Colorful Senses

Mary is a scientist who has specialized in Vision and Colors. She knows everything there is to know about colors and vision; how we see objects, how light gets reflected, what neurons in the brain decipher the perceptual signals, what are colors, their wavelengths, their nature, their combination, etc. Anything you need to know on colors and vision, Mary has the answers. Yet, Mary herself is an achromat - she has no color vision. She views the world in just two colors; black and white. The cones in her eyes are not defective themselves; the part of her brain responsible for processing the color signals are defective. Of course, with advances in neuroscience and surgery, this can be fixed. Mary is all set for her surgery, curious to know how the world would look, bathed in all the colors she has meticulously studied. Hmmm... why would a scientist who has expansive knowledge of all colors, wonder how the colors would look like to her? Seems like despite knowing everything there is to know about colors, she still doesn't know quite a few aspects about these colors... (Source: "What Mary didn't know", by Frank Jackson)

This is quite a classic hypothetical scenario used by dualists (those who believe in two entities- mind and body, interacting with each other) to spark a debate with the physicalists (those who believe in only the existence of a body and try to explain/reduce mental states through physical states). I am a dualist (else I wouldn't be using the word Mind all over my blog;)). I do believe in an entity that is separate from a physical body, and assert that not all mental states can be reduced to physical states. Therefore I'm sure to bring in my biases as I put forth my views, but argue with me to help me question my biases :)


It's one thing to know about the physical attributes of perceptual stimuli but it's another aspect to feel them for yourself. Mary might know everything about the color green, yet when she sees a palette of colors, she needs her sensory stimuli to know which color is green. Beyond the work of her sensory stimuli (which is reducible to physical states), is a mental state - a feeling that is associated with the color green. This feeling is impossible to be measured and is highly subjective. This subjective qualitative experience of perceptual stimuli is called qualia.


A related aspect is the inverted spectrum problem. My visual experience of looking at green, might be your visual experience of looking at the color red. This can extend to many other experiences. Pain, happiness, taste, smell etc. I can read everything about a vegetable I have never tasted - I might have heard that it tastes sweet, crumbly and hard to chew... yet I wouldn't know the exact taste of the vegetable, and neither would I know what sweet and crumbly are, unless I've experienced them. I can ask millions to gather more adjectives, yet the essence of the taste cannot be verbalized, neither can it be expressed in physical terms. It is a combination of sensory experiences, that are quite subjective. With advances in Neuroscience, one can probably understand the neurons that fire when people eat an apple and can compare that against thousands of samples to statistically prove similarities in patterns. Yet, there is noway for us to prove that the quality of feelings associated with the neurons are the same.


Consider another example - we measure the activity of neurons when a standard bob pin is poked (using a uniform pressure) into 100 individual's arms (let's make this experiment clean by considering a homogeneous sample of same age, same, gender, same weight). The pain measured via the neurons being stimulated might look similar, yet if we are to ask the participants' rating of their pain, it is going to be highly subjective! There is no way to verify person X's feeling of the pain, with person Y's feeling of the pain! Don't they say it's all in the mind?! There are some brave souls out there going through surgery without anesthesia (in the name of hypnosis, but that is a tangential topic).


There is active research on transferring tactile sensations from expert to novice through haptic devices that try to replicate and simulate force-feedback sensations as experienced by the experts. Yet only a diluted extent of parameters are feasible to be measured (and precision is another issue). But let me not get too emphatic. With progress in neuroscience and haptics , maybe qualia can one day be expressed in physical terms. But the impossibility of verifying qualia against different people (unless we transpose from one body to another), still leaves the stone unturned.

An Incomplete Wish

Oh girl, a fairy tale was all that you wanted.

Trapped in a tower,

A possessive sorceress in power,

Vicious dragons all over,

Flaming ivies sending knights to cower

A fairy tale was all that you wanted.

Aye you wretched soul, how long does this battle wage?

As the sorceress fuels with unabated rage,

How large was an error in your gauge?

Many more eons await you in her cage,

Pucker up, this tale will run many a page,

After all, a fairy tale was all that you wanted.

Oh you girl shuddering beneath your window

Look down to see your knights defeated in woe

Brave they are, to face the dragon's fiery blow,

Alas, your tears are wasted on their fatal blow,

The agony of your pain doesn't vanish their vow,

But then, a fairy tale was all that you wanted.

Girl, don't you romanticize the action?

Isn't the drama to your satisfaction?

What are those angry sparks I see of friction?

Is that you breaking your shackles to end your predilection?

Pray, where will you land spurring the sorceress's affliction?

After all, a fairy tale was all that you wanted!

Bound you are to an eternal curse,

A curse that befalls no matter what your ruse,

Flee from your shackles, but the curse shall abuse,

Yet another runway of thorns, fear not the bruise,

Alas, trapped you are in a fairy tale you wished,

You foolish girl, you forgot to wish it to end.

Picasso on the Beach

As Roy looked down from the cliffs, he saw a man drawing on the sands of the beach. He peered closely to take a look at the image and his heart jumped a beat as he viewed the emerging drawing that showed multiples angles of an extraordinary face. It seemed like a Picasso! He lifted the binoculars to his eyes and he was dazed as if he was in a dream, for the man drawing on the beach was Picasso himself! He was painfully aware that the high tides of the beach would soon erase an original Picasso and his thoughts were racing to find some means to preserve the work of art. Well, he couldn't try to hold back the sea, nor could he try to save all the sand holding the drawing. He could perhaps run home and fetch a camera to record the picture, which would anyway just be a record copy and not the original. But if he did try to run home, he would never make it in time to save the work from the waves. Perhaps the only thing he could do was to enjoy the experience of the work of a magnificent piece of art from the master himself. Yet, Roy had mixed feelings and didn't know whether to smile or cry (Source: "In a Season of Calm Weather" by Ray Bradbury)


It's obvious from the excerpt that this is not exactly a puzzle to be solved; there isn't really a solution to Ray's dilemma. I guess the essence of this hypothetical scenario is to reflect on our views on art, the immortality we tend to associate to visual arts, and probably how the spirit and essence of participating/experiencing art is often overridden by the materialistic significance attached to the physical form of art.


Is it trivial of us humans to try and preserve Art? If Michelangelo's, Picasso's, Monet's works were not preserved, wouldn't our generation be deprived of reveling in their splendor? If Beethoven's, Mozart's and Bach's musical notes were never recorded, I would acknowledge that it is indeed a loss. But at some level, is the real spirit of the original piece lost when there are reproductions of these master pieces? There can be millions of color prints of Monet's paintings, but none of those come close to the actual piece, or is it really so? Is our intent behind preserving master pieces a vain attempt to immortalize the artist and the work, in a denial to acknowledge our own mortality, and the inevitable mortality of the physical form of art?


