Yes you, you narcissist. (Not really, but read on.)
It appears that Facebook Places just launched in Australia this week. I know that over 10 people have started using it in my friends list, probably many others too. Yet I also know other people who have voiced their concerns. "Ooh, I don't want other people to know where I am!" "Ooh, people are going to stalk me!"
1. No, the chance of some creepy obsessed stalker who wants to know your exact location finding out is next to none, depending on your privacy settings. By default, only friends can know your exact location, so if you really don't want creepy people to find out, you would probably care enough to set the right settings.
2. Wait, somebody so sad is out there watching your every move? I don't think your concern should be about people knowing where you are, rather for your facebook friend to 'get a life'.
Honestly, who the fuck is going to stalk someone. Maybe unless you are some sort of international/local celebrity. But honestly, nobody cares about where you are, so chill the fuck out.
Now my second point is probably far too contentious. I'll say it anyway, but my intention is not to be offensive. Feel free to make a reply. On the context of religion, mainly religions where people think there is a 'personal God'. I am not an atheist, for one, but I highly doubt the existence of a personal God (as voiced by others such as Einstein and Hawking, not to make an argument from authority though). You may frequently hear quotes such as "God LOVES you", "God cares about you enough to give His only Son" etc. from Christian sources, but not the emphasis is on a relationship between yourself and this God. Ultimately, this leads towards a rehashing of all the arguments against fundamentalist religion, so I won't waste my breath by restating it here. But my point here is that people's idea of a God necessitates that God takes a human form, with human features, and that God cares about you - why is that? Because people are so self centered, that the idea of a God must be personal. It would be a ghastly thought for many people of fundamentalist Abrahamic faith that a deity is not personal. You can keep telling yourself that, but there is the burden of proof for religions. I believe that the conceptualisation of a deity is definitely tainted by man's self-centeredness.
One day, if we find life on other planets, what's going to happen? I'm not saying it's a certainty, but with improvements in space technology, who knows (see this page about a recent discovery). At the end, people have to wake up to themselves. Man has always shared the planet with other beings, we have got to look beyond the boundaries of what's confined in oneself.
13.9.10
Too wrung up on success?
I've been reading an article in the SMH ("Are migrant parents pushing their kids too hard at school?", 13/9/10) regarding Selective Schools, as well as the comments that followed. Many felt that it was unnecessary to pinpoint the racial specifics, of the high proportion of migrants in Selective Schools. As someone who was educated in a selective school, I believe it is not a new phenomenon - we have known the benefits of tuition that will benefit one's chances of entering a selective high school.
Yet I want to point out something that goes against the grain.
The big question: Are we safe to say that all this tuition is for your child's benefit, in the long run? Is this for optimal benefit of the child?
Within the cohorts of each year's selective school graduates, I can say that there are many individual differences in the outcomes. Yet, I can pinpoint a trend, where university degree selection for many is based on specific careers - be it doctor, lawyer, accountant, actuary... you name it. Is this the child's choice? I can't say I'm sure. There is no doubt that many Asian parents have quite a strong influence on what their child is to pursue at uni.
This might be a sweeping generalisation of some sort, feel free to correct me. I acknowledge that a proportion will allow their children a free choice of what career / degree to pursue. But, from what has been said, I follow with two points of concern:
1) Where do these children have a choice? Do they get a choice in whether they actually want tuition? Many parents feel that it is a requirement for their children to be tutored, because Mr X and Mrs Y next door are giving it to their kids. They feel a need to follow the crowd, en masse, in order to compete. And why? Because...
2) Many parents are wrung up on success. Undoubtedly, all parents want their children to be successful, and thus will benefit them in every way they deem to be necessary. Decisions are made on the potential for their children to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to imbue your children with the powers to have a successful life. Yet, the definition of 'success' for many Asians is quite narrow - many believe that making money is the most definite marker of success, as money was lacking when these parents grew up. I don't see a problem with the intentions.
Now let's look at the cause and effect. Parents want their children to follow a particular path. Their children are likely to follow that path. For those who do - are they likely to think beyond the boundaries of the opportunities that have been offered to them? They have grown up with opportunities that have been spoonfed.
