Blogging Around

First, I responded to Alyssa’s best of week post. She talked about revolutions, as many other people did. I completely agreed with what she wrote, and extended her points, as I say them.

“Hi Alyssa,

First off, let me say that I agree with your post. Second, though I agree with what Choi said above, I don't think he's responsive to exactly what you were getting at.The way I interpreted the post wasn't so much that revolutions themselves were good or bad, but the use of revolutions in fiction and thinking are good to inform us of trends and plot in terms of the human experience.I especially like how you argued that revolution-based plots are more interesting than "easy read" books. I agree that revolutions in books force us to think about how the character evolves and how this applies to humanity in general.It's true that we should be reflective of revolutions that occur within our lives, whether the revolutions are good or bad.(as Choi points out they sometimes are) But then again, if any particular revolution is best left at the back of your mind, then maybe ignorance can be bliss, in comparison.-Mitchell B.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, I wrote a rather lengthy analysis of Choi’s points made in his post regarding the idea of “something from nothing”. Though I agreed with most of the points he made, I thought he could have gone a little further in order to completely reject the idea that something could ever come from nothing. Almost all of his arguments support this, but he barely comes out and rejects the “something from nothing” idea. I commented on his post, because I also wrote about this subject for my best of week post.

“Hello Choi,

I largely agree with most of what you have here. I think the important distinction that needs to be made is that while humans are of no value, but value can be created by the human mind. Nothing that means nothing can have meaning in it. With bias, we can create meaning. To us, the life of a worm is practically worth nothing, a worm doesn't have the traits that we, as humans value. But to a worm, it is worth everything. Meaning that we create is comparative based on what, through evolution, has become an attractive trait. But if we get out of the mindset forced upon us by evolution, we realize that everything is the same. Any perception of "better" or "worse" come solely from human bias. For example is there any meaning in the truth that 2+2=4? Any answer of "yes" is based off of that truths usefulness in human life, so, without bias, the answer is no. It is much the same for the universe. Some will say that there is value in "truth", but I want to make the argument that we only think this because humans lie. When we look at the universe, everything is true. I'm not saying that lies are true, but that it is true that lies are said. Taken into account in this fashion, obviously, everything is true. It's a fact that with repetition or in abundance, things lose their value. The more of anything you have, the less it is worth to you. This is simple economics and psychology. If the universe is made of infinite truths, we indeed have no value.

Moving on to your third paragraph, I completely agree with what you are getting at, but you never really come out and say it. You get closest when you say: "Perhaps we are taking things a little too literally. Did something really come from nothing, or should we compare opposites?" Basically, what you're saying is that something is never really coming from nothing. For example in King Lear, genius or philosophy coming from madness is not something coming from nothing. Madness is not nothing. In terms of human value, we (the sane, particularly) place madness next to nothing in order to make ourselves feel better and because evolution made madness (usually) unattractive. This is the same problem I've always had with the "something from nothing" idea. There is no instance in which nothing is actually nothing, that we can point out empirically, simple because if nothing ever did exist, nothing existed to remember it/point it out. Again, the idea that something comes from nothing is built on human bias and ideals.

