From the Notebook

  

 

          Love is a subject that is difficult to write about.  It is simple, yet so complicated.  I have been trying to write something that is comprehensive, clear, and not contradictory, but I realized that I can only start with a sketch, and leave the unsaid for later. 

 

            In this post, I will talk about romantic love, in a somewhat abstract version.  First, I like to make a distinction, about love and being in love.  I like to identify love as a type of emotion, and being in love as a type of status.  As an emotion, love can be dynamic, can be unstable, it can vary in reference to time; as an status, being in love is more defined and stabilized, you will be in love until you fell out of love.

           

            But as emotion is changeable and can change constantly, how can we be in love as a status?  Although emotions are dynamic phenomenon, the stimulates that evoke the emotions could be fixed.  In fact, the association between emotions and stimulates could be an exclusive bond, i.e., only one stimulate is associated to one type of emotion.  This is what is falling in love means.  When one sees (or even thinks) the person one loves, the emotion of love will emerge.  When one thinks of love, the one he or she loves will come into mind. 

 

            The underlining mechanism for establishing this connection is the process of association, which is the process of establishing any emotional responses to stimulates.   This is why falling in love is a process.  It is a process of enforcing and re-enforcing the association of love through continues confirmation. 

 

            So, now we have a more complete definition of love and being in love.  If love is the happy feeling we can have with the presence or even awareness of the presence of someone, then being in love is the fixated association of this feeling.  Fundamentally romantic love is not much different from other kinds, only that the cause of it is different. 

 

            The process of falling in love starts with attraction.  People usually do not get close to someone without being attracted to someone.  Many often use chemistry to describe it, basically they are saying that they don’t know what it is. 

 

            When we feel we are not able to describe something, it often means that there are too many things going on, so we cannot pin point one thing only.  But I think it is clear that attraction is not just physical attraction, and even physical attraction is not simply based on appearance. 

 

            It is quite possible that you can think someone as good looking, but are not attracted to him (or her), and it is possible that you don’t think someone is good looking, but are very attracted to him (or her).  I believe this is because even in appearance, we often can see characters, and we are attracted to people not just because how they look, but also who they are (or at least who we think they are).  We ought to have a feeling of akin in order to be attracted to people.  Of course we can make mistakes.  After knowing them a little better, the attraction can go away (or come to you) they are not what you think they are.

 

            Most of all, attraction is a two way street.  The actual attraction can only occur when two people are drawn to each other (otherwise, it will be called admiration, or obsession, depending on the degree of fascination.)   Even in this stage, the attraction can be exchange of emotions and could be felt as if there is actual magnetic force in between.  You may feel the impact (of chill or warmness) when the other is closing up (without actually being touched). 

 

            Attraction leads two people to each other.  Then the process of developing a relationship begins.  Relationship is the process of cultivating love, and hopefully fixating the association of love.  The goal or task of developing the relationship is to make each other happy and be happy.  As physical attraction is an important part of the attraction, getting close to each other means embrace each other, and communicating their passion for each other with the interactions of their bodies.  As the pleasurable moments are intertwined with the memories of sights, sounds, touches, smells, and tastes of the other, the motional bond with the other can be naturally established.       

 

            Abstinence often relates to the concept of sexual purity, and sexual purity originated in the attempt to objectify women, and the harm does not stop there.  If men can objectify women, the ones that they presumably are mostly close to, then they will have little trouble of objectify other people, (thence the alpha male theory, etc.)  Here, we find the underlining problem of the civilizations.   

 

            The fundamental reason we need to love and be loved is because we are conscious beings with intelligence.  We need to confirm our feelings, and confirm our existences.  In fact, I think the significant part of religion is really about filling this need.  We need a being that is aware of our existences to confirm our existences, and give meaning to our existences.  For this, we not only took all the trouble of making things up, we also are willing to pay hefty price for it. 

 

            But it is all in vain.  In religion, we often feel more about our insignificance, and have more questions than answers.  But the rejection of gods led to materialism, and lead to the generations of lost souls.  However, just like in “The Wizard of Oz”, the solution is close to home. 