I'll add another point here. Selective schools are no doubt elite in education, and attract the brightest students. What happens after the brightest students go to school together for 6 years?
I'll mention, both anecdotally and from personal experience, that there will be distorted perceptions. Prior to starting my first job in Year 10, I must admit that I was quite out of touch - meeting the general population for the first time put me in shock. The thoughts and behaviours of the general population was novel to me.
And I'll speak for some of my high school classmates, and examining their behaviour post high school. I have to say that many have held these distorted perceptions of society prior to taking employment, whence they are taken aback by the gap between how society operates and how they normally operate with society. Some adapt, others don't.
So, in terms of being able to help students mesh with overall society, I see selective schools as not being able to help bridge that gap. This is down to the child's choice and lifestyle - for example, if they have friends from outside of school, do extra-curricular activites / partake in employment, they may be better adjusted socially. For those who are 'academic hermits', we should think twice about whether we are doing any good.
Yet I want to point out something that goes against the grain.
The big question: Are we safe to say that all this tuition is for your child's benefit, in the long run? Is this for optimal benefit of the child?
Within the cohorts of each year's selective school graduates, I can say that there are many individual differences in the outcomes. Yet, I can pinpoint a trend, where university degree selection for many is based on specific careers - be it doctor, lawyer, accountant, actuary... you name it. Is this the child's choice? I can't say I'm sure. There is no doubt that many Asian parents have quite a strong influence on what their child is to pursue at uni.
This might be a sweeping generalisation of some sort, feel free to correct me. I acknowledge that a proportion will allow their children a free choice of what career / degree to pursue. But, from what has been said, I follow with two points of concern:
1) Where do these children have a choice? Do they get a choice in whether they actually want tuition? Many parents feel that it is a requirement for their children to be tutored, because Mr X and Mrs Y next door are giving it to their kids. They feel a need to follow the crowd, en masse, in order to compete. And why? Because...
2) Many parents are wrung up on success. Undoubtedly, all parents want their children to be successful, and thus will benefit them in every way they deem to be necessary. Decisions are made on the potential for their children to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to imbue your children with the powers to have a successful life. Yet, the definition of 'success' for many Asians is quite narrow - many believe that making money is the most definite marker of success, as money was lacking when these parents grew up. I don't see a problem with the intentions.
Now let's look at the cause and effect. Parents want their children to follow a particular path. Their children are likely to follow that path. For those who do - are they likely to think beyond the boundaries of the opportunities that have been offered to them? They have grown up with opportunities that have been spoonfed.
I'll add another point here. Selective schools are no doubt elite in education, and attract the brightest students. What happens after the brightest students go to school together for 6 years?
I'll mention, both anecdotally and from personal experience, that there will be distorted perceptions. Prior to starting my first job in Year 10, I must admit that I was quite out of touch - meeting the general population for the first time put me in shock. The thoughts and behaviours of the general population was novel to me.
And I'll speak for some of my high school classmates, and examining their behaviour post high school. I have to say that many have held these distorted perceptions of society prior to taking employment, whence they are taken aback by the gap between how society operates and how they normally operate with society. Some adapt, others don't.
So, in terms of being able to help students mesh with overall society, I see selective schools as not being able to help bridge that gap. This is down to the child's choice and lifestyle - for example, if they have friends from outside of school, do extra-curricular activites / partake in employment, they may be better adjusted socially. For those who are 'academic hermits', we should think twice about whether we are doing any good.
7.9.10
We are in for another exciting three years
Possibly even more exciting than the change that the Kevin'07 was telling us about last election?
Today marks an end to a two-party preferred system dominance of our political system. It is a breath of fresh air, knowing that a range of political views are represented in a minority government - we are no longer just accepting whatever tripe the two major parties deliver.
Of course, it isn't something that the Coalition fans like to hear, especially since they aren't in power. But with faith in our vote and our democracy, this is the optimum result. The Government that is in power right now represents the greatest share of the primary votes (I'm talking about a government featuring Labor / Greens / Independents).
It will be a test, but I have faith in shared decision making. I hope that we will get some sensible policy decisions influenced by a spectrum of thought.
