in the water
Observation: There is smoke on the hill
Conclusion: There is fire
Induction is a system of reasoning based on what is observed and what will most probably be the conclusion. The five step syllogism above comes to the conclusion based on observable and knowable situations. If there are situations where there is smoke but no fire the conclusion will not be absolute but might still be valid. In otherwords, the validity of the conclusion is not entirely based on the internal validity of the statement but with external validity found in the real world. While in deductive logic the premises must lead to the conclusion, in inductive logic the premises coupled with our intuition will most probably lead the conclusion. Inductive logic is the logic of probabilities. It is used by scientists to show the most probable conclusion.
The final system of logic is Abduction. Abduction begins with an hypothesis then works backward to find the if the hypothesis is correct. It is the method of reasoning used by scientists and researchers. For example:
Facts: If i throw something up it will come down
Hypothesis: There is an force which pulls objects towards each other
Or;
Facts: Human beings possess 98% genetic similarity to chimps
Hypothesis: Human beings over a period of time evolved away from chimps
Basically both those hypothesis are not more or less valid, from a strictly logical necessity prespective, from an idea that God does all the gravity or created us to be related to chimps. Essentially, Abduction is an attempt to develop a rationale for the facts, in fact Abduction does not possess any real logical validity. Induction is probabilities and deduction is internal structural necessity.
So what is rational? Rational has less to do with deductive logic and more to do with common sense based on the wealth of knowledge availible to us. For example, 3000 years ago it was rational to believe that lightning and thunder was rained down by Zeus or the rumbling volcano are the mighty Titans of myth trying to break out of the chains that have them bound in Tartarus. This is not the case if we apply the same explanations nowadays, we would consider such thoughts or ideas from individuals in our time and from big cities to be irrational based on ignorance. Such thoughts can be logical on the otherhand as long we set up the syllogism appropriately such as:
1. All thunder and lightning is caused by Zeus
2. there is thunder and lightning in Florida
con: The lightning and thunder in florida is caused by Zeus
The statement is logical but utterly irrational. Just something to think about next time we try and use logic and rationality in our arguments.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Identity?
One of the most comforting things in human existence is the feeling of belonging. Belonging to a family, circle of friends, relationship, community, culture and so on. The simple explanation why we gain comfort from this feeling is that it allows us to connect and feel we are not alone in our journey and lives. Life is unpredictible and turbulent ride but maybe worse its a lonely one because thats our nature. Our individual experiences are just that OUR experiences, it is nigh impossible to convey those experiences to others. Our words can't do them justice, in fact it is only a rudimentary approximation of our experience. For example, when someone licks a scoop of ice cream it is a totally different experience from another person. Why, since most if not all of us might have had chocolate ice cream? When each of has some of the ice cream we all have a history with it. Someone's first experience of ice cream might have been with their parent who is no longer with them, so that taste of ice cream triggers that memory and emotion in them aside from the simple taste. Another person might have a memory with their lover and suddenly that same ice cream has a sensual element to it. How can we convey that to each other? Well, I don't think we can, if we can't convey our full experience of something as simple as ice cream how can convey those parts of us that are so much deeper and fundamental to what makes us, us.
I'm not saying that we cannot connect with each other, quite the opposite, I think most of us can connect very strongly with each other in a very surface level. Most people find the least common denominator to make that connection. Hence, the cultural connections or community connections but most of these connections are superfical at best because people don't understand the background or the basis of that connection. For example, what does it mean to be American? Freedom, liberty, love of america, democracy? Or how about Indian? bollywood, religion, one of the thousand languages of India, indian ancestory? People don't ask these questions to themselves because they fear what the answer will be: that they don't know.
Whats even funnier or sadder is that many people that don't question this part of their own identity are the strongest to defend their "cultural" superiority and impose upon themselves restrictions based on these cultural factors. For example, many Indians align themselves along caste, linguistic or religious lines and refuse to cross it when it comes to marriage, even when they don't know anything beyond the base level of those distinctions. A gujarati hindu patel will only pursue a gujarati hindu patel even when they don't know anything besides the gujarati language, as if language cannot be learned or a culture adopted. (yes, i am speaking in generalities but one need only look at any of the thousands of matrimonial ads that are spread across all indian newspapers and my point will be shown).
To be fair, the problem is not that these people who stick to such rudimentary connections are fundamentally wrong, rather it is they are ignorant and as we all know ignorance is the source of fear and fear is the fountainhead of insecurity and when people are insecure they cling to whatever they think will make them feel a sense of comfort. People with a wider and more diverse experience of the abundance that is human existence coupled with an inquistive mind will more often than not be open to expanding their identity beyond what they know or feel comfortable in. What is my point in this long monologue? I guess what my friend is trying to say is that true love is blind....(an Old School reference) . j/k. My point is this, our base identity should be something that is inclusive and allows us to genuinely enjoy and experience the splendor of all human culture, and if I may make a grander jump to experience all of the natural world's cultures of our animal brethern, instead of viewing them as something we lord over. Once we gain a larger and more "universal" identity, other people's experiences will start to become yours, you'll be able to empathize and at some level understand them better. Or maybe the other alternative is to nullify our identities and just be, as is the goal of eastern thought and that ends this session of the Mukunda Monologues....