           

            Ultimately, what we seek in love is to fulfill this need.   I will feel the existence of “me” through the existence of the other.  Plainly speaking, we are each other’s light, salvation, and anchor. 

 

            In love, “I” forgo judgment.  As the presence of the other will be the source of “my” happiness, the only thing “I” need to do is to accept love and be happy.  And, because the other holds the key to “my” happiness, “I” will do what is best for the other, to protect the source of “my” happiness. 

 

            Love is a gift.  But it is the kind of gift that could cost nothing and give you more.  Just by being in love, you are giving the best gift that anyone can give to another, and  in love, the only thing “I” am seeking is the love in the other.  As we see love in each other’s eyes, moves, and reactions, we can confirm our existences, and we can find the meaning of life. 

 

            Through the collective efforts of our minds, by the helps of language systems, we built a kingdom that can not be seen, but can be felts.  The fundamental element is the comprehension of the existence of others. 

 

            There is a story about heaven and hell.  The story goes, people in hell were invited to a feast but were given spoons that were too long that they could not feed themselves, so they were just staring at the food and tormented by the situation.  While in heaven, it is the same setting, but the results were far different.  They were feeding each other and were having a very good time.

 

            This is probably the lesson of love.  Through the exchange of love, happiness is real and plentiful.  Over time, it could be an accelerating process that can bring more and more happiness.

 

            Here I like to point out the differences between sensations and emotions.  First, sensations exist mainly for the purpose of avoiding danger.  So, sensations are the strongest when there are sudden changes.  In other words, our feeling of sensations related closely to the degree of changes than the degree of magnitudes.  This is why merely seeking sensual pleasures often lead to excessive obsessive behaviors and to the road of no return. 

 

            On the other hand, as emotions are parts of mental processes (in different defense mechanism system), not only emotions are generated by the minds, their magnitudes are measured individuals (not by the measure of differentiations), the feeling of love can remain constant without losing its effects, so eternal bliss from love is possible. 

 

            Sensations are closely related to the bodies.  Sensations give us vivid experiences because that is what the sensing system is about.  But the memories of sensations can only fade, when the stimulates are not there, there is no way to actually reproduce the sensations to the same effects.  This why sensations from all physical experiences, including sexual experiences, no matter how strong they were, and how good they felt at the moment, we cannot vividly recall them after, and the lapse of time will only make matter worse.

 

            But it is not so with emotions.  Since emotions involve mental processes with the symbols as stimulates, one can relive the emotions, and even enhance the emotions by simply thinking about the symbols (such as images or any others related to the loved one) that are stimulates.  This is probably why there are phrases such as “undying love”, “eternal love”. 

 

            If this is true, then how any thing could ever go wrong?   Well, this is a pure version of love.  In reality, many factors can come into play, so there could be many problems (I will write in later posts).  One common reason for people to have trouble in love, or lost their love is because they can go through a different cycle.  This has something to do with the dynamic of the relationship.  When two people first feel the attraction to each other, they become each others light and refuge against the world.  But when they establish their relatively closed universe, they can often feel that they are in the opposite sides. 

 

            Argument is the most common way to divide people.  People are different.  No one can be the same as the other, having a disagreement is not the problem, but argument is.  Argument is emotionally charged.  People don’t have an argument every time they have disagreement.   They have arguments because they are emotional invested to win the arguments.  There is a difference between argument and discussion.  Discussion can turn disagreement into agreement but in argument between a couple, the only predictable result is they will all lose, because one way or another there will be hostility and resentment.  If not repaired, the cracks will grow bigger and bigger. 

 

            Discussion requires rational thinking and agreement on the fundamentals.  This is why people put high value on understanding for relationships.   This generally means that they ought to have similar ways of thinking, and they ought to accept the similar assumptions.  Of course it helps to be agreeable and open minded.  People can always learn from each other, it is no difference between two people in love.  In fact, they often unknowing rub on each other because they are fascinated by each other, that they some how would like to be like the other, so naturally they would somewhat each grow into the person having the trace of the other.  