Today marks an end to a two-party preferred system dominance of our political system. It is a breath of fresh air, knowing that a range of political views are represented in a minority government - we are no longer just accepting whatever tripe the two major parties deliver.
Of course, it isn't something that the Coalition fans like to hear, especially since they aren't in power. But with faith in our vote and our democracy, this is the optimum result. The Government that is in power right now represents the greatest share of the primary votes (I'm talking about a government featuring Labor / Greens / Independents).
It will be a test, but I have faith in shared decision making. I hope that we will get some sensible policy decisions influenced by a spectrum of thought.
31.8.10
We have stalled. How shall we get back to our feet again?
With Australia's Government hanging in the balance, we face a period of uncertainty. The next few years will be unclear - a growing dissatisfaction for the two major parties are mounting. Many Labor voters, disappointed with the treatment of Rudd and unimpressed with the internal fighting of the factions have turned to other parties which more accurately represent their views. Not all swing voters are immediately convinced by the Liberal party either; a party which has become a shadow of its former self, now is reliant on short-sighted solutions and slogans to pull through. Let me elaborate:
Labor. Despite a dissatisfaction with the delay of the Emissions Trading Scheme and the controversial Mining Tax being put forward, Labor voters were possibly most strongly affected by the dumping of Rudd. What the factions assumed was that Labor could still ride in the popularity of the Rudd with an alternate leader who was less controversial (more akin to Kevin '07). However, the replacement leader Gillard was not given enough time to prove herself as a stable leader. Rather than the strength of the Labor party, the decision to call for the election was based on the relative unpopularity of Abbott, a decision that Labor powerbrokers probably regarded as 'safe'. Fresh from the dumping of Rudd and the delay of key promises, voters to the Left shifted to other options such as the Greens or the Australian Sex Party, which more strongly represented their ideologies. Other moderate swing voters, threatened by the potential imposation of the Mining Tax, shifted to the Liberals.
Liberal. Against the overall ideology of the Liberal party, previous Opposition Leader Turnbull pushed for an Emissions Trading Scheme and a Carbon Tax. Due to the unpopularity of these policies in the Liberal camp, it led to a leadership spill, where Abbott replaced Turnbull as leader of the opposition. The reason why I believe the party has become a shadow of its former self lies on the policies, or '12 point action plan' which was announced for their campaign.
"Restore the budget surplus within three years and start paying Labor’s debt".
Undoubtedly, the Liberal party is perceived to be the better manager of Australia economy out of the two major parties. However, let's not forget that we had just recovered from the Global Financial Crisis. Arguably, if Labor spent less money, Australia may have hit recession. One thing to question is where Labor spent the money, some areas of spending have been controversial. This point is only used to further damage the reputation of the Labor brand as a 'wasteful spender' rather than having any sound implication, even Labor plans for the the budget to return to surplus. I would like to ask, despite Howard/Costello's sound economic management, whether the previous Liberal government invested in any of their hard earned money in needed infrastructure?
"End Labor’s waste and restore cabinet government" ('Labor's Waste' is covered in the previous point). "the Coalition will restore the decision-making processes of Cabinet to restore integrity to government decision-making." This point is irrelevant. Whichever Government is in control of the Senate and Lower House will have all their bills passed anyway, regardless of how the Governments come to their decision. The question here is whether democracy is truly reflected in our parliamentary system?
"Reject Labor’s massive new mining tax and other taxes that hurt productivity" There is no doubt that the Mining tax is unpopular to Australia's investors. Rudd saw the Mining industry as the most profitable industry in Australia, and had a plan to tax this industry at a much higher rate, the argument being that the profits from Australia's resources return to Australia's pockets. The tax will no doubt reduce the profitability of such companies, yet the opinions regarding the Mining tax stems from a myopic greed. In the short term, the industry will most certainly be affected. But one day, resources will be diminished, the CEOs will have made their millions, but where is Australia's share? This is an argument down to ideology, if you believe that private ownership of land should be respected, then by all means disagree with the tax. I believe Australia deserves a share.