I'm not saying that we cannot connect with each other, quite the opposite, I think most of us can connect very strongly with each other in a very surface level. Most people find the least common denominator to make that connection. Hence, the cultural connections or community connections but most of these connections are superfical at best because people don't understand the background or the basis of that connection. For example, what does it mean to be American? Freedom, liberty, love of america, democracy? Or how about Indian? bollywood, religion, one of the thousand languages of India, indian ancestory? People don't ask these questions to themselves because they fear what the answer will be: that they don't know.
Whats even funnier or sadder is that many people that don't question this part of their own identity are the strongest to defend their "cultural" superiority and impose upon themselves restrictions based on these cultural factors. For example, many Indians align themselves along caste, linguistic or religious lines and refuse to cross it when it comes to marriage, even when they don't know anything beyond the base level of those distinctions. A gujarati hindu patel will only pursue a gujarati hindu patel even when they don't know anything besides the gujarati language, as if language cannot be learned or a culture adopted. (yes, i am speaking in generalities but one need only look at any of the thousands of matrimonial ads that are spread across all indian newspapers and my point will be shown).
To be fair, the problem is not that these people who stick to such rudimentary connections are fundamentally wrong, rather it is they are ignorant and as we all know ignorance is the source of fear and fear is the fountainhead of insecurity and when people are insecure they cling to whatever they think will make them feel a sense of comfort. People with a wider and more diverse experience of the abundance that is human existence coupled with an inquistive mind will more often than not be open to expanding their identity beyond what they know or feel comfortable in. What is my point in this long monologue? I guess what my friend is trying to say is that true love is blind....(an Old School reference) . j/k. My point is this, our base identity should be something that is inclusive and allows us to genuinely enjoy and experience the splendor of all human culture, and if I may make a grander jump to experience all of the natural world's cultures of our animal brethern, instead of viewing them as something we lord over. Once we gain a larger and more "universal" identity, other people's experiences will start to become yours, you'll be able to empathize and at some level understand them better. Or maybe the other alternative is to nullify our identities and just be, as is the goal of eastern thought and that ends this session of the Mukunda Monologues....
Universal Religions?....
Of late I've had a few thoughts on the nature of religions and their various claims to truth. All the major religions of the religion all assert that their religion is the exclusive possessor of the truth and thereby understanding of the true reality. They furthermore assert that their faith is the universal faith, that the Divine spoke to their people and to their people alone espoused the truth. Now, lets try and examine this claim. So in essence, the one supreme all powerful all knowing Being who is the foundation of all existence chose such and such people in all the universe/s to the exclusion of others to know and propound the truth? There is a certain level of hubris and irrationality to such a view.
Let's try and take Christianity and Judaism and see how this idea above is exemplified in it. According to Christianity and Judaism (here i'm refering to almost all branchs of Christianity including catholicism and orthodox), God created the universe and chose out of the infinite number of universes and planets to build a special relationship with one group of people and they are considered the chosen people, favored by God. Given the vastness of existence/universe, it flys in the face of logic, probability and the idea of a universal Supreme Being to behave in such a manner. In otherwords, all other peoples and beings in the universe are conversely not the chosen people and as such they are denied entry into the kingdom of God.
Considering the role of Jesus in Christianity makes the universality of Christianity even harder to accept. If you can only get to the Father through Jesus then what happens to all the people in the world who haven't heard of jesus? The church takes the stance that people before Jesus will be judged by their hearts and deeds but people after Jesus must accept Him in order to be granted the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The true key to a universal religion is that it must be universal, surprising? Any person anywhere should have a chance at having access to the Divine in order for the religion to be universal. An hypothetical alien on the other side of the universe must be able to gain that divine access if the religion is to be considered universal. Such isn't the case with Christianity, Islam and Judaism because they are throughly dependant upon the history and personalities (Jesus, Mohammed and Moses) that were born on this earth in a specific time and culture.
This begs the question if a faith isn't universal then can it accurately present the truth and can it have the true understanding of reality? I think the answer is no, a claim that involves a universal truth such as the nature of reality or God must necessarily not be limited by time, location or people. What was true at the beginning must also be true in the middle and the end. What is true to earth must be true to the rest of the cosmos. This is why science is accorded the status of a universal method of reasoning because it establishes rules/principles that govern the natural world. The principles that are true for earth are true for mars, or any other planet in the universe.
Hinduism and Buddhism would be more universal faiths in that regard because their history, personalities or culture don't limit their view of reality and the Divine. Krishna and Buddha are the two personality associated with the respective faiths. The difference between these two personalities and the above mentioned ones are that Krishna and Buddha did not require others to accept their divinity or status to have a connection to the divine. Krishna says unequivocally in the Gita that however anyone worships the Divine (Krishna claims to be that Divine Supreme Being) in that same way the Divine will appear before them. In essence, Krishna even affirms the perceptions of divinity that Christianity, Islam and Judaism because he states that he is the source of all divinity and as such appears in an infinite number of manners based upon the experiencer. Buddha is different because he isn't concerned so much with the theological and metaphysical views of the universe but is more concerned with the way to end suffering. As such he approaches divinity as freedom from suffering and bondage of dualities. This is the same goal in Hindu thought freedom from what is known as samsara or the cycle of bondage/ignorance. The goal isn't salvation from sin but the goal is knowledge and through knowledge the intuitive understanding of reality which will free one from the perspective of mundane existence.