 

            So, I think there is a hopeful picture for love, and for life.  When we learn acceptance of another human being from love, we would learn the principle of respect and understanding in life in general.  Like the story in this post about heaven and hell, we hold the key to heaven or hell for the others.  We can make the world a better place.

**Please look for my other posts regarding modern life, mind and body, men and women, about discussions related to issues in this post.

 

**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog.  All rights reserved.

 

 

 

           Yes, I am going to talk about the proposal in California about legalizing marijuana, although I am a marijuana user, I doubt I will ever be.  Actually, I don’t like the smell that much, and if the smell gets stronger, I will get some kind of headache. 

           

            But I do support this proposal, and it is not just for revenue generating.   The mechanism of our legal system is based on deterring through punishment.  The rational is that people will not do something if they see that they will be punished.   But the effectiveness of this mechanism is often in question.  In this particular case, there are difficulties in enforcement. 

            First, if we treat this as a crime, it is a victimless crime.  I am say this not in the sense of its moral impact (I will talk about it later), I am merely talking about in the sense of detecting it.  If someone did something that affects other people’s lives, then someone else will likely report to the police.  But if someone smoking marijuana in his or her home, unless someone else gets close enough to see it or smell it, no one would know.  Plus, because smoking marijuana is merely misdemeanor, the police departments would not spend much time running into people’s home for it. 

            The enforcement on this is mostly focusing on the supply and distribution.  But because it is easy to carry small amount and not to be detected, the real focus is really on the source of supply for large amounts.  Selling marijuana is a more serious crime, and we often hear that people do get arrested on this.  But the danger of getting caught actually leads to some people into the business.

            Of course they are not in this because they want to get caught.  They are in this business because of the financial incentives.  The danger of getting caught work as part of the mechanism that makes this a ludicrous kind of business, because it reduced competition.   

            First of all, because it is not legal to sell marijuana, there is limited comparative shopping.  People cannot get on the internet and compare prices for it.  And, to the extend that there could be some competition with the suppliers, they often use any method including violence to assure profitability.  As the bet is on not getting caught, nothing is off the table.

            As we can explain why people will sell marijuana illegally, then we have to ask the question why people are using marijuana.  The short answer is that it makes them happy.  Marijuana users admit that it is a mind alternating substance, but they want to point out that it has no serious side effects (at least no more than alcohol), that the effect they are seeking is better than what is produced by alcohol, and it will not lead to addiction.  In fact, some people even say that the laws against marijuana use is the conspiracy of tobacco and alcohol producing companies, because marijuana will post a serious threat to their industries. 

            It is probably true that marijuana does not have long term serious side effect, especially it is not additive.  In this matter the objection is about that it is a gate way drug for more harmful and additive drugs.     

            And there is the movie “Reefer Madness”.  The fear is that people will turn mad and all hell will turn loose.  California legalized medical marijuana and I am sure many people short circuit it, but the sky did not fall.  In fact, Holland as a country where marijuana use is legal, and global surveys keep ranking it as one of the happiness place on earth. 

           

            But there is more to it.  Perhaps people are against marijuana because the effect of mind altering is more than alcohol, and this makes them uncomfortable.   “Wasted” is used for people under the influence of alcohol, but more so for marijuana.  Perhaps they are afraid that people will become living zombies that will be out of touch of reality, literarily. 

            To this, there are many people that like to point out that many artists have had inspirations when under the influence.  In fact, there are noticeable artists that claimed drug use was the main source of their creativities.  One of the most noticeable examples is Charles Baudelaire.  In fact, someone actually implied that his book of poetry “Les Fleurs du mal” (The Flower of Evil”) is actually his name for opium. 

            Of course, we have to admit that most of the drug users are not Baudelaire, and ““Les Fleurs du mal” did not grow in the flume of opium or any other substances.  The issue of creativities with relationship to mind altering substance is a complicated one.

It is conceivable that using certain substances could help someone’s creativities.  But the adventures for most people will be similar to gold rush, someone might get something, but most will be disappointed.  What I am saying is that in weighing the possibility and probability and cost and benefit, using substance for increasing the chance of creating great arts is probably a long short.