Enforce strict border security and control. As a First world country, just on the basis of human rights, what would it mean to "stop the boats"? Let's not forget those who are less fortunate than us. I believe that this is also a policy that made Left winged Labor voters disheartened, as they also wanted a push for offshore processing. We have roughly 21.5 million people. Hardly enough boat people arrive in Australia for it to be a problem. I believe these campaigns are fear-inducing and xenophobic, yet we should be seeing these people as real refugees who want to live in a better place. Let's not forget that we are bound by the UN to accept refugees who arrive on our shore.
These are a few of the major points, but it is sad to see both major parties running negative campaigns regarding the other party. Both campaigns were hollow and tarnished; Liberal had a chance to put some solid policies on the table which would move Australia forward, but instead ran an unintellectual short-sighted campaign.
It is clear that leaders like Abbott will not promote a forward thinking government. For example, the rejection of the National Broadband Network as a 'waste', although it will bridge the gap between rural and urban Australia, and keep Australia up with the rest of the world. As someone who works with computers, I see an evident trend where the Internet is no longer a luxury but a necessity, especially in education. The Liberal has come up with an alternative plan which appeals to everyone living in the shoebox of Australia; sufficient because it is an improvement, yet falls behind when trying to keep up with rest of the developed world, especially Asia. In addition, for someone who does not believe in public transport, it is highly unlikely that Abbott will put forward a better plan for our cities and national links.
What is unclear is whether the Government that materialises will live up to their election promises, for either party. Also, what is the impact of the independents in the Governments that may form, if so, will overall policies be weakened or shifted? Perhaps another election is pending if a decision cannot be reached.
Labor. Despite a dissatisfaction with the delay of the Emissions Trading Scheme and the controversial Mining Tax being put forward, Labor voters were possibly most strongly affected by the dumping of Rudd. What the factions assumed was that Labor could still ride in the popularity of the Rudd with an alternate leader who was less controversial (more akin to Kevin '07). However, the replacement leader Gillard was not given enough time to prove herself as a stable leader. Rather than the strength of the Labor party, the decision to call for the election was based on the relative unpopularity of Abbott, a decision that Labor powerbrokers probably regarded as 'safe'. Fresh from the dumping of Rudd and the delay of key promises, voters to the Left shifted to other options such as the Greens or the Australian Sex Party, which more strongly represented their ideologies. Other moderate swing voters, threatened by the potential imposation of the Mining Tax, shifted to the Liberals.
Liberal. Against the overall ideology of the Liberal party, previous Opposition Leader Turnbull pushed for an Emissions Trading Scheme and a Carbon Tax. Due to the unpopularity of these policies in the Liberal camp, it led to a leadership spill, where Abbott replaced Turnbull as leader of the opposition. The reason why I believe the party has become a shadow of its former self lies on the policies, or '12 point action plan' which was announced for their campaign.
"Restore the budget surplus within three years and start paying Labor’s debt".
Undoubtedly, the Liberal party is perceived to be the better manager of Australia economy out of the two major parties. However, let's not forget that we had just recovered from the Global Financial Crisis. Arguably, if Labor spent less money, Australia may have hit recession. One thing to question is where Labor spent the money, some areas of spending have been controversial. This point is only used to further damage the reputation of the Labor brand as a 'wasteful spender' rather than having any sound implication, even Labor plans for the the budget to return to surplus. I would like to ask, despite Howard/Costello's sound economic management, whether the previous Liberal government invested in any of their hard earned money in needed infrastructure?
"End Labor’s waste and restore cabinet government" ('Labor's Waste' is covered in the previous point). "the Coalition will restore the decision-making processes of Cabinet to restore integrity to government decision-making." This point is irrelevant. Whichever Government is in control of the Senate and Lower House will have all their bills passed anyway, regardless of how the Governments come to their decision. The question here is whether democracy is truly reflected in our parliamentary system?
"Reject Labor’s massive new mining tax and other taxes that hurt productivity" There is no doubt that the Mining tax is unpopular to Australia's investors. Rudd saw the Mining industry as the most profitable industry in Australia, and had a plan to tax this industry at a much higher rate, the argument being that the profits from Australia's resources return to Australia's pockets. The tax will no doubt reduce the profitability of such companies, yet the opinions regarding the Mining tax stems from a myopic greed. In the short term, the industry will most certainly be affected. But one day, resources will be diminished, the CEOs will have made their millions, but where is Australia's share? This is an argument down to ideology, if you believe that private ownership of land should be respected, then by all means disagree with the tax. I believe Australia deserves a share.