This is not to say that Hinduism and Buddhism do not have religious experiences to them. They have very strong religious experiences such as worship and prayers to various divinities. Hinduism has strong adherence to the Vedas or Puranas or Agamas. The Vedas are considered apaurushya or "unauthored by man". They are considered the very breath of the Supreme because within them is considered to contain the understanding of reality. They are not dictated by God but are viewed to have been the eternal truths experienced by ancient seers, who in deep commune with the Universe experiences these truths. Furthermore, the Vedas themselves say that they can only give one an outline of reality because reality is beyond words and language.
The difference is that both Hinduism and Buddhism recognize that there are infinite paths to the same location and the paths are based upon the capabilities and inclincations of the individuals. In other words, revelation is not limited a specific people or accepting a specific set of beliefs or specific time or place. An alien outside the milky way galaxy can gain the same insight as someone from our own world whether or not he knows of or accepts Krishna or Buddha or any of the other personalities or divinities accepted by Hindus or Buddhists. For in Hindu or Buddhist thought does not require such acceptance. In other words, FREE YOUR MIND and allow it to inquire and question existence, find your kernel of truth but know its only a part of the truth. Even if there is an objective external reality or truth outside of us, we will never know it if we continue to stay confined to our specific perspective.
Let's try and take Christianity and Judaism and see how this idea above is exemplified in it. According to Christianity and Judaism (here i'm refering to almost all branchs of Christianity including catholicism and orthodox), God created the universe and chose out of the infinite number of universes and planets to build a special relationship with one group of people and they are considered the chosen people, favored by God. Given the vastness of existence/universe, it flys in the face of logic, probability and the idea of a universal Supreme Being to behave in such a manner. In otherwords, all other peoples and beings in the universe are conversely not the chosen people and as such they are denied entry into the kingdom of God.
Considering the role of Jesus in Christianity makes the universality of Christianity even harder to accept. If you can only get to the Father through Jesus then what happens to all the people in the world who haven't heard of jesus? The church takes the stance that people before Jesus will be judged by their hearts and deeds but people after Jesus must accept Him in order to be granted the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The true key to a universal religion is that it must be universal, surprising? Any person anywhere should have a chance at having access to the Divine in order for the religion to be universal. An hypothetical alien on the other side of the universe must be able to gain that divine access if the religion is to be considered universal. Such isn't the case with Christianity, Islam and Judaism because they are throughly dependant upon the history and personalities (Jesus, Mohammed and Moses) that were born on this earth in a specific time and culture.
This begs the question if a faith isn't universal then can it accurately present the truth and can it have the true understanding of reality? I think the answer is no, a claim that involves a universal truth such as the nature of reality or God must necessarily not be limited by time, location or people. What was true at the beginning must also be true in the middle and the end. What is true to earth must be true to the rest of the cosmos. This is why science is accorded the status of a universal method of reasoning because it establishes rules/principles that govern the natural world. The principles that are true for earth are true for mars, or any other planet in the universe.
Hinduism and Buddhism would be more universal faiths in that regard because their history, personalities or culture don't limit their view of reality and the Divine. Krishna and Buddha are the two personality associated with the respective faiths. The difference between these two personalities and the above mentioned ones are that Krishna and Buddha did not require others to accept their divinity or status to have a connection to the divine. Krishna says unequivocally in the Gita that however anyone worships the Divine (Krishna claims to be that Divine Supreme Being) in that same way the Divine will appear before them. In essence, Krishna even affirms the perceptions of divinity that Christianity, Islam and Judaism because he states that he is the source of all divinity and as such appears in an infinite number of manners based upon the experiencer. Buddha is different because he isn't concerned so much with the theological and metaphysical views of the universe but is more concerned with the way to end suffering. As such he approaches divinity as freedom from suffering and bondage of dualities. This is the same goal in Hindu thought freedom from what is known as samsara or the cycle of bondage/ignorance. The goal isn't salvation from sin but the goal is knowledge and through knowledge the intuitive understanding of reality which will free one from the perspective of mundane existence.
This is not to say that Hinduism and Buddhism do not have religious experiences to them. They have very strong religious experiences such as worship and prayers to various divinities. Hinduism has strong adherence to the Vedas or Puranas or Agamas. The Vedas are considered apaurushya or "unauthored by man". They are considered the very breath of the Supreme because within them is considered to contain the understanding of reality. They are not dictated by God but are viewed to have been the eternal truths experienced by ancient seers, who in deep commune with the Universe experiences these truths. Furthermore, the Vedas themselves say that they can only give one an outline of reality because reality is beyond words and language.