I've always seen the preservation/restoration of Art as one way of passing on a rich heritage and culture to the future generations. Art evokes sensory and spiritual pleasures and it seems quite reasonable for us to want to cherish the sensory treats and expose the next generation to those. So in that regard, was it a tragedy that Ray could not find a way to preserve the Picasso on the beach? It is indeed a loss for millions of art enthusiasts and future generations, but what Ray experienced is priceless in comparison to the loss. Ray not only got to view a masterpiece, he was also privileged to experience it's creation. The Native Americans believe that a part of our soul and spirit fuses into our creations. In that sense, Ray participated in the creation of the art work, thereby experiencing a level of spiritual and visual treat incomparable to just viewing the physical proof of the work.


I've always craved to see an artist at work; observing a painter from their very first stroke, a composer humming the very first set of notes to weave together a musical piece, even a cook starting from the very first ingredient... experiencing creativity is something subliminally beautiful and awe inspiring....at least to me. Another aspect which is special about visual arts is our perception that the significance of their portrayal is immortalized, coagulated in time. Is it an attempt to not acknowledge our mortality? Well, I feel it is our acknowledgment of mortality that creates a sense of awe on the art piece that was not only present before our lives, but will probably be so, even after the end of our lives.


The following beautiful lines from John Keats' immortal poem, Ode on the Grecian Urn is what comes to mind.
".....

Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave

Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;

Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,

Though winning near the goal—yet, do not grieve;

She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,

For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair! O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede Of marble men and maidens overwrought, With forest branches and the trodden weed; Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral! When old age shall this generation waste, Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' "

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Someone once said, Happiness is nothing but bad memory. There have been popular movies, notable one being the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, in which Jim Carrey tries to go through a surgery/procedure that attempts to pick out all his memories with his ex-girlfriend and remove them from his brain/mind to relieve him of the pain of separation. This was viewed as a weird science fiction not many years back, and now scientists seem to be on a path to do just that (although they are miles away from doing it)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7892272.stm


If you read the article, there are obvious ethical concerns raised by other scientists. Are we compromising on our identities by losing our memories? How much impact will it have on what we've learnt through experiences? Is it worth all of that than to relive a trauma till time eventually wanes the memory down?


On one hand, I would be tempted to attempt this procedure if I get to a stage in my life where my past and memories haunt me beyond my capacity to live normally. But does it boil down to escapism and running away from reality... almost like being on drugs? But yet, some of the benefits would be overwhelmingly helpful to some people and humanity in general.


The cases that pop into my head are those of the lives of terrorists and mentally disturbed people around. There are tonnes around. These days I'm beginning to lose hope on psychotherapy, but if there were some way to make such troubled people forget their disturbing pasts which is causing them to develop into the personalities they currently are, isn't that miraculously wonderful? Wouldn't it be like a magical wand acting on all our heads? As I write that sentence, it spells out the incredible danger such a procedure can have... talk about controlling the universe and ruling it, if all you had to do was make people unlearn everything and convince them that you are God! I'm getting carried away... But would you consider taking such a procedure at some hypothetical instance of your life? Would you advocate and encourage more of this research?

A Pat on the Back

It's interesting how we humans cannot isolate our emotions and need for social interactions, however restrained an environment gets and find ways to break down barriers :). Many believe that blogs were originally started as a medium to exchange thoughts, ideas and focus on neural communications. But as we meet new people virtually, it's quite hard to restrict interactions to be solely through the abstract space of ideas and thoughts; every new person is a potential budding friend and there is an ever so slight curiosity and temptation to know more about the person behind the gray brain, to put a face and personality to the blogger, and to find ways of expressing emotions through virtual ways. There are tags/memes that are entertaining, a little introspective and above all a conduit to know more about the person/blogger, and there are virtual symbols of appreciation to substitute the inadequacy of meeting/talking and other direct forms of expression. An anthropologist could learn so much more about human interactions and ways of communication in virtual environments! :)

I got a pleasant surprise from Oorja this week. She is very generous and kind to have lauded my blog with so many virtual awards. Thank you very much :). A short while ago my blog was dusty and rusty, so it's nice to be pepped, although I know I don't deserve all of them :). I have been ignorant of many novel concepts circling within the blogging community; I've come to know about tagging and awarding this month, and hopefully will learn more soon.

Thanks again Oorja, it is nice to have come across you and your blog and to share insightful views with you! There are more blogs/bloggers that regale me and I'm glad to have come to know them. To carry forward the spirit of expressing appreciation, as a symbol of my appreciation and adoration towards their posts/thoughts, these award-symbolisms are passed onto these three lovely ladies:

SUMI - Truly inspiring and multifaceted; art, music, philosophy, science and so much more. A treat to both my left and right brain :)

Second Sight - Adore your unique, insightful and poetic style of writing. I fortunately have more chances of "real" interaction with you :)

Perception - You have the gift of looking at every simple aspect of our so called mundane life through colored glasses! Your posts are so refreshing since they capture all the simple pleasures of life :)

I'm getting to know of new interesting blogs, so my list will sure keep building over time :)

The Ship Theseus

Ray North was an International Master Criminal who had the reputation of getting his job done. His latest client had ordered him to steal the famous ship Theseus, from which the British Newspaper magnate Lucas Grub had thrown himself into the arms of death and had been the scene of murder of a famous LA rapper. Above all it had historical significances associated with it that made it worth millions of dollars. But Ray was now dubiously standing at the dock where the ship had just been repaired, confronted by a dilemma he didn't know how to resolve. There were two seemingly identical ships standing in front of him. He held the security man at gunpoint and bellowed, "If you want to live, better tell me which one of these is the real Theseus!"


The man nervously swallowed and said, "That depends... when we started to repair the original ship we realized we had to change a lot of its parts. So we replaced virtually most of the old parts of the ship with new ones. But instead of discarding the old parts, the boys thought it would be a nice idea to use all the old parts and create another version of Theseus. So on the left, stands the Theseus repaired and on the right, the Theseus restored from the old parts. "


"So which one is the original Theseus", exclaimed Ray. The guard screamed for his life as he said, "I've told you all that I know! Spare me!!"... Ray was indeed caught in a conundrum. Which ship is the real Theseus? (Source: Leviathon by Thomas Hobbes (1651))


The timing of this paradox fits well with my laptop crisis. As an aside, I replaced the LCD screen with a used one, as this seemed the most efficient, cost-effective fix. Mr. Thinkpad seems well recovered and looks happy. But is he the same Mr. Thinkpad, or is he a different one? Here is the crux of my reasoning - if I anthropomorphized my laptop, then replacing the LCD screen is probably equated to an eye-transplant, or corneal replacement. If a person went through such a surgery (or for that matter even a heart transplant) is he any different from who he was? No.... for his consciousness never ceased to exist and according to me, that is what defines who he truly is. It therefore follows that my laptop is the same one, since I equate it to a human form. But if I didn't equate my laptop so (for it's tricky to define the "consciousness"/identity of my laptop), and viewed it as a combination of physical objects that define it, then replacement of a part of it, breaks down the definition of it's earlier form. Hence my laptop is not entirely the same one. This paradox is along the same lines of the one discussed in the post, "Beam me up". SUMI added a good point about adding dimensions to the person/object in terms of their existence as defined by them, and a third person along the time axis.