            This leads to the question of human enhancement in general.  What if we can make some substances or using genetic engineering to enhance people’s ability if there are no side effects?  I think we need to realize that increased ability is not the same as the increased success.  If you don’t know where you are heading, it would not help that you can run faster. 

            To be more specific, there seems to be a common misconception that since all our mental processes are embodied in physical processes, then we will be able to achieve more if we simply change our physical composition.  This is not true.  Although minds are physical process, the operation of the minds cannot be explained by physical process alone.  The simple example is that even if we can build super computer with enormous capacity, without relevant software, it still will not be able to do anything.  (I will write more about it in later post). 

            The question really becomes to what extend people can have the freedom of doing what they want.  It is clear that people cannot do things that harm other people (especially if it will cause significant harms), but what people can do to themselves?

            There are debate about whether video game, internet, etc. (or even sex) are addictive.  I think the answer is no, at least not in chemical substance sense.  But it is the wrong question to ask.  The concern is actually about something else.  The concern comeback to the word “wasted”.  So, the question becomes, would people like video game, internet, etc. too much that they just keep on doing it when they should do something else (or even when it could harm themselves.  In this sense, there is no sex addition because the direct harm is mostly on someone else)?

            Well, people do things that are not good for them all the time (and presumably they may waste themselves even more).  Government and society cannot be the big brother monitoring all their moves and telling them what to do.  The real solution is education, changing people’s minds through reasoning and making them recognize that it is not good for them. 

            The most common reason for people to get trapped on something is that they are seeking escape.  Pure thriller seekers are not likely to be in this situation because their senses of adventure will maintain their mobilities and not to be trapped in somewhere they do not want to be.  So, the more fundamental solution is social changes that will motive people more, instead of trapping them in places that they are constantly seeking escape. 

           

            You can see that my discussion includes not just marijuana,, it actually goes further, to other chemical substances as well.  My point is legalization of chemical substances could be done if effective education and treatments can be provided. 

            The truth is not everyone will start using them even if they are legalized.  First, many people’s body reactions to them would not be pleasant, so there is no reason for them to do so.   And, most people would not do it because they know the harms and would not risk it.  For those who do, having it under safety and control is much better than in the madness of underworld.  Drugs sold legally can be assured quality and with better instruction, so accidents and overdose will be reduced.  In addition, have it on the open will make detecting the side effects and addition easier, so that treatment can be provided quickly and more effectively. 

            There are many related issues to the drug policies.  As prisons are filled with drug related offenders, the focus on many other dangerous criminals is reduced.  For example, there are studies show that sex offenders are likely become repeat offenders.  But the sentences for them could be very low (even for child rapists), so it is no surprise the rate of sex offenses are shockingly high (we can imagine the trauma of sexual violence could be a reason for people to seek escape in drug use).  If the law enforcement resources can be freed up from chasing drug dealers, then more resources can be available for dealing with sex offenders, to lock them up longer, work more on studies and treatment, and monitor them closely when them are released. 

            Changing the drug policy will also reduce violence and improve world peace.   Urban gangs are mostly financed by selling drugs.  Eliminating this significant source of income will reduce organized crimes.  This rational applies to global scale.  Many disturbances in part of Asia (for example Afghanistan) and Latin America (for example Mexico and Columbia) are caused by drug productions and distributions, and United States is the main destination.  Without this consumer base, reduced financial resources will lead to reduce of disturbing powers.        

           

            The goal of legal system is prevention, so punishment is only means, not the end.  When punishment is not effective to reach the end, then we need to rethink about the means.  In my view, the trend of changing the model of punishment to other effective way of prevention is the reflection of advance of civilization. 

            For rational standpoint, it makes sense as the political system inspired to change from domination and suppression to cooperation and common consensus, the legal system should be no difference.  So, the transformation from punishment to education, inspiration, treatment and rehabilitation is not only preferable, it is inevitable.