The difference is that both Hinduism and Buddhism recognize that there are infinite paths to the same location and the paths are based upon the capabilities and inclincations of the individuals. In other words, revelation is not limited a specific people or accepting a specific set of beliefs or specific time or place. An alien outside the milky way galaxy can gain the same insight as someone from our own world whether or not he knows of or accepts Krishna or Buddha or any of the other personalities or divinities accepted by Hindus or Buddhists. For in Hindu or Buddhist thought does not require such acceptance. In other words, FREE YOUR MIND and allow it to inquire and question existence, find your kernel of truth but know its only a part of the truth. Even if there is an objective external reality or truth outside of us, we will never know it if we continue to stay confined to our specific perspective.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Death
When someone you know dies, we naturally think about death in relation to us and those we care about. It is a selfish and entirely self-motivated exercise. We, superfically place ourselves in the mindset of the person who lost their loved one so we can try and empathize. It might be the only way we can relate to someone who has to endure a loss. Recently, my dad's best friend's wife died of cancer. She was strong woman who fought off breast cancer, then brain tumor but couldn't fight off lung cancer which finally beat her this past friday morning.
Her son was one of my best friends as a kid. His father and my father went to college together and were best friends, they got married a day apart. They went to their honeymoon together with their wives. His son is a month older than me and we grew up together. The first thing that popped into my mind when I heard was the typical "I can't imagine what they are going through". That was followed by how would I feel if I was in his position but even that thought was superfical because I didn't wanna follow through with that thought because how can it feel to never see the person who brought you into this world and protected you from the world before you could even control your limbs. The person who no matter what you do will never turn their back on you and from whom you can always receive comfort and love. She would sacrifice her life and everything else just to make sure you are happy and safe.
I'm not sure what he can be going through and it made me think more about how much we take for granted our parents and at some level assume their immortality in our lives. The amount of stress and pain they've endured for us, is something amazing. Our parents came from India into a world they didn't know and found a way to give us a stable life and happiness. We can't fully understand the mental turmoil that they endured because we didn't come from a entirely different culture and have to assimilate into an unknown world. The sacrifices they made will will never really know but we take for granted. I think more and more I'm understanding why the mother is considered the most important individual in anyone's life. Our understanding of God comes from our understanding of our mother. She is unconditional in her love for her child, sadly most of us recognize that and we take advantage of it. We do things we know will hurt our parents and we do them anyway because we know for the most part they will always be with us. They are the only thing in our lives that give us that unconditional love and when they are gone...then what? I called my friend and said whatever I could given that you don't know what to say to someone who has just lost the person for whom they were the entire world. To never see, touch, smell, hear or feel again.....except in memory and even that fades. I could add some wisdom but I'm not sure there is anything to say outside of a rationalization in our own minds but I think the emotions that one can feel if you place yourself in those shoes are more than enough.....
Her son was one of my best friends as a kid. His father and my father went to college together and were best friends, they got married a day apart. They went to their honeymoon together with their wives. His son is a month older than me and we grew up together. The first thing that popped into my mind when I heard was the typical "I can't imagine what they are going through". That was followed by how would I feel if I was in his position but even that thought was superfical because I didn't wanna follow through with that thought because how can it feel to never see the person who brought you into this world and protected you from the world before you could even control your limbs. The person who no matter what you do will never turn their back on you and from whom you can always receive comfort and love. She would sacrifice her life and everything else just to make sure you are happy and safe.
I'm not sure what he can be going through and it made me think more about how much we take for granted our parents and at some level assume their immortality in our lives. The amount of stress and pain they've endured for us, is something amazing. Our parents came from India into a world they didn't know and found a way to give us a stable life and happiness. We can't fully understand the mental turmoil that they endured because we didn't come from a entirely different culture and have to assimilate into an unknown world. The sacrifices they made will will never really know but we take for granted. I think more and more I'm understanding why the mother is considered the most important individual in anyone's life. Our understanding of God comes from our understanding of our mother. She is unconditional in her love for her child, sadly most of us recognize that and we take advantage of it. We do things we know will hurt our parents and we do them anyway because we know for the most part they will always be with us. They are the only thing in our lives that give us that unconditional love and when they are gone...then what? I called my friend and said whatever I could given that you don't know what to say to someone who has just lost the person for whom they were the entire world. To never see, touch, smell, hear or feel again.....except in memory and even that fades. I could add some wisdom but I'm not sure there is anything to say outside of a rationalization in our own minds but I think the emotions that one can feel if you place yourself in those shoes are more than enough.....
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Consciousness: The Final Frontier (Part 2)
Continuing from the previous post let me give a few more interesting facts about consciousness and the brain. Ramachandran describes in his book patients whose had Capgras Syndrome, which in which the connection to the fusiform gyros (the part of the brain that deals with our facial recognition) was damaged. This patient, whose memory was intact and was able to perceive and recognize faces, would think that his mother was not his mother whenever he saw her. He thought that she was someone else who had come to deceive him because whenever he saw her he did not have the emotions he normally does upon seeing his mother. So this poses another problem for us, is the emotional factor something that is integral to the definition and understanding of consciousness? Is it an epiphenomena or necessary element?