So it all boils down to our perceptions and definitions of what constitutes a system or a person, to the point where their uniqueness/identity is not compromised. Aristotle describes a system in terms of four causes - the formal cause, the the material cause, the final cause and the efficeint cause. The formal cause is the formal design of the system (the unique engineering design of the ship, or the laptop), the material cause is the set of all materials/matter that comprise it (the planks, boards, iron, steel, screen, etc), the final cause is the purpose or functionality of the system (to transport people, run software etc), and the efficient cause that signifies who and how the system is made (the workers, the methodology, the tools etc). Now we know for sure that the material cause does change over time, and probably so does the efficient cause. But the formal and final causes remain the same. Does this mean the old ship is the true Theseus? Well, the other ship built out of the old parts does seem to satisfy the formal and the final causes as well....


We don't have precise information as to how much of the ship was replaced and what constitutes as the heart/soul of the ship. Hence being a physical entity, I would define the system as the set of all the material and formal causes. Although the formal cause remains the same, the materials that define the ship's heritage and history are patched in different places. Thus, the real Theseus no longer exists. Both the ships are "new" creations, which hold parts of the material from the original (sort of like children holding some genes from the parent). The guys need to pick the ship that has the most material symbolizing the old ship. And that's tricky too... for I don't know if the mere quantity of materials would matter as much as the weights attached to them.


But if I anthropomorphized the ship, then I can perceive different parts of the ship as metaphors to the human body/brain and claim that the skeleton of the original ship that continued through the time dimension, is the original Theseus (since there was continuity of existence), although the materials/organs it comprises of are different. And that's what we do with cars, laptops and other machines and gadgets around us. But it's an obvious fallacy :). Humans can be associated with an identity due to their conscious state and existence, what sort of identities do physical entities have?

I Don't Want to Say Goodbye

Our relationship is something really special. Three and a half years is by no means a trivial length of time. And to think everything might spiral down soon, pains me deep. But you're slipping away from me.... you seem to have no other choice. But I want to try harder, try to salvage this precious bond between us as long as I can. I hope against hope that you don't leave me...forever.


I dread the day when I'd walk towards you in the morning and lovingly try to wake you up and you'd refuse to come aglow with your usual cheerful self. What will I do without you? How will I carry on after such a loss? Who will be with me through every phase of my day, helping me learn, helping me work, helping me smile? I've confided to you things no one in the world knows. You've been a part of almost every travel, every little journey. Never have you once complained or made a fuss... you were with me all those days when the rain lashed, the wind howled as the snow crumpled, and the sun angrily shone; holding my shoulders affectionately, never complaining that the umbrella didn't cover you enough...will I ever find such a companion? Without you who would have regaled me endlessly, and patiently listened to every word I had to share when I had noone around me those dreadful weekends? Now you claim our relationship is too old to last any longer.


I try to prepare myself, but it's too hard. You cannot be replaced... no part of you can be replaced. You are priceless. You know I will go to any lengths to nurse you back. As I cradle you everyday trying to ease your pain, I mutter silent prayers refuting the thought that you maybe at your deathbed. Everyone around me says so.... they say your time has come and I should be brave. Some advise that I need to move on and find.... your replacement. Ah, how those words wrench my heart. How can I think of looking at someone new?! Your dark and handsome face, the heat of your body, your sturdy yet delicate features, your silly little whines, the way you chatter and giggle as I touch you.... oh will my fingers ever feel the same warmth and comfort as caressing your features? So many memories... words cannot describe all the moments we've shared. You know it will never be the same.


They say you need a surgery, an expensive one at that... but they say you may never make it for it's far too much of an organ replacement. I'm torn...do I risk seeing you being torn apart, only to realize you may never see me again with that familiar glint? Or do I save you the surgery and try to nurse you tender as long as you care to stay with me? But then you can't come out with me everyday my dearest... you need to rest and sleep. Our conversations and interactions will dwindle, but you will still be with me. But I may have to move on... find another companion. Oh what terrible crossroads has fate set me on, my darling Thinkpad!
**********************


My thinkpad's monitor is dying :(... It just gets dimmer and dimmer and I fiddle around with the standby button and with some magical combination it springs to life. The backlight and inverter seem to be the culprit but IBM doesn't sell those parts :(... A monitor replacement of $500 is recommended, although the chances of it being set right doesn't seem all that high. Some say this is a phase because of the terrible winter temperature messing with some internal springs causing loose connection (This is my first time within US that I have the privilege to stay in such a frigid place). Maybe its time for a new laptop...any other ideas to salvage my laptop? Help :(

The Veil of Ignorance

Imagine 20 civilians being selected to go and live on Mars. There would be a number of goods on the planet, including accommodation, food, drink and luxury items. The people who were selected to live on Mars had to decide how the goods should be distributed amongst them. All of these people knew they were going to be living on Mars for an extended period of time and they had to do tasks that were part of the Mars colony (which is one of the main reasons for them being sent there). However none of these people knew what sort of tasks awaited them in Mars, and if they were equipped for them. All the work could be manual, or none of them. So the first suggestion was to equally divide the goods amongst everyone on the colony: from each according to their abilities to each according to their means. However there was an objection - what if there were some who neglected their work, failed at their work, or worse, refused to do their share? Wouldn't it be unfair to give them a share of the goods they didn't deserve? Isn't incentive a good way to make people contribute? As much sense as the objection made, it lead to more problems on resolving what fairness really meant. Is fairness different from giving everyone the same share? (Source: A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls)


This is quite a popular piece. I remember having read this is in one of my Ethics books in the context of Rawl's popular Social Contract Theory, but I don't remember if I ever had a discussion.


The Social Contract Theory emphasizes the need for a social contract amongst people coexisting within a country/colony/community, to ensure liberty and equality for all. In simpler terms, the contract is a set of duties and responsibilities that people need to abide by, and this brings forth the basic principle that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. It also emphasizes reciprocity of 'good' deeds. The people being sent to Mars are in the process of figuring out their Social Contract, or so it seems to me. But here is their core problem - all of them are shrouded in a metaphorical veil of ignorance since none of them have any clue of how their talents and abilities will benefit them in Mars. For all they know, a person who is a scholar on Earth maybe reduced to a nobody on Mars, and a bus driver on Earth maybe the most sought after person on Mars, based on the needs and work conditions. With such bleak understanding of life on another planet it now is a challenge to come up with a Social Contract.


Rawl's philosophy is that, given such a situation, people's general tendency is to be cautious from the danger of ending up in the lower rungs of the new society. Hence everyone would try to come up with a contract that ensures maximum/equal benefit to the least advantaged (the maximin rule). This, in his view is a good experiment for determining democracy - the liberal form of democracy. Is this form of equality really fair? Or are there prejudices despite the veil of ignorance which get carried onto framing the new Social Contract?


I've been putting off writing about this for a while now, for all I know about political "science" are the meaning behind capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, dictatorship, monarchy and anarchy... enough to have some opinions, but probably not deep and robust enough. I'm not a person who follows enough of the political arena or analyzes history to have opinions on what works when, how and what fails, when and how. Therefore, with this limited extent of knowledge I try to analyze this chapter.