However, I disagree with your statement that what we observe as something from nothing is actually order from chaos. While I prefer this statement to "something from nothing" (because you aren't labeling anything as "nothing"), I feel that it suffers due to the same problems in logic. Again chaos itself could mean anything, as could order, because as we use the words, they are comparative. For example, you call a volcano chaos, by labeling it destructive, while you call arable land orderly. But it can be argued to be the opposite. A volcano is governed by very basic, chemical equations; the way it acts is very orderly, in correspondence with laws of thermodynamics. It can be said that arable land is much more chaotic, because, organic chemistry, as well all know, is much harder to put into trends and explain with equations. I, however, would like to say that both the volcano and the arable land are orderly, as they are all governed by laws. I would like to argue that chaos is an illusion we use to describe things that we are unable to understand. To a child that does not understand subtraction, addition is much more orderly, while subtraction is chaotic, because the child understands the laws of addition. However, subtraction is not chaotic, just because the child doesn't understand the laws of subtraction, does not mean that there ARE NO laws of subtraction. For example, the child might thing that 18 subtracted by 4 is 12, that 25 subtracted by 6 is 21, that 13 subtracted by 7 is 10, it’s obvious that the child is using an incorrect law, whether or not the child recognizes he/she is using a law, they will think that subtraction is chaotic, follows no laws because it contradicts what the child's mind thinks is the law of subtraction. So, again, chaos is an illusion created by human comparison and confusion. Political anarchy may seem chaotic to a human, but without the bias of the human experience, just for what political anarchy is, and not what it means to humans, it is governed by the same laws as anything else, and is thus order.

I don’t like your last paragraph: "So, can something come from nothing? I guess that's the central question. And I guess my answer is... it depends. Nothing is never nothing. There is always something. Something greater. And we can always expand." The last couple of sentences say that nothing cannot be. There is never nothing. There is always something, which can change and be analyzed by human bias. You have implied that since there never was a nothing, something cannot ever come from nothing, because there never was nothing. If the last four sentences are true (which they are), your answer should NOT be "it depends". Your warrants have led you to the right conclusion, but you haven't made the final step.

-Mitchell B.”

Metacognition- Poem

You can look at my other metacognition for how I develop ideas, if you want.

For this poem, I chose the image of a dead lady. I decided to explore the implications of death and how with death makes the already “meaningless enough” (see my previous post, the “best of week”) human experience worthless. Upon death, all things that were so important, all the moments of love, grief are destroyed. Everything is lost.

I’m struggling with the revision process. A lot of the time, I’m not quite sure what to do. I know that in the past, I’ve had “trouble with making the image clear to the reader”. I can see the justification for this, and have tried to make it easier for the reader to “get it”.

However, I’ve always thought that poetry should be more flexible. I understand that at a certain point, the reader has to be able to understand some fundamental things going on in the poem, but once that was accomplished; I’ve liked poetry that allows multiple perceptions. The art of poetry is to capture human experience, emotions in cold writing. Poetry is beautiful when it can relate to anybody. A poem can mirror joy and grief at the same time. Poems are universal. I have never thought poems should be description. Description, in my mind, is the detailed blueprint, while poetry is Rorschach inkblot. It’s like a magic trick. We try to find the solution, but we’re not really looking. We want to be fooled; we want to believe, if only for a second, that there is magic, that there can be love or hate in writing. When poetry is made into a blueprint, I realize that there is no real value, there is no emotion, that there is merely ink on paper and no human whatsoever.

Best of week: Something from nothing?

No, it simply isn’t possible, at least not in the most literal of ways. The idea of something coming from true nothingness tries to hit the ground running, but lands on its face. People have tried to rationalize this concept with the idea of some divine, supernatural force. It’s the easy way out; just say that the answer lies in something we couldn’t possibly understand. Everything is the way it is for a specific reason. There is a physics, chemistry explanation for the way anything and everything is at any point in time.

This is where we must save the idea with comparative analysis. We have to group things in such away that, comparatively, certain things seem fundamental or like nothing, and others appear to be sophisticated or of great value.

“you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake
you are the same decaying
organic matter as everything else
we are all a part of the same compost heap
we are the all-singing,
all-dancing crap of the world”

-Tyler Durden, Fight Club

When we realize how truly simple everything is, when we realize that science isn’t the reality, science is complex, science is the method with which we rationalize simple reality to the human brain, everything loses value and everything is uniform as something or nothing. When it comes down to it, everything is groups of quarks.