Another interesting syndrome is synesthesia, which is when the individual's brain has some cross wiring and they experience different things than we do for normal stimuli. To clarify further, when we listen to music we hear it but those with the above condition will see a color. Another example of this is mixing up pain and pleasure, if you hit someone and cause pain, they will laugh. Again this shows that our perceptions and how we understand the world is entirely under the dominion of our brains/mind.
Clearly emotion is connected to the mind but the question is how? It is a function of the brain, probably due to our evolutionary past, fear probably being the most base emotion from which all emotions may spring from. Anger is correlated with the activation of various cortizols and adrenaline in the body and the recirculation of blood flow to prepare for fighting. Fear does the same but to flee. Happiness is correlated with activation and emission of endorphins and other neurochemicals. Recent studies also show that genes might play a vital role on happiness. The brain controls all these functions of emotions, in an unconscious way.
Ok, well now lets try and address the questions I came upon above. First, from the above I think it appears that consciousness is the property of the mind/brain. The examples given above show that what we normally term to be key arguments for the existence of soul such as laughter, emotion, perception and so on are all dependent on the brain. If a few things in the brain are damaged or meddled with we will have a vastly different experience than we do now. Emotions can be "removed", our perceptions can become contradictory (seeing colors when we hear notes, laughing when being hurt), experiencing God and so on. Doesn't this all destroy the notion of soul?
Well, now we get into the realm of philosophy because it does destroy a few conceptions of the soul but not all. If the soul is linked with emotions, perceptions, memories individual identity and such then it strongly calls into question if such a soul really exists. Descartes notion of mind/body distinction is rendered untenable because the evidence shows that a mind/body distinction doesn't really exist. Our minds exist entirely dependent on our brains, and for the most part are the same thing (unless one day we can "download" our minds into computers and other things/beings but that is the realm of science fiction for now). Are we infact machines and only machines as Dawkins and Dennent contend (super simplification of their very powerful and intricate arguments)?
I'm not so sure. Now is the time as in all my posts that I bring forth some ancient Indian wisdom and philosophy, I mean after all India did invent everything :). Vedanta, end of all vedas or knowledge (VEDA = knowledge and Anta = End) delves into determining what is the soul and what is consciousness, it is not scientific but rather speculative and logical. Shankara in his great Vedanta Sutra Bhasya (commentary on the aphorisms of Vedanta) delves into the discussion of what is the soul. He and other Indian thinkers came to the base concept that the soul is the I, not the Individual Identity but the notion of I, first person experience. Similarly consciousness is the "I"ness, the very act or ability to know or experience. Emotions, Identity (Individual), memories and such are all products of the mind. The mind is distinct from the soul. The Samkhya system of Indian philosophy postulates 8 senses: sight, scent, touch, taste, hearing, intellect, mind and Ego. The Ego is ones personality and individual identity, this is understood by Hindu thinkers to be connected to the body. The Individual Identity or Self is an illusion, has no real existence. Shankara also takes it one step further and says that even the notion of first person experience is an illusion and all there is pure consciousness, this is where many Hindu schools of philosophy differ. But that is another topic.
Similarly, Hindu thought also places free will into the realm of illusion because in truth there is no action. I'll avoid the theological explanations and stick to the philosophical view (although they do go hand in hand). The notion is that we are not really acting because we are really instruments of Being and are also free intrinsically of "bondage" only we don't know it cause we are deluded by the world of illusion we live in. Illusion in this sense is not a ontological illusion (meaning its not inherent in the universe itself) but its a psychological illusion. The I thinks its acting because it experiences the universe in relation and through the brain and body, as such it mistakes the body and brains action for its own. Furthermore, the "I" sees itself as separate from all things and independent of all things when it is caught in state of interdependence (theologically it is also considered dependent on the Supreme Spirit). The idea is that true nature of existence is the "I" or consciousness both as a quality and substance. The I experiences the world through the body and brain but is not touched by it. Its difficult to grasp so I'll try with another example much like the water exists in the world but condition by the form (solid, liquid and gas) yet remains untouched and water still, so does the soul or "I" exist in bodies and brains yet remain untouched. Hopefully that offers some thought and insight or brings more questions, which is great. Any comments are appreciated.
Another interesting syndrome is synesthesia, which is when the individual's brain has some cross wiring and they experience different things than we do for normal stimuli. To clarify further, when we listen to music we hear it but those with the above condition will see a color. Another example of this is mixing up pain and pleasure, if you hit someone and cause pain, they will laugh. Again this shows that our perceptions and how we understand the world is entirely under the dominion of our brains/mind.
Clearly emotion is connected to the mind but the question is how? It is a function of the brain, probably due to our evolutionary past, fear probably being the most base emotion from which all emotions may spring from. Anger is correlated with the activation of various cortizols and adrenaline in the body and the recirculation of blood flow to prepare for fighting. Fear does the same but to flee. Happiness is correlated with activation and emission of endorphins and other neurochemicals. Recent studies also show that genes might play a vital role on happiness. The brain controls all these functions of emotions, in an unconscious way.