In my view (political definitions apart), I think it is impossible to guarantee equality to all... it is inherently impossible with the way the world is structured. I say this by popping onto a higher level, if we are to assume ourselves to be ruled by God/Nature. Call it Karma, or any other term, I believe one is entitled to what he deserves through his actions/deeds, and not every person can receive the same form of equality. Not all of us can be rich, none of our lives can be "equal" in the truest sense. None of the guys who will land in Mars have the same type of "equal" opportunities awaiting, and therein equality starts to crack even before there can be a contract.


So, would being behind the veil of ignorance help in shaping better social contracts that at least mitigates the state of the lower rungs? Yes, it appears so. Isn't our existence the survival of the fittest? Why bother rescuing those who can't survive on their own, by compromising on what the winners truly deserve? Well, I think this question borders on the principles of Capitalism versus Communism... or probably Socialism to some extent.


My view is that each person should have all the basic rights and basic amenities available. But then, how much of the share he is entitled to is dependent on how much he contributes to society/community, for rights and duties do go hand in hand. Every person will/and should have some way to contribute to the community. If one cannot contribute due to severe disabilities then is he doomed? No that is unfair. So should he get the same share as a person who works and toils everyday. No that's not fair either. He should still be entitled to basic amenities (out of dignity and empathy to his life), but the person who works will be entitled to more than just the basic. Now what exactly is the definition of "basic"? What if there aren't enough resources to help the disabled? Should the rest pool in and compromise on their rewards to be shared with the rest? Is that the true meaning behind the maximin rule? Maybe.


It takes a humanitarian turn. So yes, being behind the veil does give us a sense of uncertainty, of the need to save ourselves if we become helpless, and that attempts to tug at our humanitarian conscience, which is necessary to be in place while framing Social Contracts.


Those with more political insight, I would love to hear your views! :)

The Vicious Cycle

Too many thoughts today :). Ever since I read SUMI's post Nothing's Enough, I've been raking my brain on and off on a poem I read; a Hindi poem we learnt back in school. I unfortunately can't remember the name of the poem, the exact words, or the poet. Pretty vague recollections, but the thoughts conveyed remain fresh. I was going to leave a comment on her post with the poem, but put it off. But over the week I have had more impetus to recollect the poem's thoughts, so here it goes:


The moon looks down at us Earthlings, sad and frustrated
"It is indeed a mystery to me", the moon tells me
"I have looked down for millions of years and nothing has changed"
"Nothing?! Well, surely we have progressed in all these years. Look at all our innovations, our inventions!", I quip
"Well, that maybe so. But why did you have to create all those innovative things?", the Moon wonders
"To make our lives more comfortable of course!", I shrug
"Are your lives more comfortable now? Why doesn't it stop.... how much do you want to simplify", the Moon sighs
"Well... we are comfortable, but we still have problems to be solved. We need to creatively solve all problems", I mutter, fearing what the Moon will say next
"Hmmmm... my dear, that's your problem. You people seem to want to solve a problem, by creating one yourself. For millions of years I see all of you create confusions and problems due to your own faults, and then spend years solving them, and create more problems through the solution.... It is a vicious cycle you're stuck in. You put yourself through constant misery by constantly creating more problems to be solved. There is no peace, no rest. And I am tired of seeing it repeat over and over and over....will it ever end?," the Moon cries


I'm currently reading a book called "Normal Accidents" (well it's a text-book) that talks about inherent dangers in high risk technologies. The author makes you want to frame Murphy's laws and hang it over your desk. But anyways, 200 pages of that book (and more to go ) got me exasperated. I feel so very much like the Moon. The author's point is that even safety devices in risky environments can add to the risk.... a nuclear plant to solve energy crisis is a solution, but that solution has innumerable threats and risks... we try to solve those problems and more problems surface, and the cycle continues. Is there even an end? Are we really creating problems just to keep our thirst for challenge alive? Or is it purely because the environment is so inherently complex that we can't completely solve problems by reaching an end?

Legalizing Love

This question arose when I was in the middle of a debate on gay marriage rights. The argument predominantly was on the government's uncertainty on how to define marriage, if it were not between a man and a woman. I am known to go off on a tangent. Obviously my mind derailed on why it should be so hard and confusing to define what marriage meant. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic.


To me marriage is a promise of commitment - the simple vow, "for better or for worse, till death do us part." It is being together as companions for life. Or isn't it? Does a relationship qualify as marriage if and only if the couple could produce and raise children? What about those couples in wedlock who are not blessed with children? My point is not to write something in support of gay rights, or question it. It is to simply convey my bewilderment on what qualifies as marriage.


Ever since my teens I've had this peculiar thought, albeit a little "revolutionary". In a way doesn't marriage seem like a legal contract? It is like legalizing a relationship, and drawing out a contract for love and promises. Can there even be such a contract? Doesn't such a contract obviate the true meaning of love and commitment in the first place? If we are to loan money to our friend, there is no contract due to trust. Why then is there one between two people who are supposed to trust their lives with each other? It doesn't sound so much like trust if there are prenuptials and a legal document....sort of like a safety leash to ensure people are bound by their responsibility? Or is it only for the sake of being recognized in society?


There are many committed relationships that haven't entered wedlock, but probably are far more sincere than those within wedlock. And these are viewed as relationships far less serious, purely because of them not being legalized. Is it because they don't have a sense of "forever together"? Well, marriages don't really last forever all the time. How different is a relationship out of wedlock breaking after 5 years, and a divorce from wedlock after 3 years? Why is the latter viewed more seriously? Why is it that the sound, "I have been divorced" sound tragic and severe than two break-ups from past serious relationships? Is there somehow less pain associated with non-legalized-break ups? Or is it serious because of the money involved due to settlements? (here we will assume there are no kids involved, for their presence will obviously tip the scales)


One can argue it is the extent of emotions and attachment that marriage wields in contrast to other relationships. Maybe so, but in today's world, the lines are getting blurrier. Couples in committed relationships seem to share almost as much as those within wedlock. Again, I am not arguing if that is right or wrong, the fact is, it is very much prevalent in today's world. In such a case, is marriage taken more seriously because of the public ascertainment of promise and responsibility?


I know the government needs some form of system. Yet, it somehow sounds very very silly to me that up until the wedding ceremony the same couple receive very little respect for their relationship... but after that mere ritual, they gain all the respect and privileges society can offer.

Bigger Brother

The brain is the engine of thought and action, and the brain is entirely physical. Imagine that our understanding of the laws of physics evolves to a state that we can accurately predict how people's brains will react, and thus how people think in response to events in their environment. Such a machine is Pierre.


A brain scanner maps the brain states of a person. Then the supercomputer Pierre, monitors the various stimuli the person is exposed to and will then predict what their future behavior will be. But there are limitations. This technology works best in a controlled and enclosed environment akin to a lab experiment. And therefore the predictions can only be made a few moments ahead, since tiny errors in predictions escalate to large ones. But the computer can nonetheless predict how the person will react for the next few moments. In a sense we will be able to know the person's mind better than they do themselves. (Source: The deterministic thesis of the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace)


When I read this scenario in the chapter, I was unsure of what the main questions/issues it dictated for discussion. The possibility of such an evolution in the world of science? The ethics behind using such a powerful technology? The implications on what the mind is, if it could be dissected so clearly by science? Is it a violation of some sort? Does it mean we humans are reduced to machines who can be predicted through their inputs? Is our free will, or ability to act as free agents, being threatened in some way if such a machine could exist?