But when we group human ideals, and group the things around us, we can make ourselves feel better by labeling certain things as sophisticated, though sophistication is an evolutionary illusion. When comparing, using this illusion created by evolved human ideals, we can find certain things extraordinary, and in turn, justify labeling other things that, while on a sub-molecular level are the same, of no value or “nothing”. And this is the origin of the something from nothing idea as personified in human experience.

Connection- King Lear and Heroes (and plot technique in general I guess)

Just some backup story: Sylar is a serial killer who steals others powers by cutting their heads open. For complicated reasons, his ability to steal others powers has ceased to work. Alejandro and Maya are brother/sister from Mexico who also have powers (that aren’t important) and have found Sylar. Sylar claims he can help them find a professor who can explain their powers, but really just wants them to drive him to someone who can give his powers back and then kill them.

(Sylar/Regan and Goneril) talk nice to gain the trust of (Maya/ Lear). (Alejandro/Cordelia) who actually cares about (Maya/Lear) doesn’t trust (Sylar/Regan and Goneril)’s intentions. Despite having previously more connections and love with (Alejandro/Cordelia), (Maya/ Lear) rejects (Alejandro/Cordelia)’s reasoning. Alejandro gets murdered by Sylar and Sylar tells Maya that Alejandro has gone back to Mexico and she believes him. As (Maya/ Lear) begin to depend more and more on (Sylar/Regan and Goneril) they are betrayed and realize how much more they should have trusted (Alejandro/Cordelia).

This also happens very frequently in movies. The good character makes a minor mistake or has an emotional outburst and another character that has good intentions but can’t see the truth trusts another character that eventually backstabs them. It’s particularly dramatic and interesting when the good character that is no longer trusted realizes exactly what is happening but is unable to stop it. They plead to the character with good intentions to no avail and struggle against society to stop the bad character. This shows how even though many people dislike reading Shakespeare and don’t understand Shakespeare, his plot techniques and themes have crept into common life. Many movies include variations of this. Clearly exhibited is the ability of Shakespeare’s work to endure the ages, through even those arts previously unknown. Shakespeare’s ideas are an analysis of human interaction and are, in many cases, universal.

TED Project Reflection

TED… I have mixed feelings about it. While I agree that it was far better this year than last year, I still had a few problems with it.

This year’s Google sites were an improvement over last year’s wikis. They were easier to navigate and felt more polished. I also liked how we actually met with our groups before the presentation date. However, even more group meetings definitely could have been beneficial. Of course, I realize that it is a bit complicated to organize a meeting with almost 120 students. A lot of the problems with this project came from the lack of work ethic among other grade levels. I guess my group was rather lucky in that, even though some of us did procrastinate, we all got the work done and we distributed and followed through on equal amounts of work. I also can’t complain about devoting too much time to the project. I spent about 4-5 hours on the project and most of that was research time.

The problem I have is that I really didn’t learn anything from the presentations themselves. Any actual learning took place when I watched all the videos for the first time. I felt that the student presentations were too much simple re-wording of the TED videos. Sure learning other “academy-like” people’s ideas on how to solve problems could be useful, but wouldn’t academy discussions to explore how to find solutions be more beneficial? Shouldn’t we be learning problem solving critical thinking rather than how to extend off the views of others? I really don’t know, I’m not a teacher, but I just know that I am unsatisfied with the actual value of the project.

Captured Thought- Music

“You can trust me, 'cause I'm your priest, I'm your shrink... I am your main connection to the switchboard of the soul. I'm the magic man... Santa Claus of the subconscious. You say it, you think it, you can have it.” –Lenny Nero, from Strange Days

Now, Lenny is referring to a futuristic device which allows the user to “live” certain memories that people have recorded. You could live a robbery without getting your hands dirty or relive cherished moments of your past.

I believe that is much the same. Composers isolate emotions, feelings, parts of their lives, and express them in ways words cannot. Music really is the switchboard of the soul. Whether one of Chopin’s heartrending Nocturnes, one of Mozart’s light melodies or one of Beethoven’s furious Sonata’s, music captures and expresses life. Why certain combinations cause humans to feel certain feelings is unknown.