Ok, well now lets try and address the questions I came upon above. First, from the above I think it appears that consciousness is the property of the mind/brain. The examples given above show that what we normally term to be key arguments for the existence of soul such as laughter, emotion, perception and so on are all dependent on the brain. If a few things in the brain are damaged or meddled with we will have a vastly different experience than we do now. Emotions can be "removed", our perceptions can become contradictory (seeing colors when we hear notes, laughing when being hurt), experiencing God and so on. Doesn't this all destroy the notion of soul?
Well, now we get into the realm of philosophy because it does destroy a few conceptions of the soul but not all. If the soul is linked with emotions, perceptions, memories individual identity and such then it strongly calls into question if such a soul really exists. Descartes notion of mind/body distinction is rendered untenable because the evidence shows that a mind/body distinction doesn't really exist. Our minds exist entirely dependent on our brains, and for the most part are the same thing (unless one day we can "download" our minds into computers and other things/beings but that is the realm of science fiction for now). Are we infact machines and only machines as Dawkins and Dennent contend (super simplification of their very powerful and intricate arguments)?
I'm not so sure. Now is the time as in all my posts that I bring forth some ancient Indian wisdom and philosophy, I mean after all India did invent everything :). Vedanta, end of all vedas or knowledge (VEDA = knowledge and Anta = End) delves into determining what is the soul and what is consciousness, it is not scientific but rather speculative and logical. Shankara in his great Vedanta Sutra Bhasya (commentary on the aphorisms of Vedanta) delves into the discussion of what is the soul. He and other Indian thinkers came to the base concept that the soul is the I, not the Individual Identity but the notion of I, first person experience. Similarly consciousness is the "I"ness, the very act or ability to know or experience. Emotions, Identity (Individual), memories and such are all products of the mind. The mind is distinct from the soul. The Samkhya system of Indian philosophy postulates 8 senses: sight, scent, touch, taste, hearing, intellect, mind and Ego. The Ego is ones personality and individual identity, this is understood by Hindu thinkers to be connected to the body. The Individual Identity or Self is an illusion, has no real existence. Shankara also takes it one step further and says that even the notion of first person experience is an illusion and all there is pure consciousness, this is where many Hindu schools of philosophy differ. But that is another topic.
Similarly, Hindu thought also places free will into the realm of illusion because in truth there is no action. I'll avoid the theological explanations and stick to the philosophical view (although they do go hand in hand). The notion is that we are not really acting because we are really instruments of Being and are also free intrinsically of "bondage" only we don't know it cause we are deluded by the world of illusion we live in. Illusion in this sense is not a ontological illusion (meaning its not inherent in the universe itself) but its a psychological illusion. The I thinks its acting because it experiences the universe in relation and through the brain and body, as such it mistakes the body and brains action for its own. Furthermore, the "I" sees itself as separate from all things and independent of all things when it is caught in state of interdependence (theologically it is also considered dependent on the Supreme Spirit). The idea is that true nature of existence is the "I" or consciousness both as a quality and substance. The I experiences the world through the body and brain but is not touched by it. Its difficult to grasp so I'll try with another example much like the water exists in the world but condition by the form (solid, liquid and gas) yet remains untouched and water still, so does the soul or "I" exist in bodies and brains yet remain untouched. Hopefully that offers some thought and insight or brings more questions, which is great. Any comments are appreciated.
Consciousness: The Final Frontier (Part 1)
Its been a few weeks, well, actually a month since I've last wrote but in the interm I have been doing some reading and thinking. More reading than thinking because my cognitive process is pretty sporadic and short lived. In the last few weeks, I've been reading a lot about biology. Specifically, evolution and neuroscience. First off, my disclaimer I am not a scientist nor an individual who does research or possesses any technical knowledge about these areas. I am merely someone who reads as much as possible about these issues and thinks about them. One of the issues I've been reading about a lot and thinking about is consciousness.
For many years the study of consciousness has been lacking and ignored by the scientific community but in the past couple decades it has come to the forefront. It has been heralded by many scientists as the next great revolution in scientific thinking and progress, the first four being Copernacian, Darwinian, Freudian and Einsteinian/Bohrian (my own addition). I am going to try and be methodical and structured about my thoughts on this subject. So bear with me.Consciousness refers to the quality of the mind to perceive and possess subjective experiences such as thought (in general), emotions, language, awareness and self-awareness. Before we delve into consciousness, I think a basic discussion of the mind is needed.
Most of modern thought and even more adamantly western religion has believed in the dichotomy of mind and body. The mind is fundamentally different from the body and vice versa. This was most staunchly defended and argued by Rene DesCartes . This is called the Cartesian Dualism or the Mind-Body Distinction. His argument is rather intricate and delves into res cognitans and res extensia so I'll avoid that. In brief he argues that just as the body has its root in all things extension (material) so does the mind have its root in all things thinking (mind stuff) which is another name for the soul. They are connected through the pineal gland in the brain or so goes his theory. He even goes further and disavows perception and only admits deduction as how to know a thing. In otherwords, he (the thinking thing) is all that can be affirmed, his longer argument for why he can accept his perceptions involves his view of God and will not be needed here.I only used Descartes to show the philosophical basis for having mind as the object of consideration. Descartes and even most western thinkers place the mind and the soul as synonmous. It is the soul that thinks and the soul that acts and the soul that does all. This is a concept we will return to later.