To begin with, do I concede to the possibility (at least theoretical) of such a machine? Well, my knowledge of quantum physics is little to none, so I don't think I'm qualified to argue either ways. So for the purpose of this thought experiment let me assume that there can be such a machine; I take Laplace's word for it :) . Well then if the machine could predict our next state based on the physical states of our brain and environment, then does it mean our thoughts are no more random than physical causal events in the universe? Does it imply our actions are not entirely free, they are obvious consequences that we follow through with?


Well, I was thinking of the difference between prediction and freedom/free will, and the relationship they have between each other. It took me to astrology... then to destiny... and then to a wall :). An age old question again. Are we in control of our lives, or is everything "predestined", "meant-to-be" and hence subject to prediction based on our physical states? I seem to be asking more questions than try to answer them :)


Ok for one, the machine can only predict the next state lasting a few moments into future, not more than that....and that too in a controlled environment. Life is not really a controlled environment. And I don't know what sort of predictions on future actions/behavior the machine can make. Is it something as precise as "the person will now occupy the red chair, five seats from his right?", or something with a tinge of conditional probability stating "the person will likely drink water since it was hot out". If it were similar to the latter, then I don't see it as a threat to free will. All of us can predict and judge our close ones on their likes and dislikes, behavioral patterns, and can make predictions on the food they would order, the clothes they would buy, their reactions to situations etc. It doesn't mean they are stripped of their free will, their freedom is intact. They eventually choose to do what they want to. There will be a margin of error in our predictions. But if the prediction were as precise as the former, then it is surely unsettling. If it were based on behavioral and psychological patterns then it's not as alarming... for that's what psychologists aim at (although they would still account for a margin of error)


Why is it unsettling - 1) one is the fact that all these predictions were made not based on psychological attributes, but on physical states, 2) there is probably no margin of error in the prediction lasting to the next few moments, 3) there is seemingly no logic to some "random" actions... we ourselves wouldn't know why we decided to sit on that specific red chair to the right. It was random, yet a machine could attribute some sort of "causal link", 4) there is no real uniqueness to our thoughts and actions. It all would depend on neurons firing away based on the physical state of our brain.


So yes, I do see ourselves as predestined agents with a disillusioned sense of free will if there could be a machine predicting even our seemingly random actions with a high degree of precision, all based on physical brain states. It doesn't matter if the prediction is only valid for the next few moments; if there were some feedback loop, then the machine can continuously predict our next states in consecutive small intervals. But if the environment were too controlled so as to drastically cut down the choices normally available in real life then the predictions have a higher chance of being mathematically accurate, and they seem to lessen the severity of the threat on free will; not convincing enough to disregard the threat.


Now taking a slight detour - I am curious about what one's belief in destiny is. There are some who take comfort in the knowledge that their lives are destined and set. Failures are not seen as harsh since they resign that no matter how hard they tried there was a greater force that they couldn't alter. Their actions are hence not blamed as much, they seem to cope up with changes in life, and are resilient to adapting since they accept each turn of event as the work of destiny. On the other hand, are those who can't accept that their lives are being controlled in some manner. They want to be in charge of their lives, and cringe from the possibility that their actions are not entirely their free will. And some in the middle, who view a little of both happening. I sometimes think Life is a game similar to Monopoly. There is an element of chance/luck due to the throw of the die. But once we reach the spot, what we choose to do at that juncture is up to us, our free will.... although our choices are very limited due to the rules. Who framed the rules of Life? Many times society, many times we ourselves.


********************
Update: I just came across a wonderful post here: http://pritigem.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-god-play-dice-excerpt-from.html where the author has done a good job of bringing in the perspectives of determinism from the standpoint of Laplace, Heisenberg and Einstein. It adds the much needed physics-dimension to the discussion.

Good God

And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I'm the Lord thy God, and I'm the source of all that is good. Why does thy secular moral philosophy ignore me?"
And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, "To answer I must first ask you some questions. You command us to do what is good. But is it good because you command it or do you command it because it is good?"
"Ur," said the Lord. "It's good because I command it?"
"The wrong answer surely, your mightiness! If the good is only good because you say it is so, when you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?"
"Of course!", replieth the Lord. "I tested thee and thou hast made me pleased. What was the other choice again?"
"You choose that which is good because it is good. But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So we don't need to study God to study the good."
"Even so," spake the Lord, "you've got to admit I've written some pretty good textbooks on the subject...", (Source: Euthyphro by Plato)


This has been the age old debate - the role of religion in morality. And it somehow seems all the more fitting when in today's world morality is being blatantly violated in the name of religion. This chapter also questions one's faith and belief in a supernatural being - God. Being a very sensitive subject, I hope to not offend anyone with my views. This is my little disclaimer :).

My views on God and religion have been evolving for many years now and they continue to evolve and change with every passing year. I have also come to realize that some phenomena in the universe are beyond the comprehension and reasoning of my current state of mind, and I'm ignorant of how to train my mind sufficiently to stretch its limits of comprehension. Be that as it may, I gave a whole week to ruminate on this chapter; to collect my views, question them again and arrive at some conclusion.


In my view, religion is one form of judicial system to keep society in order. It holds the strength to be a robust form of judiciary, because the one who framed the laws is a supernatural power - God (or so it is claimed). One who is omnipresent and omnipotent, unlike us mortals who try to frame laws on morality. It's ironical that a principle which tries to keep society in order, now wreaks havoc. Morality derived out of religion is called the "Divine Command Theory". There are no questions, no confusions... the laws are in the scriptures.


God is our collective belief and faith of everything positive and good around us. A belief in a supernatural being who looks after us, who knows how and when to punish the bad and reward the good. In that sense, since we attribute every possible good attribute to God, God is a personification of everything Good...


When I was young I believed in an actual God sitting up on His throne and looking down at earthlings and engaging his messengers to ensure good wins over evil. I had no doubt that if someone did something wrong, they would be punished. As I grew up, I realized there is no such clear line between good and evil, and the good did not always win over the evil; especially if the Divine Command Theory were followed. What is good in the Hindu moral code is bad in another religion and vice versa. This confused me. This, in my opinion, is the reason why Religion cannot guarantee good; it enforces morality that is not absolute. As the universe comes together and populations and cultures get homogenized, we are in need of a moral code that is more absolute and objective. But, this is one part of the argument.