            Again, there is a distinction that needs to be made.  Legalizing drugs use is not the same as promoting drug use.  Mind alternating drugs often have the effect of leading people out of reality and social connects.  So, despite of the issue of addiction or any other long term effect, the concerns for using these drugs are valid. 

            For example, for substances such as marijuana, regulation and restriction need to be in place to prevent aggressive advertising to allure more and more people into it.  For other substances that may cause harms and/or addiction, the source that made these drugs available to the public should be non-profit organizations with the purpose of educating, counseling and treating people that using these drugs (this approach can also be use for marijuana as well).  And for those they still want to sell them illegally, the key target is to reduce there financial incentive (as there are sources that can provide assured quality and safety, there are little incentive for users to go to illegitimate source, because most drug users do value safety). 

            In addition, if there are situations that drug uses caused harms to others, such driving under the influence, then people should be punished for these results.  And, work place can have the policy of drug free, the only thing actually changed is to use different ways to achieve the intended results. 

**Please look for my other posts regarding the Modern life, Legal system, Mind and body, about discussions related to issues in this post.

 

**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog.  All rights reserved.

 

 

 

            In my last post, when I talked about immortality, the question of what is human conscious came up.  So, this post will be about this question, and more will be said about this or related subjects later. 

 

            First, like many other commonly used words, consciousness is used to refer to different things.  But we do have some general understandings. For example, when a person wakes up from a coma, we will say he or she regains conscious.  From external point of view, this means that this person is responsive.  From internal point of view, this means that this person is aware of the situation.

 

            So, a simple explanation is a person with conscious will be able to receive signals from the outside world, process the signals and respond to the signals.  But as I am typing in these words, the computer is doing the same thing, i.e., receiving the inputted words from the key board, processing the signals and outputting the words to the screen.  But we don’t think computers have conscious. 

 

              Most people will say that consciousness means subjective experience.  But the understanding about subjectiveness is also lacking.  Certain Supreme Court justice’s comment came to my mind.    

 

            So, is there any way to have any explanations in words for this?  This is what I am trying to do now.  The problem with consciousness really started with how people use this word.  When we define an existing thing or even an abstract concept, it must have unity, i.e., there must be common characteristics to unify what you want to define (there ought to be more discussions about human knowledge system and language system in order to explain it fully, but I have to write other posts for them). 

 

            To really get things started, I will circle back to say consciousness has something to do with our minds or brains, and look at different things that our minds or brains can do (as I said in my previous posts, I use the word minds to present the processes of the brains). 

 

            First, again, the brain can receive information, process information, and respond to the information.  But these activities in the brain are more dynamic and complex than the processes in the computers. 

 

            One noticeable difference between computers (and robots controlled by computers) and humans is that humans can respond to many different kinds of information.  The simplest explanation is that humans have the ability to understand. 

 

            But then we encounter another word that we do not have real definition.  What is understanding?  This obviously is a topic for another post, but the simple answer here is just that you understand something if you can give the correct response (I will deal with the argument about the “Chinese Room” in my later post, I actually said something about this in my patent applications).   

 

            So, the explanation about the difference between the abilities of humans and computers is not exactly correct.  By my simplest definition about understanding, we can say that the difference between humans and computers is that humans have the abilities to understand more things.  So, when we talk about understanding, we should always indicate what is the thing that we have the ability to understand. 

 

            The mechanism of responding to information seems simple.  Once a triggering signal is received, an output will be produced.  Here, the trick is setting up various responding mechanism and a mechanism to sort out which input signal is the triggering signal for which mechanism.  But if you received an input signal that you do not have a match with any responding mechanism, you will not be able to respond, this means you will ignore the signal.

 

            To go further with the difference between computers and humans, humans not only have vast number of responding mechanisms, we also have the abilities to guess.  Here we encounter another difference between humans and computers.  We receive information in flow, and actively bundle them together to comprise triggering signals.  The signals received in isolation might be ambiguous or incomplete, but in the context of other information it can be clear.

            There is another kind of ambiguity related to responses.  This is when there are several possible responses, and which one to choose can be related to our purposes or goals.    