Now, modern science agrees that the locus of study for consciousness should be the mind and the basis of the mind is the brain. Yep, all 3 pounds of an average human brain is the basis of the mind. Science is and should be about what can be observed, tested and explained. With that foundation, neuroscience attempts and has been providing evidence and data that our minds are nothing more than the bundle of synaptic exchanges in our brains. For example, a study by Ben Libet shows that 500-600 milliseconds before you "decide" to move, the unconscious part of your brain has already begun the action of moving. In otherwords, your thought of moving comes after beginning the movement. So what of free will? I'll come back to that later.
In the book Phantoms of the Mind, Dr. VS Ramachandran of UCSD presents evidence of various experiments that he has conducted in regards to the question of consciousness. He and other researchers have shown that feelings of devotion and spiritual sensations can be stimulated in people by sending electrical impulses through the patient's temporal lobes, they call this the God module. This God Module can either be used to support or contest God. Religious supporters say that its how God makes himself known to us while detractors say it is nature's way to make people more subservient and clan oriented. Another thing is that when parts of the brain which control our spatial perceptions (for us to interact in this 4-D world the brain has to be able to "read" all the spatial-temporal information and create in our minds what we see) are probed or affected, the patients experience of the world expands and the patient has feelings of oneness with the universe and being everywhere at once. This is the basic science stuff in the next post I'll try and deal with issues that all of this brought forth.
For many years the study of consciousness has been lacking and ignored by the scientific community but in the past couple decades it has come to the forefront. It has been heralded by many scientists as the next great revolution in scientific thinking and progress, the first four being Copernacian, Darwinian, Freudian and Einsteinian/Bohrian (my own addition). I am going to try and be methodical and structured about my thoughts on this subject. So bear with me.Consciousness refers to the quality of the mind to perceive and possess subjective experiences such as thought (in general), emotions, language, awareness and self-awareness. Before we delve into consciousness, I think a basic discussion of the mind is needed.
Most of modern thought and even more adamantly western religion has believed in the dichotomy of mind and body. The mind is fundamentally different from the body and vice versa. This was most staunchly defended and argued by Rene DesCartes . This is called the Cartesian Dualism or the Mind-Body Distinction. His argument is rather intricate and delves into res cognitans and res extensia so I'll avoid that. In brief he argues that just as the body has its root in all things extension (material) so does the mind have its root in all things thinking (mind stuff) which is another name for the soul. They are connected through the pineal gland in the brain or so goes his theory. He even goes further and disavows perception and only admits deduction as how to know a thing. In otherwords, he (the thinking thing) is all that can be affirmed, his longer argument for why he can accept his perceptions involves his view of God and will not be needed here.I only used Descartes to show the philosophical basis for having mind as the object of consideration. Descartes and even most western thinkers place the mind and the soul as synonmous. It is the soul that thinks and the soul that acts and the soul that does all. This is a concept we will return to later.
Now, modern science agrees that the locus of study for consciousness should be the mind and the basis of the mind is the brain. Yep, all 3 pounds of an average human brain is the basis of the mind. Science is and should be about what can be observed, tested and explained. With that foundation, neuroscience attempts and has been providing evidence and data that our minds are nothing more than the bundle of synaptic exchanges in our brains. For example, a study by Ben Libet shows that 500-600 milliseconds before you "decide" to move, the unconscious part of your brain has already begun the action of moving. In otherwords, your thought of moving comes after beginning the movement. So what of free will? I'll come back to that later.
In the book Phantoms of the Mind, Dr. VS Ramachandran of UCSD presents evidence of various experiments that he has conducted in regards to the question of consciousness. He and other researchers have shown that feelings of devotion and spiritual sensations can be stimulated in people by sending electrical impulses through the patient's temporal lobes, they call this the God module. This God Module can either be used to support or contest God. Religious supporters say that its how God makes himself known to us while detractors say it is nature's way to make people more subservient and clan oriented. Another thing is that when parts of the brain which control our spatial perceptions (for us to interact in this 4-D world the brain has to be able to "read" all the spatial-temporal information and create in our minds what we see) are probed or affected, the patients experience of the world expands and the patient has feelings of oneness with the universe and being everywhere at once. This is the basic science stuff in the next post I'll try and deal with issues that all of this brought forth.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Plague of Casteism, Part 2
In the last post I began talking about caste in Indian Society. Caste was a way to control what was considered by the Indian world to be the greatest resource, knowledge. Knowledge is the doorway to enlightenment and moksha, which is why it seemed to so important to control. Secondly, caste became a way to explain all the inequalities in the world. Why are some people born in poor and uneducated families? The caste system explained that it was due to the fruits of previous lives. An untouchable is an untouchable because they committed evil deeds in their past and therefore had to be born as an untouchable to reap those fruits. It is a very self-affirming system.