Music is not the art of love; it is the art of life. Every listener takes the feel of music and relates it to their own experience. Somehow, a composer can make a universal connection to anyone. Music brings out our own memories, stimulation of memory spurred by emotion. Much like reality, a piece of music, a single measure, can be perceived and played countless different ways, everyone hears and plays in ways specific to their own experience. Music is not simply TV for the subconscious; it’s a piece of a person’s life.

Carry it Forward: Religion- Atheist-found value in the Church

Some would say that (and I agree) that I rather failed to keep myself from Christian-bashing in my previous post. I will now try to do them justice, though the topic differs slightly from the one before.

Several things have recently piqued my interest. For one thing, I have a friend who was a devout Christian. Last year, I managed to destroy his faith; I made him realize how ridiculous certain parts of his religious practices are. As a consequence, attending church with his “religious friends” has become very depressing. As such, my guilty conscience forced me to reconcile him with a bunch of reasons why he should continue to maintain his relationship with America’s favorite deity.

Also, ideas from history class regarding the reformation and stimulation from “Birches” made me wonder whether the faith in religion was actually what mattered. It was a question of the actual subconscious human appeal.

Ignoring disputes over the existence of God, religion serves as a connection to other people. The faith itself isn’t what’s important. The connection you have with other people is what is important. But, like in my response to Daniel’s post, “God” has power through the people. Not miracles. People are contributing to the idea. It represents something greater than oneself. Even if it isn’t really God, it is the power to change. And that is why informed Christianity is good, if educated citizens can contribute to a greater power, we can make the world a better place.

Of course, this is all from a heavily atheistic standpoint, and that is why this is a “Carry it Forward”, I already felt this way about the issue. I also realize that if all Christians adopted this view, their faith would dissolve and the social connections would be destroyed.

First, I commented on Albert's blog, because I also really despise having to work. Albert's post was about homework and the lack of need for it sometimes. I basically said that I agreed with him, but could see easy ways to extend his points further into the education system. I felt that though he explored his own opinion very well, it wasn't quite a 360.

"Well...

First off, I agree with you at a fundamental level. The way classes are now, more intelligent people have to suffer and plow through busy work and don't receive any benefits. In math and most of our classes in general, once you understand a concept, no amount of practice will help you. In fact, I wish you would extrapolate this further and talk about how teaching in the Math, History and Health areas esp. have essentially become a agenda advocated by the government to decrease unemployment rates by paying people to dig holes in the ground.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying this is true, I'm merely pointing out that with the combination of simply reading from the textbook in class and students that get things more quickly, some teachers seem to be useless in the learning enviroment. Why not just buy a textbook? Why have a teacher? This of course isn't always true, as one can see in areas that requires critical thinking (i.e. English, foreign languages and more experimental and groundbreaking sciences) rather than mechanic understanding, a teacher for guidance and to start discussion is necessary. In other words, meaning of life as opposed to simple arithmatic requires instruction.

I feel that too much help from a teacher can actually stunt a student's learning ability in order to jam a few facts into their head. For instance, it is shown that potential ESL students end up doing better in all areas of learning when not receiving support from an ESL teacher.

Of course, not discussing all of this is not your fault, as I have simply strayed from the topic at hand: homework.

Let me say that, in some places, I feel you did not do the topic justice.

The way I see it, your blog post isn't quite a 360. It is rather similar to mine in that it is largely a critique. While you do occasionally indicate that requiring homework is good, you always either define the instance when homework is good to fit your view, or just return and counter the point. For example, if you say that homework is good, you will turn around and say that homework is only good when it is necessary for learning (i.e. for those behind in class). In this way, you serve to only push forward your own viewpoint by the end of your post. While I agree with most of your points, I feel that this is not a 360. However, it is a good exploration of your opinion and how you came to believe it."
______________________________

Second, I posted in response to Daniel's 360, as my mind connected it to religion as soon as I read it. The idea was basically that faith in people is taken advantage of or used to create a larger power. Examples of this are Daniel's Band and the influence of the Pope in Medieval Europe.