If there were no God associated with good, would that work? I have my doubts. I started with a spiritual/religious grounding that perhaps is at the bedrock of my decisions. There have been many many times when I have succumbed to disregarding my faith in God and the balance of good and evil... and it threw my world out of focus. There was no more any meaning to existence, to life and our decisions. It seemed to pluck away the meaning of Hope. I no longer understood why some babies were born blind and some healthy, why some "good" people were put through horrendous tortures while the "bad" thrived.  The explanation of randomness playing a role, did not appease me; it further confused me. I didn't understand why one had to do good if life was just a matter of survival. Isn't the lion hunting the deer for it's survival justified? Why then should I be the deer in my society, why can't I be the lion? Why then should I try to be moral all the time when there are those who play a wiser game?


And therein comes the belief system that seems to restore order, serenity and comfort. A common thread of spirituality across religions that begs us to look into ourselves, search for our true peace within ourselves and to detach from the mundane of the material society. It is a tonic for the tortured mind... be it true or not. Not every person on this earth is blessed with a good family, a good upbringing, a good exposure to knowledge, intellectual stimulation and hence a clear mind to reason with clarity on morality for the sake of society.


If there were no rules from scriptures, no belief systems in a higher authority, a mind that has gone through violence in tender ages and abuse to intellectual growth, cannot be expected to reason with clarity, or be expected to apply absolute moral codes that asks one to be good for the sake of the society. For such millions, good can rarely exist without a spiritual grounding, and a belief system to hold on to. In many ways, it's a tribal culture. Fear is instilled in the name of religion and God, Hope is infused through inspiring mythologies, Peace is brought about through rituals like prayers that try to discipline the mind.


Sadly, this is also one way for people to stop reasoning, to stop applying their minds. Every situation in life is looked at through religious codes... most of which tend to be heavily misinterpreted. Wisdom fails to grow, barbarism is festered. Herein lies the responsibility of religious leaders to clarify the principles and ideologies. But sadder it is, to realize many such leaders lack openness of mind. And therein lies the flip side of religious fanaticism.


I still don't know enough about spirituality to claim the real presence or absence of God. But I do know that while good can be studied without God, applying moral decisions at all times without a grounding of God is only possible for a mature, strong and pure mind. Such a mind is found in every one in a million of us.


To me, religion and God are belief systems to reinforce wisdom, sort of like training wheels on a bike to help us balance.. but something from which we all should graduate, as our minds mature....

Stifling Expressions

"The student watched his brother with surprise. He did not know, he who wore his heart on his sleeve, he who observed only the good old law of Nature in the world, he who allowed his passions to follow their inclinations, and in whom the lake of great emotions was always dry, so freely did he let it off each day by fresh drains, he did not know with what fury the sea of human passions ferments and boils when all egress is denied to it, how it accumulates, how it swells, how it overflows, how it hollows out the heart; how it breaks in inward sobs, and dull convulsions, until it has rent its dikes and burst its bed. The austere and glacial envelope of Claude Frollo, that cold surface of steep and inaccessible virtue, had always deceived Jehan. The merry scholar had never dreamed that there was boiling lava, furious and profound, beneath the snowy brow of Aetna.", Victor Hugo, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.

Beautiful words from a stirring book. I'm yet to read another book laden with precious literary and philosophical gems page after page...so deeply moving are the words, that I truly revere the book. This post is not part of the series on the book I'm currently reading. Just a little venting of my own...

Why is it that we have culturally evolved to stifle expressions - especially positive ones? In a "civilized" gathering it is always frowned upon to openly express true happiness, joy or love. Many of us have been strictly raised to be stoic, to not let our emotions seep through our behavior and facial expressions- be it good or bad. I can understand why it is better to calm or repress negative emotions such as anger, jealousy or hatred.

Unbridled expressions of anger tend to result in heat-of-the-moment passion crimes which are mostly regretted when the red film of anger tones down. And it's most certainly "uncivil" if we heard Obama and McCain exchange honest expressions of anger through rude insults, that held the potential to escalate to a physical fight if the parties involved refrained from maintaining the decorum. It is also signifies each others' level of tolerance towards different view points, and their maturity in being able to open their minds and reason passionately, yet fairly so.

But why try to stifle the "good" ones? I realize it's tricky to define good. Aren't all emotions natural? Then why label them as good or bad? In my definition (restricted to this article), "good" implies no harm done; psychological or physical to anyone who is a recipient of the expression. Why then are there hushes when we want to jump up with joy, or yell our throats out to vent our happiness? Why is it looked down upon to see open expressions of love? Why are such open expressions associated with being undignified?

How many of us can freely articulate what we feel, through simple words or gestures? Not me, I know. I can feel the heat from the stern stare of my mom looking down at me with disapproval writ large on her face when I "giggle too much", or I lose myself to share a hearty laugh. I guess the words to focus here are "lose myself"... getting us to vulnerability.

It's sad to realize how many people around me keep stifling their expressions to guard their emotions from "leaking through". This only results in unspoken words, unexpressed gestures that are struggling to be released, yet tightly leashed. Is it only because we are so afraid of being vulnerable if we exposed our true emotions? It's almost like watching all those sci-fi robots and monsters that are seen struggling to exhibit emotions like sadness and love (Kong-Kong for one), when they can so freely vent their violence and anger. Deep down are we all like those monsters struggling to freely express our gentler emotions, when we don't flinch to show our anger and distaste?

Well, in the case of King-Kong he struggled to even realize he had such emotions... their expression is another category I guess. But we humans keep building walls to maintain a stoic exterior that is deceptive of the person's true emotions - just like how Victor Hugo describes Frollo. And I don't understand why culturally we have been taught and conditioned to stifle expressions as pure and refreshing as happiness, love and joy. Does this tie to the philosophy of moderation? Is unbridled expressions of pure happiness really undignified?

When no one wins

This chapter is along the lines of a horrific Holocaust story that always leaves me with the utter shock at how humans could ever be so cold-hearted.


Private Sacks had been ordered to rape and kill a prisoner whom he knew was a perfectly innocent civilian who happened to be from the wrong ethnic background. He knew what he was ordered to do was entirely cruel and immoral. But he thought of the situation again and surmised that if he didn't execute the orders, not only will he be killed, but the prisoner will also be invariably put through the torture by someone else. If it were him, he would at least make sure the prisoner faces a "bearable" amount of abuse and be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible, rather than be cruelly tortured by another agent. He reasoned this would be the best course of action given the circumstance. Is he justified? Can this mean that sometimes it is inevitable for even the best course of action to be grossly immoral?


This situation echoes the use of the Utilitarian principle again. If Sacks decided to preserve his integrity, he loses his life and the prisoner gets killed and abused, probably more violently. So there is no "win" here. If Sacks went ahead with the order, he saves his life and is more "considerate" in ensuring a far less painful and violent, albeit inevitable death to the prisoner. This seems to ensure "greater good". But it is still immoral beyond doubt. Or is it? If Sacks goes ahead with it, how will he face such a guilt, how will his conscience punish him for the rest of his life?


For the purpose of not circumventing the severity of such a situation, we will assume that Sacks is not as adept as Batman or James Bond to try and do something miraculous to save the prisoner and himself.