Enforce strict border security and control. As a First world country, just on the basis of human rights, what would it mean to "stop the boats"? Let's not forget those who are less fortunate than us. I believe that this is also a policy that made Left winged Labor voters disheartened, as they also wanted a push for offshore processing. We have roughly 21.5 million people. Hardly enough boat people arrive in Australia for it to be a problem. I believe these campaigns are fear-inducing and xenophobic, yet we should be seeing these people as real refugees who want to live in a better place. Let's not forget that we are bound by the UN to accept refugees who arrive on our shore.
These are a few of the major points, but it is sad to see both major parties running negative campaigns regarding the other party. Both campaigns were hollow and tarnished; Liberal had a chance to put some solid policies on the table which would move Australia forward, but instead ran an unintellectual short-sighted campaign.
It is clear that leaders like Abbott will not promote a forward thinking government. For example, the rejection of the National Broadband Network as a 'waste', although it will bridge the gap between rural and urban Australia, and keep Australia up with the rest of the world. As someone who works with computers, I see an evident trend where the Internet is no longer a luxury but a necessity, especially in education. The Liberal has come up with an alternative plan which appeals to everyone living in the shoebox of Australia; sufficient because it is an improvement, yet falls behind when trying to keep up with rest of the developed world, especially Asia. In addition, for someone who does not believe in public transport, it is highly unlikely that Abbott will put forward a better plan for our cities and national links.
What is unclear is whether the Government that materialises will live up to their election promises, for either party. Also, what is the impact of the independents in the Governments that may form, if so, will overall policies be weakened or shifted? Perhaps another election is pending if a decision cannot be reached.
28.8.10
Issues for the next 30 years
- Population Sustainability: do we really have room/resources for exponential growth? Further to this, will an exponentially increasing population create further divides between socioeconomic classes?
- Mental Health: Currently, much of the healthcare system places emphasis on medical disorders, yet mental disorder comorbidity is ignored. Unless policy directions change, we will see a shortage of mental health professionals, let alone a structured approach to tackle mental health issues systemically.
- Internet: The Internet was never created with privacy in mind. Networks need to be completely rebuilt, right from the core, with respect to how it is used rather than how it was intended to be used in the 80's, to maximise efficiency.
- Supercorporations & Monopolies: The rise of bodies such as Google and Facebook will raise privacy concerns over data. Google's potential venture into being the carrier of a centralised health database will raise further concerns. Will it be too late to stop Google's rise to world control?
- Environment: Currently views are shifting, but more needs to be done. Too many people take for granted that the environment will stay the same for our children/grandchildren, but it can only happen if we stop pillaging our environment.
- Resources: Resources will be even more scarce. When coal runs out, there will be a scramble to find renewable energy sources. To prevent this, we need to transition our energy source towards a renewable solution as soon as possible.
- Public Transport: Depending on the structure of the city, efficient public transport is needed to improve the liveability of any city. These may include:
- Mental Health: Currently, much of the healthcare system places emphasis on medical disorders, yet mental disorder comorbidity is ignored. Unless policy directions change, we will see a shortage of mental health professionals, let alone a structured approach to tackle mental health issues systemically.
- Internet: The Internet was never created with privacy in mind. Networks need to be completely rebuilt, right from the core, with respect to how it is used rather than how it was intended to be used in the 80's, to maximise efficiency.
- Supercorporations & Monopolies: The rise of bodies such as Google and Facebook will raise privacy concerns over data. Google's potential venture into being the carrier of a centralised health database will raise further concerns. Will it be too late to stop Google's rise to world control?
- Environment: Currently views are shifting, but more needs to be done. Too many people take for granted that the environment will stay the same for our children/grandchildren, but it can only happen if we stop pillaging our environment.
- Resources: Resources will be even more scarce. When coal runs out, there will be a scramble to find renewable energy sources. To prevent this, we need to transition our energy source towards a renewable solution as soon as possible.