 

            Humans not only respond to input signals, we also take our own initiatives.  This is what we called we are driven by certain purposes.  As living beings, we are equipped to act on the needs to keep us alive.  This is not much different from animals hunting for food. 

 

            The goal to attend our needs is achieved by sensory inputs of our bodies to our brains.   The awareness of our bodies is an important part of our conscious. 

 

            Awareness of our bodies is also used to achieve the goal of self protection.   The sensation of pain is clearly for this use.  The animal rights movement started when lab chimpanzees lost their senses of pains due to lab testing and started chewing their limbs.  It is an indication about the use of the sensation of pain. 

 

            From sensations, there are also emotions.  Emotions also help our goals of survivals, although they are more complex.   Our minds have the ability to appreciate sensory inputs because we have emotions, and emotions are closely related to our bodies and minds.  We have feelings of emotions because they are sensations generated by our bodies.  The reason I say they are more complex is because the mechanisms that trigger the emotions are more complex.

 

            Body sensations such as pain, hunger, etc. are triggered directly by local biological or physical activities, but emotions have to have the participations of the brains.  The brains’ reactions to certain input information include triggering the release of certain chemicals that will make the brains feel the sensations such as joy, sadness, etc. 

           

            This seems to be the bridge way between physical existence and intelligence.  Emotions are an important part of natural learning process.  In other words, although humans may have innate abilities to have emotions, what triggers the emotions is learned. 

 

            This is the mechanism of association.  For example, if you put your hand in the fire and get burned, then you will likely have a fear about fire.  But this type of association may not even be correct association, as people (or animals) often attribute wrong causes for their pains, this often related to psychological condition of phobias. 

 

            Here we can see, the learning process is an association process (this is consistent with the concept of understanding).  And, the mechanism of natural learning relies on trial-n-error. 

 

            The acts of association may lead to establishment of symbol system that is developed by humans into language system.  Language system is closely related to human intelligence, because it is the result of learning process and it is what enables us to think.    

 

             “I think, Thus I exist”.  This is basically talking about human conscious in the sense of human intelligence.  The interesting thing is it is most difficult to think about thinking (obviously, this could be a subject for another post).  My head hurts whenever I am thinking about it.  So, I think about how computer operates instead. 

 

            The mystery really starts with the question of how we can think of something.  It makes us feel that the brains are generating something out of nothing.  But on a closer look, it is not so.  You cannot think about something if you know nothing about it.  Whenever you are thinking of something, you are essential using certain information as input signals and responding to the signals according to the purpose of your thinking.  This means that our internal programming often determines what we think and how we think, and our internal programming is the set of rules about goals.   

 

            Ok, it is a long way to go back to goals or purposes.  But this lead me to the point that in order for humans to build machines that can perform certain tasks that until now only humans can do, the machines do not need to have conscious (if it means like human in all aspects), let alone the machines will rebel or become human killing machines. 

           

           

            The mistake people made is that they believe that understanding and learning are inseparable from over all human consciousness.  It is not true.  For example, computers can understand language for the purpose of language process (the fact that we do not have human like language processing system is because there are many confusions about human language and knowledge system and how the computers should reconstruct it).

 

            The computers can also have the abilities to learn, especially in the area of language.  This is because all language systems (for any given language system) are closed symbolic systems.  So that it is a closed universe that computers can navigate. 

 

            However, understanding and learning for a computer would not be the same as the natural understanding and learning experiences of humans.   This is because it is difficult (and unnecessary for purposes other than purely for the sake of being able to create a human body) to build human bodies using processes other than biological process (mostly because we don’t understand much about human bodies). 

 

            In other words, the computers that can understand languages would not be able to appreciate them, i.e., it will not be able to draw pleasure (or any other kinds of emotional reactions) from them.  This basically leaves the tasks of artistic creations solely to humans, because the process of creativity requires judgment and at least some of the judgment will require appreciation about the subjects.  Although it is possible for the creators to simulate the sense of appreciation in computers, but I do not see what will be the point. 