All of us face similar dilemmas (similar in principle but not in magnitude). There are often crossroads when we're torn between which road to take, knowing that either one will end up hurting someone, or yourself. It's common for us to consider ourselves first and go ahead with a choice that leaves us searching for ways to assuage our guilt, and we end up justifying our ends through the means...probably how Sacks tries to convince himself of providing a painless death to the prisoner, to save his own life.


But when we do take the road of self-sacrifice in an attempt to do the moral thing, it still results in consequences that are dire. If Sacks decides to take the bullet and honor his integrity, in what way is he helping the prisoner? Does he then resign to his fate and that of the prisoner? Is it better to resign ourselves to the uncontrollable forces of fate than commit an immoral act?


Obviously there is no solution or right answer. But I know that people like Sacks are much needed in the world. If he remained alive, he could probably help in preventing more such crimes because of his heart and head being in the right places. There are surely many more prisoners and innocent people whose fates could be altered, if a genuine agent were still alive. If Sacks is confident of saving the lives of at least two other innocent people in his lifetime, then for that reason alone he is justified to stay alive to commit his crime. If he knows he can't help the other prisoners anymore than what he can with the current, then he has no option but to resign, and at least save his integrity.

Wheel of Fortune

Marge is an ordinary woman; she is no genius or a mathematician and she would love to earn some easy money. She had been observing how roulette was being played at the casino and she had discovered an apparently foolproof system of getting rich playing it. She noticed that it was quite common for the ball to fall into only black or only red slots during consecutive spins of the wheel. But the ball falling into the same color for 5 times in a sequence was unusual, and rarer it was for the ball to fall into the same color for six times or more in a row. As a matter of fact, she observed this happen only a couple of times in an entire day.


Hence her plan was to observe the ball falling into the same color for 5 times in a row, and then bet the next spin of the wheel on the other color, confident that her chance of winning was very high than losing. Can Marge afford to believe so?


I wracked my brain for a bit, struggling to find a flaw in her reasoning. You see I'm no mathematician myself, and as much as I tried to recall my classes on Logic and Probability, I really couldn't find anything amiss. And when I finally resigned and read what Baggini had to say, I still didn't get it!! Call me hopeless with Math. So I read it again, carefully, very carefully, and then the bulb finally glowed.


Since I've essentially not been successful in cracking or reasoning this puzzle myself, I don't want to merely repeat Baggini's reasoning. I will leave this as a fresh puzzle to anyone who chances by this article. But a little hint : we often miss out on subtle details of a problem due to our inevitable urge and selective processing, to look for what we want to find...

The Pig that wants to be Eaten

Ah... finally the book's title is uncovered. The chapter is no euphemism, it means exactly what it reads :). What if you meet a pig that wants you to eat him?

Charles has been a vegetarian all his life, for not wanting to kill or hurt animals. But he had always wondered how meat tasted, and of late he'd been craving to try and have at least one meal of meat. Of course his principles forbade him, so he stopped himself. Imagine you're in a world where animals can talk. Or perhaps Charles just happened to meet one special pig that could talk. The pig tells Charles that his/her life time's ambition is to be eaten by someone else. The pig was reared comfortably and was not ill treated in any way. As a matter of fact, the pig has been looking forward to his day at the butcher's place. Oh so crushed would be the pig's soul if no one ate him.... and Charles wondered if it's unfair to disappoint such an animal's lifetime wish....

If that's not enough, Charles comes to know of a genetically modified chicken that was born in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The chicken was no much aware of itself than a carrot would be of itself. Eating the chicken was no different than eating a carrot. Charles argues if it's against his principles to eat such a chicken. (Source: The Restaurant at the the end of the Universe, Douglas Adams)

If Charles's principle is towards saving the animal from trauma, and nothing more, then I guess both the animals will face no trauma (the pig will go through painless execution, and both animals were not cruelly reared). If I did meet such a pig or a chicken what would I do? Well, to make matters a little more interesting (and weird) why not consider this - what if Charles meets a man who wants to be eaten? I think I've heard of such a man/case somewhere sometime in an article. Cannibalism is frowned upon, because we humans associate value and dignity to our lives even if we lose all state of awareness and get into a state of PVS. Therefore meat is not just seen as meat. So herein comes the main question -- how different do we consider animals from humans? Animals can't think as much, lack a lot of human emotion and behavior and many many more characteristics due to the current state of evolution. What then are the principles behind our principles on ethical treatment of animals?

I'm a vegetarian myself, so this puzzle is a good one for me. The reason why I don't eat meat is because I consider animals to have a certain dignity. They are living beings who can feel pain, have the right to live, and who obviously don't want to be killed. With all the vegetables and fruits around, why try to kill an animal? I also like pets, and I think all animals are alike. Why be prejudiced against salmons and chickens when I would treasure a gold fish in the tank and an adorable doggy play mate. But as I write these sentences I'm aware of all the "prejudices" within me, and I know I don't act completely true to all those statements.

If I really considered animals to have a certain dignity, then I shouldn't be using any animal product -- milk, cheese, eggs, leather, fur, silk, certain oils, gelatin etc. Although I do abstain myself from leather, fur, gelatin, animal oils, I can't say the same about the rest. For half the time I don't realize what goes inside packaged foods (which is another issue by itself) and I have NO IDEA about how the cows and chickens were treated to get all the milk and eggs.... they are probably kept in miserable conditions.

I also am aware that I wouldn't mind getting certain animals killed --- rats for one (especially if they try to pay a dear visit to my kitchen), lizards for another, cockroaches (the numerous ones I have swatted through my life...), spiders, bees and others that fit into the subset of pests. If I were cornered by a cobra, and I had a spear in my hand, I wouldn't worry about saving it. And if mice were used for cancer research, I don't complain.

So why these "prejudices"? I would take on a Utilitarian stance on this problem. The law of "greater good". If I were to form an equation of the consequences of each scenario, from two different perspectives (if the animal is spared, and the animal is used) and I weigh the outcomes in terms of the "good" generated by the two, I will be convinced if I picked the one that led to the greater good to the majority. I can therefore argue killing snakes, tigers, bees, spiders and bugs for self-defense, rats and cockroaches to ward off diseases, and using mice in experiments to help save millions from cancer. I can argue that milk and cheese provide necessary nourishment for me, which is otherwise very hard to be substituted with. If one day, chickens became endangered, then eating them will be clearly forbidden to save the ecosystem. But today, killing a cow/chicken that never did any harm to me, and will likely do no harm to me, when I can eat other things, is an unbalanced equation. But I do see loopholes... what is "good"? Can we really quantify suffering and good to balance out such equations? It's not something that can be clearly defined all the time.

Everything said and done, will I substitute humans to be used in such an equation of "greater good"? This borders on issues like euthanasia, capital punishments, wars, abortions etc. So the truth is, we do consider animals to be lesser than us and hence assume rights over them, which we probably shoudn't... but oh well it's the survival of the fittest.

The pig that wants to be eaten, will invariably be consumed by so many other people, if not by Charles; and the same holds for the chicken. So Charles is not obliged to eat the pig to save it's life-long wish. If his principle is centered only on ethical treatment of animals before execution and a painless execution, then he does not violate his principle in any way by eating the animals. But If he associated some amount of dignity to the animals, then eating them for the only "good" of satisfying his temptation and hunger violates his principle.

