The Confusion and the Foggy View

Re : Foreign Languages

Indeed it is very enviable for me to see others using a beautiful, sensual language like French, in their discussions here on Chowk. But permit me to msay the obvious, if you must, that very few are indeed industrious enough to know any foreign language beyond English, as our saviour in the big bad world.

Commendable as it might seem to indulge in such fluent exposition, i feel it went right above yours truly`s higher abilities in the demanding arena for foreign languages..I am afraid My knowledge of French is based on a few esoteric one-liners, learned in a hurry, during an impromptu trip to Nice, during the 4-day european summer holiday in August of `95 from Italy via Monte Carlo, (and of course without possessing any valid Visa for entering France save for the working Visa i had in Italy). It was prompted as a dare by an Indian friend and colleague of mine Sumeet Nagar, at work in italy, to see if we can travel through Europe, with nothing more than our company car, and determination...and our Visa Cards.....

Indeed we went through France, and Switzerland unnoticed, putting on dark sunglasses and acting like the accidental tourist,...at checkpoints on borders, where we were never stopped, i might add. Except when we passed by the Swiss area famous for the Saint Bernard dog, on our way from Lausanne, back into Italy.... Yes Indeed the italians stopped us at the long tunnel on the Swiss-Italian border. Luckily my Italian papers were intact, but poor Sumeet, had overlooked the slight detail that his Working Visa in Italy had been due for renewal since two months ago. A 45 minute wait, coupled with heroic usage of our feeble Italian and perilous phone calls to our District Manager later, we were gladly admitted back into Italy, with slight admonitions to Sumeet, for his nonchalance.....

Just thought i might share some good days of fun, and freedom we both had, this being my only ``real`` contact with the French language, and i still remember my other social contact with their people, very affectionately, such as the one near an old castle, en-route after Nice, where we stopped at a bar for refreshments, and it being the weekend, the locals were there in jovial spirit, and they welcomed us to sing and dance with them, in abhorringly loud voices, in a language we could not follow,in a culture we could not relate, just mimicking them, and holding hands, and screaming at the top of our voices our respective national anthmes, for want of anything better... :)

Indeed a microcosm where nationality, language, creed, colour gave way to the universal humanitaraian acceptance, if only for one evening!!!!

Kind Regards

Asim

Re: Tahnoon Pasha

(“... the only thing that militates against the existence of a human soul is that it is essentially unnecessary in explaining the process of thought...What if thought is biologically deterministic? There is no special monopoly that humans hold on thinking...”)

Exactly my sentiments also. It seems that you have me misclassified. I am NOT proposing the supernatural model.

(“...science is willing to tender several tentative solutions, so I don`t think we are as much in the dark as you suggest...”)

Essentially, we are in agreement, with the only point of divergence being that I am not as exuberant about the achievements of technology as you (and other cyber citizens here) seem to be. To address some of your points now:

(“...Universe came out of the box with the dip switches set and the BIOS plugged in. We are simply in the process of booting up...”)

Excellent analogy. However, in writing this and arguing against the “binary randomness” you could be interpreted as implying that the universe is “engineered” as opposed to “evolved”. That opens up a floodgate of speculations and we get into areas where no resolution is possible with any argument. One’s “proof” disproves another’s “proof”, and in the end we are left with axiomatic faith in the righteousness of our own convictions.

Its like the citizens of Well’s Country Of The Blind arguing, in vain, about the configuration of constellations in the sky.

Re: Saima Shah

(“...I am convinced that the universe is knowable and therefore relevant...”)

Yes, of course, the Universe is very relevant to us. But the question is, are WE relevant to the Universe?

We who have a child’s ego (as a species) have the temerity to consider ourselves the cosmic center. We who are the most recent arrivals on this Third Planet of a mediocre star located in the periphery of a very average galaxy have the gall to suggest that we are specially endowed with faculties that can comprehend the vast universal enigmas. What arrogance? Bertrand Russell used to say that studying a little astronomy can easily cure our self-congratulatory mind-set.

Re: BG

(“... - we cannot assume what we do not know does not exist/happen or is not relevant...for we may disrupt or destroy what is beyond our knowledge, let alone our comprehension....”)

No question about it. But let me clear up a point which, it seems, has created a misunderstanding in the minds of the readers. Actually, I made a mistake and quoted A. J. Ayer in a somewhat different context than he would have approved of and furthermore, I did not elaborate on it.