"Hello Daniel,

I reacted differently than Ali did upon reading your post, I was reminded of God.

Now for atheists, God doesn't have any power s/he doesn't have any direct control over our lives and we simply don't recognize a need for belief in him/her.

Of course, for theists it is the exact opposite, God has a definite hold over their thoughts, actions and lives in general. For one thing, attending church/temple provides an additional social aspect of a person's life and religion has been used as a social tool to control people's lives.

And, in this way, religion and thus the idea of God has much influence in daily life. It is common for a Christian mother to pray to God when one of her children becomes ill and it is natural for the mother to become overcome with thankfulness when her child recovers. Misdirected respect for God thus strengthens said mother's belief, as well as religion's hold over her life.

Relating back to what you said, her individual faith in God continues to spur religious development allowing for more children to become "educated" and thus increasing the power of religious institutions. That is why successful relgions have a supportive base and thus can advocate things like religious wars and disbelief in logic. (Though both of those things are increasingly becoming things of the past as humanity has become more educated)

In this way, every individual matters as, like you said, they contribute in order to construct a greater power (in your context, music).

Overall, good post."

360 Degrees- God

God. Never anything more baffling to the human mind has been “discovered” or “existed”. Let’s look at the human-tied origin of this supernatural being. In the early centuries, God or nature, rather, served humans in a quid pro quo relationship. We would sacrifice and they would provide. As time went on, these celestial beings became personified as humanoids, as we could imagine no creature more worthy to bear the image of the gods. As centralized states began to emerge, gods were used to back up a certain leader, and threw the “voice of god” priests gained immense power. Why follow a mere man, when your neighboring state followed a God-king? You can imagine what persuasive power such divine rule could have over a people.

Nowadays, religion and belief in God has warped dramatically. This general population has become increasingly informed and belief in magic and miracles has dwindled significantly, and religion has needed to adapt in order to survive. We now believe in chemistry as opposed to alchemy. Most of us prefer astronomy to astrology, and magic has been left behind in favor of physics. However, Creationism has been surprisingly stubborn.

People will ignore a billion year database full of evidence (the earth) as well as the changes that are occurring around them. Why? What is the driving force that defeats all logic? Well, simply put, man is above the animal. God created us in his image; we are his children of divinity. We cannot have come forth from lower beings.

It is not surprising that of all of the religious ideas, this one has survived, as the entirety of Christian faith is essentially built on the notion that man is the highest of beings on this earth. Why else would the Son have been manifested in a human body? Humans possess greater knowledge and reasoning than that of the other beings. Have we not built great works, composed great songs, written great literature? And what has the monkey done? And the foul snake? Barbarian nature does not even compare to the brilliance of man.

Why does literature make man better? How are great works the medium for deciding if a race is better? Who placed this definition? A lifestyle built on an arbitrary guideline?

Oh, but this is why believers are undeniably right. Religion is built on faith. I, being a religious man, can answer anything you bring up. I have FAITH in my God. I am NOT a monkey. God loves me. I believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Fossils are tricks orchestrated by the devil. Fossils were placed to test my faith. In the end, I realize that past events do not matter. God tells me to be a good person, and I must be. The love of God will always win.

Religion exists to teach the lost children of God to be a good person. The Bible is not to be taken literally, neither are fables. The underlying moral is what must be communicated. Without a moral code from the heavens, the devil would surely consume the entirety of humanity. Without God, without the guiding light, there is only darkness and deceit. Atheists throw morality to the winds, if there is not order there is chaos.