 

            As for creative activities related to subjects such as science and technology, there might be possibility for involvements of computers, but I don’t think they will play important roles.  The trick about human knowledge system is that although there is general consensus for frame work of the system, each individuals actually have their own knowledge system.  This difference is due to their personal experiences and their natural learning processes.   The learning processes based on their personal experiences are how theories are made.  This is why it is very important to respect individual freedom (especially the freedom of the mind).  It is not only difficult but also unnecessary to build computers to simulate all personal experiences and learning processes and knowledge development processes. 

 

            So, if the problems are those that can be simulated in certain models, and the scale is too large for humans to comprehend, computers could do much better jobs than humans.  But, the most difficult problems are those that we do not know where are the problems, so the best approach is guessing.  Here, the scale is about how many guesses, not how good are the guesses, because we don’t know.  So, I think the best approach is more humans with different experiences and different types of thinking processes to do the guess works, and sooner or later someone will get something right.  

 

           

            A majority part of human conscious is for the purpose of self preservation.  The reason of self preservation related for the most part to the fact that nature does not have a way of reversing the life form from dead to alive, nature cannot duplicate.  In another words, life is precious mostly because it is irreversible.   

 

            So, if we can build machines according to specifications and predictable processes, then we can reproduce them, so the purpose of self preservation is not so pressing.   There is no need to fully adopt the mechanism of body sensations and emotions (the machines can have sensors in order to perceive the environment, and responses and actions can be made to avoid damages to themselves), and there will not be aggressive behaviors in order to protect themselves (unless you purposely build such machines). 

           

            As machines are built differently from humans, even if the machines have the ability to fully understand human knowledge, because they would not be able to appreciate the knowledge by making reference to themselves, they would not be able to accidentally adopt human behaviors.  So, at least for a long time, there would not be the possibilities that someone will accidentally build a human killing robot.  If there is any human like robots, it will be like Marvin (it does not make sense for him to have feeling at all, but if he does, then feeling depressed is about right). 

 

**Please look for my other posts regarding the Mind and body, Human knowlege system and Language system, arts, entertainment and science, about discussions related to issues in this post.

 

**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog.  All rights reserved.

 

 

 

             When I talked about happiness in my last post, I did not mention one of the reasons for unhappiness - mortality.  For many people who feel that they have everything, and happy about it, there is an anxiety that all will go away.

 

            A very important part of religion is about addressing the fear and anxiety of death.    Once the civilization had the fear about nature under control, the next stop is about the fear about death.   So you can see I feel that religion is more than attending the need of humans, than the direction from the god. 

 

            There are two possible ways to achieve immortality.  Taoism had been focusing on cooking the dose that will make one live forever for thousands of years.  And Christianity provides resurrection.  Theses are actually the two approaches of modern day scientists.

 

            Not too long ago, scientists found out that there is a switch in genes that control the ageing process.  Basically genes are responsible for generating new cells to replace old cells.  But the switch in genes will make the new cells a little worse that the previous ones (something like a copy machine, that the switch will make the newer copies lighter and lighter).   So, the obvious solution for immortality is to turn off the switch. 

 

            Of course it is easier said than done, scientists are still working on how to realize it, and we are promised that in a few years there will be drugs to delay the aging process.   Then there will be concerns that this drug would likely to have some side effects (as all drugs will have some side effects), then how to deal with the side effects will be the questions. 

 

            Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  But scientifically reproduce resurrection is actually more complicated.  It turns out, recovering the body from decay literally is not something that can be done (at least it will be a very difficult task).  So, resurrection has to take a different route.   

 

            Actually, the concept of “I” is loosely based.  As new cells are generated and old cells die constantly, what is the “I” that we want to resurrect?   Rene Descartes said, “I think, thus I exist”.  This generally can be interpreted into identifying human conscious with human identity.  I will have to write a different post to discuss human conscious more in detail, here I will simply use some of the understandings related to this discussion.

 

            In my earlier post “Mind, Body, and Soul”, I made the analogy of mind and body with software and hardware of the computer.  This is what scientists are doing with resurrection.  As brain activities can be measured by electric currents and magnetic fields, minds are literally translated into computer software. 