Ayer, who was a linguistic philosopher, held that some questions are mere creations of language and are not “real” questions, they are “irrelevant” in the practical day to day understanding of the world around us. He was specifically addressing questions like “Does God Exist?” and even, “Do WE exist?” He contended that these question are not only irrelevant, but that they are not even real questions. The twist here is that instead of saying they are “unknowable”, or “unanswerable”, he says they aren’t even relevant questions. I, then made the mistake of taking the liberty and adapting his concept to the ongoing discussion about consciousness. Clearly, that was a mistake.

Re: Wasiq Bokhari

O My God ! You ask such loaded questions. Okay, I try to play along for the fun of it.

(“..Do you think the perceptions and abilities of all people are equal?..”)

NO, they are not. Nor are heights, hearing, sight, blood pressure, metabolism etc.

(“..What is Mythology?..”)

A mythology is a systematic collection of myths. A myth is a narrative that attempts to explain basic truths by using symbols.

(“...What is the Scientific Method?...”)

Evaluating propositions against the Null Hypothesis and attempting to falsify them. If false, the proposition is rejected. If the proposition holds and is corroborated by using a fresh data set, then it is held as a putative theory until contrary evidence suggests otherwise.

(“...Does rationality preclude creativity?...”)

There is no mutual exclusivity between them.

(“...Why does a computer work...?”)

Because we tell it to do so.

(“...Does ``not today`` mean ``never``?...”)

Yes it does, if time ends tonight at midnight.

(“...Are all Sciences equal?...”)

No. Some are far better funded than others.

(“...Does Science ever claim to be a religion?...”)

Yes it does, if the scientists have a religious mind-set.

(“...What does it mean to ``know`` something?...”)

I don’t know, you tell me. I’ve never KNOWN anything, how can I know?

So, where do we go from here? What was it that you were saying...?

...SR

Re: BG

Everything like everything we `know` is a construct or a concept expressed through mediums such as maths, language, music, art, body language etc. We communicate when we think we use the same medium. Rationality is one way of `knowing` the universe. In the process of knowing we create universes of knowability. somewhere in this chaos of not being, we are...(lovely, huh?:-)

Everything is knowable (by definition; otherwise it would not be everything)

I apologize if this seems utterly redundant. My excuse is that it was a lot of fun.

Yes! yes! yes! I agree with you completely - we cannot assume what we do not know does not exist/happen or is not relevant. Not sure if EVERYTHING is knowable (a la Saima), but quite sure that we dont know it all. Yes, we need to be humble and cautious for we may disrupt or destroy what is beyond our knowledge, let alone our comprehension.

Enjoyed the article a lot. I am convinced that the universe is knowable and therefore relevent (liked the quote immensely:-)). I think that the more we think (in any form) the more we realize that the real relevance of any theory is that it does not say it all. I disagree with pure rationalism as the only way to experience reality and feel that we may one day see it all and find it all and understand everything. Occam`s razor is a convenient generalization to eliminate them to think systemically; not a way to know...

Brilliantly expressed Sohail! Nevertheless, I`m going to dredge up some old arguments and throw in a few new ideas to counter it.

From the end upwards, the only thing that militates against the existence of a human soul is that it is essentially unnecessary in explaining the process of thought. (Ockham`s razor again!).

Coincidentally the idea of thought was raised in The Economist of a fortnight ago. They raised an idea that was not given much time in past discussion on this subject. What if thought is biologically deterministic? There is no special monopoly that humans hold on thinking. The mind is an organ that governs biological behaviour. Its complex contortions as it does so are what give us the illusion of self determination.

In this hypothesis, closely linked to the idea of mimetics IMHO, the mind (operationally) is constructed in a modular fashion. There are millions of modules and their interaction is what gives us ``idea`s``.

We are not certain that there is a particular process for determining individuality, but science is willing to tender several tentative solutions, so I don`t think we are as much in the dark as you suggest.

It is also erroneous to consider that the process of construction of the universe was essentially binary or endlessly random. Conventional wisdom, I believe, suggests that it took place in ten different directions at once, and rather than random was clearly directed by the environment in which it took place. In other words the Universe came out of the box with the dip switches set and the BIOS plugged in. We are simply in the process of booting up. Those settings on the other hand are essentially random. This does not reflect fortunate happenstance, but merely allows us to recognise the world we live in.

The implications [My own] (pausing briefly to enter the bomb shelter) are that at a particular level there is no such thing as creativity or originality. Ideas create the man. Thoughts arise as a process of cumulative direction rather than the commonly percieved catastrophic intuition.

Theres the ultimate freemasonry of intellect for the socialists among you! Make of it what you will. :-)

Tahnoon.