- Public Transport: Depending on the structure of the city, efficient public transport is needed to improve the liveability of any city. These may include:
- High speed links to outer suburbs, with feeder services
- Metro within the inner city
- More bike-friendly zones within local areas
- More high density residential areas near transport hubs
- Sufficient bus services within outer suburbs
- Integrated ticketing
30.5.10
Philosophical Doubleheader: BP Oil Spill / Determinism vs. Free Will
In my urge to procrastinate, I will talk about two very different topics today.
---
BP Oil Spill
I'm sure most people who have been reading the news in the past couple of weeks will know about the BP Oil Spill off the coast of the US. What's your opinion on the issue?
I want to use this point to argue about the responsibilities of trans-national corporations. When we allow free trade to occur, what other factors are we assuming? Sure, shareholders will most likely care about profits and losses, and any other issues that may surround the value of their shares. We assume that corporations will take responsibilities for any social or environmental issues that may occur.
In this environmental disaster, we should be asking the question - should the corporation or the government be taking action? A more specific question: should the corporation be penalised? In the future, can we trust corporations to freely run their business without harming other parties involved, or do they require a stronger set of regulations and penalties if they do not make responsible actions?
Surely, nobody would want such an incident to occur. But who will pay for the damage?
Personally, I still believe in a free market, although other forms of regulation must still be in place. Rather than 'taxing' corporations, I feel that schemes for insurance or penalty can help control those corporations not obeying the rules, ensuring the safety of their workers etc. On the surface, this appears no different to a tax, but the purposes of such schemes are at least made transparent, with these 'investments' be made separate to other funds. This is simply from an economic perspective; I hold the view that all corporations should also be socially, environmentally and ethically responsible for their actions, it is a privilege to have free trade where it exists.
----
Determinism vs. Free Will
A long lasting debate that has no answer, is that all?
I personally lean towards the side of "free will", though it is impossible to prove that either side is correct. The case of "everything is pre-determined, and free will is just an illusion" is pretty much the only case where Determinism is possible.
Free will implies choice. Are one's decisions based on dispositions, learned preferences, habits etc.? Most likely a mix of all of them. Higher order thinking can motivate a person towards a particular orientation. Often these orientations do not change much, as they define personality. This does not mean that people can't deviate from these 'determined' paths.
A common deterministic argument is "we do not choose our situation". This is an egocentric argument; it implies that free will requires control all aspects of the world, and it also implies a world centered around oneself. "We do not choose our ethnicity, family, etc." You are right, we don't. It does not mean our whole lives are pre-determined. Events occurred in the past (conception, birth) that has seen the creation of your body. But why should you expect to have free-will before your very own existence?
One's development of their frontal functions is last in the line of many neural developments. Prior to that, babies more or less act in patterns that are defined by biology. Without the ability to control actions, you are not truly an agent of free will. However, even if one behaves in patterns, it does not mean that their actions are pre-determined. They are acting with respect to their current mental and physical state, at a given point in time. It just so happens that humans have such a similar DNA within species, that we are expected to undergo the same biological changes.
With all these counterarguments, I cannot say that Free Will is a certainty, simply because of the point outlined previously, though if I was forced to make a judgement out of the two, I would say that Free Will is the more likely possibility.
----
Last but not least, I think that people shouldn't take for granted how lucky they are to be alive and to exist. Please show the world some love or future generations will suffer.
---
BP Oil Spill
I'm sure most people who have been reading the news in the past couple of weeks will know about the BP Oil Spill off the coast of the US. What's your opinion on the issue?
I want to use this point to argue about the responsibilities of trans-national corporations. When we allow free trade to occur, what other factors are we assuming? Sure, shareholders will most likely care about profits and losses, and any other issues that may surround the value of their shares. We assume that corporations will take responsibilities for any social or environmental issues that may occur.
In this environmental disaster, we should be asking the question - should the corporation or the government be taking action? A more specific question: should the corporation be penalised? In the future, can we trust corporations to freely run their business without harming other parties involved, or do they require a stronger set of regulations and penalties if they do not make responsible actions?
Surely, nobody would want such an incident to occur. But who will pay for the damage?