On the other hand, why does there need to be a God for one to be good? Are you admitting that if you didn’t believe in God you would be a worse person? Why can’t humanity just decide to be good because we are human? If we are all good to each other, everyone is happy. It is depressing to think that humanity needs a carrot of salvation and a stick of damnation to be nice.

A study conducted by psychologists John Darley and C. Daniel Batson found that people that were instructed to give a speech about the story of the Good Samaritan and its modern day implications later stopped to give aid to as much as people who were instructed to give a speech about job opportunities. The deciding factor ended up being how much of a rush the subjects were in rather than what they knew or were going to give a speech about.

Furthermore, an experiment conducted by Solomon Asch concluded that one third of people will supply an obviously wrong answer if they see three other people give the same completely ridiculous answer. Subjects were shown the image above and asked which line in Exhibit 2 was the same length as the line in Exhibit 1. One third of subjects answered B or C after they witnessed three other fake subjects answer either B or C (all three times).

There does not need to be a God, but it is true that adoration and lust will only lead to suffering. One must seek enlightenment and attain Nirvana. The world is full of sin and hate and only through inactivity and moderation can this suffering be replaced with true bliss.

Through SUCCESS, not inaction, humans find happiness. The ability to provide for our children is an evolutionary imperative. As times change, the means by which we must ready our children for the world changes correspondingly.

You need look no further than the earth itself to find evidence of God. A painting must have a painter. The complexity of the human body is undeniable proof for intelligent design.

No, you cannot apply a human biased relationship to the universe. The dust on the windowsill is a product of physics not a dust-maker. The tides come in and out due to the gravity of the moon, not because of the hand of a god. A human template cannot be extrapolated as a trend for all of nature.

Atheists have provided the idea of the Big Bang, and claim to be the agents of reason, but it is they who are making leaps of faith. Something cannot come from nothing. “A high composition of heat and intense mass caused the universe to explode into existence.” And where did this high composition come from? Your answers lead nowhere. God is uniquely key to explaining the existence of anything.

Why must the universe have a beginning? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Remember the conservation of mass law. I suppose it’s natural for scared and insecure humans to apply truths about the fact that their birth and death did/will occur with certainty to the universe. This is much like the fact that the notion of “heaven” now exists solely to comfort children and the infirm.

Again, there are no grounds for believing that a beginning or a god exist(ed). More importantly, this brings up some intriguing things about time. Our perception as we experience it is an infinitely small unit of time. Theoretically, a human could be alive for an infinitely small amount of time and only REMEMBER the past, as memory is a physical manifestation of a tendency to avoid harmful things or to strive for ecstasy. (see post on “Memoria ex Machina”) But more to the point, one cannot dispute that time can be perceived infinitely small, thus isn’t time infinitely long in either direction, by definition? The universe is boundless; can time not be as well?


But, in the end, we can never really know. An atheist can never prove, with all certainty, that God does not exist, and a theist believes on grounds of faith, and thus cannot prove to science that God does. Thus, it is better to accept that people will believe different things and that one can simply never know… or can we?

Metacognition: Kite Runner

“Imagine people's minds, their psychology and thought as spheres. Imagine that each of these spheres is filled with liquid, much like a water balloon. This liquid resembles the myriad of thoughts and opinions every person contains. Now as humans are inherently social creatures, imagine that each of these spheres has a gravitational pull, representing this desire to be social. But of course, as the spheres become closer, they are put under increasing amounts of pressure. Thus they must maintain equilibrium in which not only is the gravity in place, but there is not too much pressure. This idea can also be seen in the ‘Hedgehog's dilemma’ constructed by Schopenhauer. While any contact at all can result in one of the spheres affecting another, the closer the spheres are, the greater the volume of the effect.” –Me, on the mind

Now, let’s apply this to my thinking process. First off, I am not a god, and thus my ideas do not spring forth from nothingness. As I am assigned to think of something by my brain, I start pulling any relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) pre-existing knowledge or observations. As these ideas and thoughts start piling on each other, the gravity of the creation becomes greater (my mind is trying rather hard, to figure it out, so it’s pulling all sorts of thoughts in). Eventually, something happens. No one is quite sure what it is, whether the pressure is too much, if there is some chemical reaction or some greater realization, but what happens is that this concentration of ideas explodes outwards. Now, within my own sphere, my mind, this explosion has endless bounds. Are all ideas without bounds? Resulting from this explosion, things begin to form. And, maybe, someday, life will come into existence.