The first three castes (brahmana, kshatriya and vaishya) were also called dvijas or twice born. Upon reaching maturity dependant on the caste, these three castes were invested with the sacred thread which allowed them to gain Vedic Education and entry into Spiritual Knowledge. Sudras and the Untouchables were denied this and thereby denied the ability to gain moksha and spiritual knowledge, according to the traditional view. They were considered impure and spiritually inferior. Shankaracharya, the 8th century mystic and paramount philosopher, also felt that non-dvijas and women cannot receive salvation because they were denied access to the Vedas and Vedic Knowledge. It was not until Ramanujacharya, a 11th century mystic, reformer and philosoper, that the orthodoxy threw open the doors of salvation to all people. Ramanuja argued that devotion and self-surrender was the key to salvation and all people are entitled to that. Following him were scores of reformers who tried to eradicate caste from Hindu and Indian mind but sadly it hasn't had the effect that is needed.
To this day, caste exists even though it is a legal non-entity. It exists in the mind of many hindus and if it exists in their mind then it will issue out into their actions and social views. Caste is the one massive anchor which is weighing Hinduism down from achieving its place as the Universal faith. Caste is social, spiritual and religious evil that has plagued hinduism for nearly 2600 years. It is about time that it is destroyed and wiped off the face of this earth. We have to confront this evil as we would any other evil or oppressive force, with unwavering conviction and courage to fight it with all our abilities. The weapons to combat this evil are education and compassion but ultimately it is acceptance of this evil and the ability to show its proponents how caste stands in opposition to everything Hindu Spirituality is. The task is set but now is the time to began the battle.
The first three castes (brahmana, kshatriya and vaishya) were also called dvijas or twice born. Upon reaching maturity dependant on the caste, these three castes were invested with the sacred thread which allowed them to gain Vedic Education and entry into Spiritual Knowledge. Sudras and the Untouchables were denied this and thereby denied the ability to gain moksha and spiritual knowledge, according to the traditional view. They were considered impure and spiritually inferior. Shankaracharya, the 8th century mystic and paramount philosopher, also felt that non-dvijas and women cannot receive salvation because they were denied access to the Vedas and Vedic Knowledge. It was not until Ramanujacharya, a 11th century mystic, reformer and philosoper, that the orthodoxy threw open the doors of salvation to all people. Ramanuja argued that devotion and self-surrender was the key to salvation and all people are entitled to that. Following him were scores of reformers who tried to eradicate caste from Hindu and Indian mind but sadly it hasn't had the effect that is needed.
To this day, caste exists even though it is a legal non-entity. It exists in the mind of many hindus and if it exists in their mind then it will issue out into their actions and social views. Caste is the one massive anchor which is weighing Hinduism down from achieving its place as the Universal faith. Caste is social, spiritual and religious evil that has plagued hinduism for nearly 2600 years. It is about time that it is destroyed and wiped off the face of this earth. We have to confront this evil as we would any other evil or oppressive force, with unwavering conviction and courage to fight it with all our abilities. The weapons to combat this evil are education and compassion but ultimately it is acceptance of this evil and the ability to show its proponents how caste stands in opposition to everything Hindu Spirituality is. The task is set but now is the time to began the battle.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Plague of Casteism, Part 1
Caste, is quite possibly the next worse thing next to slavery in terms of what society as a whole can do it to its own people. The western world has some idea of caste if you have read the Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Basically, it is a division of society based on birth. In Brave New World, the civilized world is divided into Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta. This division is based on ones genetics, the people with the best genes are Alpha, better than average is Beta, average is Gamma and below average is Delta. Each caste can only take certain jobs and mate with people of their own caste. This is what the Indian caste system was like but worse.
The Indian caste system is based on the idea that one is born into a certain caste due to karma from previous lives. There are four castes in Hinduism: Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra. Brahmanas are the priests, philosophers, teachers, intellectuals and religious leaders. Kshatriyas are the warriors, nobles, soliders, kings, rulers and so on. Vaishyas are the farmers, merchants, money lenders, voyagers and so on. Sudras were the artisans, servants, menial workers and laborers. Finally, there are the outcastes or the untouchables, these people were treated just as their names imply. They were given jobs such as sewage cleaners, funeral workers and other such jobs. The castes according to medieval indian society/texts were not allowed to intermarry and in some cases interdine. Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were given superior education and spiritual roles/rights. Sudras were not allowed to partake in many of the religious training or rituals, let alone untouchables. Untouchables were considered soo polluted that if their shadow fell on you, you would have to take a bath. Next time i'll continue with this.
The Indian caste system is based on the idea that one is born into a certain caste due to karma from previous lives. There are four castes in Hinduism: Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra. Brahmanas are the priests, philosophers, teachers, intellectuals and religious leaders. Kshatriyas are the warriors, nobles, soliders, kings, rulers and so on. Vaishyas are the farmers, merchants, money lenders, voyagers and so on. Sudras were the artisans, servants, menial workers and laborers. Finally, there are the outcastes or the untouchables, these people were treated just as their names imply. They were given jobs such as sewage cleaners, funeral workers and other such jobs. The castes according to medieval indian society/texts were not allowed to intermarry and in some cases interdine. Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were given superior education and spiritual roles/rights. Sudras were not allowed to partake in many of the religious training or rituals, let alone untouchables. Untouchables were considered soo polluted that if their shadow fell on you, you would have to take a bath. Next time i'll continue with this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