Personally, I still believe in a free market, although other forms of regulation must still be in place. Rather than 'taxing' corporations, I feel that schemes for insurance or penalty can help control those corporations not obeying the rules, ensuring the safety of their workers etc. On the surface, this appears no different to a tax, but the purposes of such schemes are at least made transparent, with these 'investments' be made separate to other funds. This is simply from an economic perspective; I hold the view that all corporations should also be socially, environmentally and ethically responsible for their actions, it is a privilege to have free trade where it exists.
----
Determinism vs. Free Will
A long lasting debate that has no answer, is that all?
I personally lean towards the side of "free will", though it is impossible to prove that either side is correct. The case of "everything is pre-determined, and free will is just an illusion" is pretty much the only case where Determinism is possible.
Free will implies choice. Are one's decisions based on dispositions, learned preferences, habits etc.? Most likely a mix of all of them. Higher order thinking can motivate a person towards a particular orientation. Often these orientations do not change much, as they define personality. This does not mean that people can't deviate from these 'determined' paths.
A common deterministic argument is "we do not choose our situation". This is an egocentric argument; it implies that free will requires control all aspects of the world, and it also implies a world centered around oneself. "We do not choose our ethnicity, family, etc." You are right, we don't. It does not mean our whole lives are pre-determined. Events occurred in the past (conception, birth) that has seen the creation of your body. But why should you expect to have free-will before your very own existence?
One's development of their frontal functions is last in the line of many neural developments. Prior to that, babies more or less act in patterns that are defined by biology. Without the ability to control actions, you are not truly an agent of free will. However, even if one behaves in patterns, it does not mean that their actions are pre-determined. They are acting with respect to their current mental and physical state, at a given point in time. It just so happens that humans have such a similar DNA within species, that we are expected to undergo the same biological changes.
With all these counterarguments, I cannot say that Free Will is a certainty, simply because of the point outlined previously, though if I was forced to make a judgement out of the two, I would say that Free Will is the more likely possibility.
----
Last but not least, I think that people shouldn't take for granted how lucky they are to be alive and to exist. Please show the world some love or future generations will suffer.
27.5.10
Doctrine to a Happier Life
Care for and look out for those around you
Never dwell on downfalls, instead look for ways to improve
Some know the right way through, don't hesitate to seek out advice from multiple perspectives
Don't forget to extend a helping hand when others are in need
When in doubt, brainstorm
Adjust your surroundings, seek sunlight
------
I haven't written an introspective post in a long while. Currently my head inside is burning of a strong passion, the urge to write something creative hasn't been so strong in a long time. But I feel the urge to churn out paragraphs or verses of something spectacular. Maybe it hasn't hit me yet, but all these words that I've been dying to write in a long time feel like they are about to be ejected.
I somehow feel like a werewolf as the clouds begin to cascade away to reveal a full moon. The fangs of debate are about to show. The shallow breath transforms into a lowly growl. The writer drops the pen - it is time to act.
A camera pans across the moulded hallway. The writer scampers across the creaking floorboards, on the lookout for fresh meat. Reflection of a glimmer from the teardrops of fear land on the writer's eye. The writer feels no remorse.
Never dwell on downfalls, instead look for ways to improve
Some know the right way through, don't hesitate to seek out advice from multiple perspectives
Don't forget to extend a helping hand when others are in need
When in doubt, brainstorm
Adjust your surroundings, seek sunlight
------
I haven't written an introspective post in a long while. Currently my head inside is burning of a strong passion, the urge to write something creative hasn't been so strong in a long time. But I feel the urge to churn out paragraphs or verses of something spectacular. Maybe it hasn't hit me yet, but all these words that I've been dying to write in a long time feel like they are about to be ejected.
I somehow feel like a werewolf as the clouds begin to cascade away to reveal a full moon. The fangs of debate are about to show. The shallow breath transforms into a lowly growl. The writer drops the pen - it is time to act.
A camera pans across the moulded hallway. The writer scampers across the creaking floorboards, on the lookout for fresh meat. Reflection of a glimmer from the teardrops of fear land on the writer's eye. The writer feels no remorse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