Of course all of this only matters if the person that is supposed to be receiving this idea understands it. In order to do that, they have to be able see its composition in its fullest. And while they may find more meaning in a particular idea, they will never see it the way I intended. It’s nearly impossible. The probability of such a thing happening is the same probability of me spontaneously appearing on the other side of a wall (and it IS possible). To communicate the entirety of an idea is to communicate your full identity.

“Your environment, your entire life's experience is you and is a product of you, returning to affect the identity of others while they continue to affect you. But how do you come to understand this concept? … It must be impossible. The only way to do so would be to have the boundaries of the spheres … deteriorate, so that humans could actually truly know each other. But then, would we not lose or identity, our individual selves? Thus, by definition, ‘who’ cannot possibly be articulated from one person to another. If it was possible, there would be no identity to speak of.” -Me

Best of Week (Margot's Kite Runner Comment)

The most insightful point of the week was brought up by Margot regarding Kite Runner and tea. The comment references pg. 197 "dropped three sugar cubes in my tea." and pg. 225 "blackest tea I'd had in years". This is a metaphor for Amir's ignorance, obviously. It also connects with how he has, time and time again, tried to deal with his problems by burying them. He tries to bury his past by fleeing to America, just as he tries to bury the bitter tea in sugar. Of course, once the full magnitude of the truth is revealed to him by Rahim Khan, he's drinking the blackest tea ever. Wonderful craft by Hosseini.

This really relates to Life of Pi, in which Pi tried to ignore his own brutailty by burying the truth using "Richard Parker". Last year, we discussed at length the "good story" as compared to the "better story".

"Pi ran away from his problems, from himself. That is why he complains of no clusure. This is why 'Richard Parker still preys on his mind.' Instead of confronting and resolving his problems he ran away, making his past actions the predator and himself the prey. In my opinion reason and reality are far safer bets than that which is comforting for the psyche. Like with Oedipus, truth needs to be realized to minimize loss in any situation."

-Me, on Life of Pi

I feel much is the same for Amir, he failed to have closure with Hassan, and this is why he is plagued with guilt and remorse. Not until he confronts his past is he able to obtain closure and feel at terms with himself. This is why he returns to Afghanistan, this is why he writes this "memoir". And what do we learn from this? We learn that Baba is right, when you lie, you steal someone's right to truth and that is one of the worst sins. The truth is necessary for one's life to be meaningful.

Carry It Forward- Memoria ex Machina

On the nature of memory. There is no soul (not bound and defined by matter). Everything must have some physical manifestation. Our emotions, our thoughts, our memories. How are these manifested in our brains? Moreover, how is that this physical storage of memory effected by the nature of the memory itself. It is rather well known that memories with strong riveting emotions tend to last longer. But why? Are they branded in the mind so that they take time to fade? Is it an evolutionary survival attribute? It makes sense that organisms should remember life-threatening situations so that they can continue to survive. Are periodic and habitual actions thus also saved, like in the migratory flight of birds and the periodic tinkering with an alarm clock?

While we speak of physical manifestations how is intelligence manifested? Do smarter people perceive things as being slower, have a faster rate of thinking? If a smart person saw things through a stupid person's eyes would walking appear to be running? The important thing is how can we find how this speed of thought is determined within the brain. Can we engineer how smart we are? Can we give some humans a near infinite speed of thinking, so that they have near infinite amounts of perceived (by them) time to solve humanities problems? Can we make ourselves more intelligent?