A Byte on the Side

Richard has been happily married for several years. Unfortunately he has reached a stage in his relationship wherein he is "bored" because of the lack of passion. He hardly sleeps with his wife and doesn't seem to find her sexual anymore. But he does love his wife and thinks the world of her and knows that she makes a wonderful mother for his children. He doesn't intend to leave her or hurt her by falling into an affair to satisfy his other "needs". He also realizes that his wife will not agree to an open relationship.


At this point, Richard comes to know of a company that provides a virtual-reality experience of having a passionate time with a simulated agent. It's akin to cyber-sex except that there is no real person on the other side of the internet. This is a virtual environment wherein Richard's mind will be stimulated into thinking he is sleeping with another woman, but in effect there is no third person involved. Should Richard succumb to this?


To be honest, this chapter made me feel low -- I don't know why. Maybe it's because of all the numerous movies and stories and real life incidents I have witnessed. This was one such a case where you can either think with your head or think with your heart. My gut response to this question was to say it's OK for Richard to go ahead and try this new experience, and I don't know if it came through my head or heart...


Monogamy is a concept that is formed out of the premise that human relationships are far too complex to be trifled with. This is what I think. As much intelligence as we are proud to have acquired, we have as much of emotions. We can theorize that a man can have several partners and yet love them equally. Hell, with just one woman, a man has to deal with the possessiveness between his wife, his mother, his sister, sometimes sister-in-law... lol :). Practically speaking, polygamy is very hard to exist, with all partners feeling equally secure and happy in the relationship.


That being said, infidelity is viewed as betrayal. While a man can argue that passion and love can be separated, and that he can have his wife for love and affection, and mistress for others, somewhere in the line of this argument I find the mistress being exploited. Maybe the mistress would claim that she is well aware of what she's in for and she is ok with it, but still after millions of years of evolution, one thing still hasn't changed - it is the need for a female to want off-springs and look for a suitable mate, and for a male to want to procreate as much as possible. Given modern times and our evolved minds, this might not be a primary goal anymore, but it's hard to refute that these instincts are really dead... after all, it's man's caveman-instinct that makes him fantasize for more women, bores him of one woman, and makes him venture down this road, in the first place... So it's natural for the wife to get threatened by introducing another woman into the picture. Infidelity therefore is a break of promise to nurture, love and provide exclusively for the mate and offsprings.


I can think of two ways to fix this problem - 1. Let Richard indulge in this virtual experience, and he ends up being happy and hurts none. Well... this seems more like a band-aid on the wound. Probably Richard having stopped sharing his intimacies with his wife is an initial symptom of problems in their relationship. If this is not directly addressed, would there be more symptoms that would crop up soon, resulting in deeper problems? Although there is no third person involved, Richard's wife might still be upset because he has stopped sharing these experiences with her.


If so, then a long term solution is - 2. Talk and discuss about this with his wife and see how this can be remedied. Honesty is good, it might hurt the wife, but it's a good sign that Richard is trying to work it out with her. Whether a solution can be reached, and how happy both Richard and his wife are at the end of it all, is uncertain. It might make Richard more frustrated, the wife more insecure and could probably result in more problems.


I pick 1... he is not cheating on her or breaking his promise, he is going through a virtual experience to satisfy his curiosity and temptation. My guess is he will tire out of it at some point, or may get old enough to stop it (whichever comes first). Most often, this just a phase, some form of a mid-life crisis, and hopefully this experience will give Richard the much needed anti-boredom tonic and his relationship will be fine.


If I were still 16 years old (sigh) and was still wide-eyed and bambi-like, I would have picked 2. Both lines of reasoning cannot guarantee a solution. They are both crafted in such a way so as to not hurt the wife and that is the focus. If Richard really loves his wife and wants to make the relationship work , then he should address the problems that surface due to pursuing course 1., or try to compromise, if the outcomes from course 2 don't really meet to his satisfaction.


This question makes us ponder on our expectations from a relationship. How exclusive and 1-1 should a relationship be? Are there different boundaries for infidelity?

The Indian and Ice

An Indian lady, Lata has lived her whole life in a village in Rajasthan, close to the Thar Desert. Among many things, India is commonly known for it's hot and sultry weather. And if one lives near a desert, you can be certain to have faced nothing but high temperatures and severe water depravity. We assume that this tale happened in the early 1800s, when many countries didn't know of a refrigerator or freezer. Lata had never heard or seen one. Lata's brother Raj was a traveler and he was adventurous to venture out into the world, meet different people and interact with different cultures. Raj returned from one such a long trip to the West and was regaling Lata with all his stories, full of wondrous things and novel experiences.


In his tales, he mentions about this curious thing called "Ice". A fascinated Raj was trying to explain to his sister that in some countries, temperatures went so cold that water turned into solid, called Ice. He was intrigued that there wasn't a drastic change in temperature between the transient states when water turned solid. Lata nodded quietly with a sad thought that her brother had turned into one of those pompous travelers who weave tales and talk of mystical creatures just to gain popularity and superiority among their naive villagers.


Lata did not believe that water could turn into solid. She refused to be gullible to her brother's tales. Was her reasoning right? (Source: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume)


On one hand, Lata's skepticism must be appreciated. She was definitely not as naive as the other women and relied on her judgments and experiences. On the other hand, was she being overly cautious and narrow-minded? I believe that while Lata was truly a strong woman who was shrewd enough to not believe everything that someone as close as her own brother would tell her, her beliefs were probably too rigid to let her open her mind and question the possibility.


I would have appreciated her reasoning, if she had considered the possibility and tried to find reasons as to how it could not hold true, and then tried to refute them... she only used her limited experiences and beliefs to refute that it could not hold true. If a person has not won an argument from both sides, then there is a hole in the reasoning. Having been in a hot place, she must have seen water evaporate - i.e., water changes to another state (steam) when the temperature is increased. Could it then change state when the temperature was decreased? She has surely not tried it.... so can she be sure?


Obviously, she doesn't have the capacity to perform such an experiment. Neither can anyone demonstrate it to her in the middle of a desert. But sometimes we accept certain things without question. When I was young, I didn't question when I was taught that sun rises in the east, we breathe in O2 and exhale CO2 etc. Those were accepted as being true since everybody around me believed so. I didn't have to perform experiments to accept them. I trusted my sources.


Could Lata have trusted some sages who came down from the Himalayas and said they had seen ice and snow? Could she have trusted it if the idol of Shiva showed the snow capped mountains, or if the vedic mantras mentioned them? My guess is yes.


In this particular scenario, Lata could not have accepted this statement as the truth, unless it was proved to her, or it was stated in a context in which she believed in. Lata's reasoning was incomplete - good that she did not readily believe her brother, but she didn't let herself question the possibility of it because of her intractable belief system of her world around her.... and that's not a good sign of reasoning. This is commonly called as the frog-in-the-well syndrome :)


Baggini's question is - how do we draw the line between trusting someone, and being judicious enough to not get fooled? Thoughts?