             Just like the existing Artificial Intelligence technology cannot reconstruct language understanding system without full understanding of the language and human knowledge system, the brain imaging technique cannot accurately reproduce the human mind without full understanding of the brain and the human body.               I believe it is possible to build a computer system that can have good understanding of the language or even many other sensual inputs, but recreation human conscious requires something more.   

            Obviously, there is memory, and many trivial memories.  The evidences of rebirth are all basically the memories of the previous times and spaces.  If we exam our memory we will find out that most of our memories are trivial memories (those are memories that exists for their own sakes, are not necessary for understandings, but could be useful for imaginations and creative activities).  They are facts that relate to specific time and place, not substantial facts that would help us understanding things unrelated to these facts. 

 

            These are what we called human experiences, without them, we are not humans.  We value human experiences because we are able to appreciate them, i.e., they will trigger our emotions.  We all experienced anger, anxiety and sadness but we also have the ability to experience joy, peace, and love.  At these times we are fully aware of our existences.  Simply put, we are not human without emotions.

 

            This is why we have to bring body into the picture in order to have resurrection.  And, to be on the safe side, we ought to be able to reconstruct the brain with details (if not molecule by molecule) in order to reserve the full contents.  As for other parts beside the brain, we could be less picky, something like a clone will do. 

           

            When cloning first became the news, although there are fears, there are also excitements that one day, we can clone someone like Einstein, then we will have a lot of our problems solved.  But I am afraid that would not likely to be true.  Even though a clone of Einstein would have a lot in common with Einstein, the slightest difference in experience could change a lot of things on how the mind developing.   

 

            In other words, even though the person might look like Einstein, he might not think like Einstein.  This can be proved by the difference in identical twins (actually, identical twins have much bigger chance to think alike, because they usually have similar experience, but the clone of Einstein would not grow up in the same environment as Einstein).

 

            This is why rebuilding the human brain might have different usage other than for the purpose of immortality.  If we can reconstruct the brain of a person molecule by molecule, we can basically capture all the contents and mental ability of the person.  Then, it will be interesting to see how the mind will develop from this time on.

 

           

 

            Here you will see, the approach is not based on the belief about the soul, rather to the contrary.  But, here we have a philosophical problem.  As Rene Descartes talking about “I think, thus I exist”, if I can be reproduced, then who is thinking is the one who is existing, then have I just been replaced, or is it I that can live forever?   

 

            Talking about identity crisis!  The Movie “Avatar” seems to provide another solution.  If we can still preserve our brains and using transmission devices to control the newly built bodies (here, it also seems to be a confusion about genes and mind, having the same genes would not necessary means the same mind, even the input signal coordination and motor control skills would likely need to be retuned), then there is no confusion about identity.    

            But if we come down to this road, we will likely end up in “Matrix”, not Pandora.  If all the sensual inputs are represented by electrical pulses, then receiving them from a computer (or computer networks) is just as good as receiving them from an actual body (provided the computer will have the capability not just to feed the signals, but also be able to respond to your mental process). 

 

            Talking about virtual reality!  In this world, you can be whatever you want to be, and do whatever you want to do.  It will all feel real, yet nothing actually exists.  So, there will be no consequence (other than computer capacity usages and energy consumptions).  It will certainly be interesting to see whether you will still feel bad if you act like Dorian Gray.

**Please look for my other posts regarding the modern life,   religion, art and science, about discussions related to issues in this post.

 

**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog.  All rights reserved.

• Main
• Archives
• Albums
• Links
• Admin

«	April 2010					»
Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

• Absoluteness
• Intelligence
• About Brain Simulation
• The Human Conditions
• An Insiders’ Game?
• Is the movie “Inception” itself an Inception?
• Arts
• The Giant Leap Backward?
• Designer Babies and Designer Brains
• Learning

• General [27]
• Introduction [1]
• Current Events [13]
• Special Topics [25]

• RSS 0.90
• RSS 1.0
• RSS 2.0
• Atom