From the Notebook

Intelligence

blogqz01 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:02:35 -0700

Discussions about artificial intelligence will often lead to the question of what is intelligence, and my criticism about the existing condition in the artificial intelligence field is the general lack of understanding about the concept of intelligence. So, it seems to be a good idea to discuss what is intelligence in this post.

I have to admit I could not understand why people are given high remarks about Ludwig Wittgenstein. I still don’t, but I heard a talk by John Searle which leads me to have a little understanding about why modern philosophers are often concentrating on some trivial discussions. According to Searle, Wittgenstein basically suggested that a general theory about meaning is just impossible.

The reason I mention this is related to the topic of intelligence. First, can we give a clear definition for the word “intelligence”? The answer is yes and no. This is basically my answer to Wittgenstein in general. The secret is the word fusion.

It is true that one catch-all definition for each of many concepts is impossible, but it does not mean that definitions are impossible at all. What we need to do is to be flexible with our definition process. .

What we ought to realize is that definition process is a progressive process. Things evolve, including words and meaning of words. This is why I introduce the concept of fusion. Going back to the definition of intelligence, the reason about lack of definition about intelligence is first due to the lack of understanding about the nature of intelligence, and second, is because this word is also used for purposes other than its core purposes.

The core definition I like to provide is that intelligence is the ability to understand, which is the ability to establish multi-dimensional connections.

In the realms of languages, i.e., when understanding is about understanding languages, it is about entities and attributes. Simply speaking, entity is about the “thing”, and attribute is about what is used to describe the thing.

But the complication is things are often used to describe other things, and what we are often treated as things are actually attributes. For example, if we admit that intelligence is a kind of abilities, then it means that the word “intelligence” should be used as an attribute.

As ability is related to action, the question is whether it is an attribute about the entity, or an attribute about the action (which can generally belong to the category of attribute). So, the question is whether intelligence is an attribute for people, or an attribute for people’s action.

This is where fusion comes into play. When we talk about understanding, we ought to ask understanding about what, i.e., the subject of the understanding, and what kind of understanding. The fusion of definition of intelligence is related to the answers to these questions.

For example, when we are talking about understanding language, it is basically about establishing connections between words. As there are rules that will enable us to do so, once an entity (a person, or even a computer) learns about the rules, and how the rules will operate, the entity will have the ability to understand the languages.

Some subjects do not have multi-dimensional connection structure, so the type of understanding is different. This is why there is confusion about whether computer programs that can play chess games should be called artificial intelligence or not.

But if the ability is about making connections that are not based on defined rules, and the validity of the connections ought to be validated by external (unrelated) conditions, then the ability is not the attribute of the entity, but the attribute of the process. This type of process is usually called creative process.

You can see that the distinctions made are important because it can explain many confusions about the definition of intelligence.

I will write more about the principles and structures of human knowledge system in my later posts, here I am using this example to suggest that we can take a different look about commonly known concepts, and gain different perspective on how to understand the language and the world.

**Please look for my other posts regarding human knowledge system, language system, philosophy, science and technology, about discussions related to issues in this post.

About Brain Simulation

blogqz01 — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:29:10 -0700

I support brain simulation, but my reason can be different from others. For me, the goal for brain simulation is to establish an environmental model to help researches related to brains, so to help find cures for brain related diseases. But as I read some of the articles related to brain simulations, I realized that for many people, the goal is to solve the puzzle of artificial intelligence.

I have to say if people put too much hope on this goal, they are bond to be disappointed. The reason is simple. They have it backward.

Brain simulations that can work as if they are human brains may not even be immediately possible even if we have all the answers to questions in artificial intelligence, but they will certainly not be able to work as the human brains if we don’t understand most of the principles of human intelligence.

The rules or principles of human intelligence are basically in the realm of functionality, or process. Process or functionality can be realized by various structural or components arrangement. As simulations are not actual copying of the brain, where neurons will behave as neurons will behave, simulations will have the complicity of caring on both the functional requirements and the structural requirement. This means the complete accurate representation of the brain will first require clear understanding of the functionality and structure arrangement of the brain.

As brain is a very complex and sensitive composition, and measurement cannot be completely accurate, even simple representation of the momentary status of the brain will be very difficult, and accurately simulating brain in action without knowing the principles of how brain functions will be impossible.

According to currently available technology, the only way to simulate brain in action will be through using mathematical models that will try to provide processes that will match with the testing data. The principle of this method will basically be the same as many artificial intelligence methods such as neuron network or machine learning. The problem of this method is inherit uncertainty and unpredictability.

At best, the mathematical model can provide processes that satisfy simulation based on all the testing data, but as the testing data can not limitless, they will not be sufficient indication on the conditions beyond testing data. For all we know, the unpredictable processes are completely unpredictable because the systems would not have the ability to self verify. As the mathematical models are based on statistics and trial-n-error, there are no actual control factors or even equations that can put any control on the results when the conditions are not controlled.

This means that this type of simulation at best is as good as the static testing data obtained, but usually much worst. In conclusion, this type of simulation will serve no purpose (but with all the troubles). People who intend to escape the mess in artificial intelligence field will find that they will see the same problems repeating, but in much big, non-controllable environment.

This is not to say the brain simulation should not be done. It only means that it should be done under different principle. A useful brain simulation can first establish structure composition of the brain, then test different assumptions by modeling the operating process using the assumptions and verifying the results of the simulation models with real world testing data, to verify and revise the assumptions.

As there are many level of complicities in the brains, and as we know very little about the principles of the functionalities of the brains, brain simulations will also need to conducted in different levels. As different levels of functionality understanding will interwine, brain simulation will be a big project that will likely be on going for a very long time, with multiple levels of cross referencing and correcting. In the end, the actual brain functional and structural rules will take combinations of many general and local testing to obtain. One thing is clear, complete understanding of the brain will not accomplished easily.

As an example of how much the brain is a mystery, I often refer to brain to be like a computer, but there are no regions in the brain that we can identify as like central control unit and memories of the computer. This is means that we literally know very little about the principle of operation of the brains.

I come across some talks that refer to brain simulation as “reverse-engineering” of the brain. This terminology is confusing. First, brain is not an engineering product, as it is not designed based on known engineering principles, there is no bases to reverse-engineer it. Second, the word “reverse-engineer” originated with mechanical machinery, where the functions of each component are usually known. So, by simply looking at the internal composition and arrangement of a machine, the principles of operation of the machine may be obtained. Even in the case of software engineering, the composition and function of the computer are usually known, and there are many correlations between functionality and programmable logic, so reverse engineering is based on some concrete ground.

The basic mistake that lead to this confusion is confusion about the role of science and technology, about understanding about principle and the application of the principle. This is a confusion occupied the artificial intelligence field and caused most failures in the field.

Computer programming is a type of application. In most computer related fields, the tasks are to embody known principles in computer environment. Artificial intelligence field is different because there is little common known knowledge that be embodied in computer environment. But as many computer technologists are used to the role of applications, they seemed to be unaware of the difference. I have the impression that most people in artificial intelligence field (as most in computer software field) seem to believe that all problems are just one “magic algorithm” away from being solved.

In my earlier post, I dismissed the danger that artificial intelligence will eventually produce Frankenstein, but I am not so sure now. First, I seemed to be too naïve about human nature. I assume that scientists and technologists would be rational, not driven purely by self interests. The reality is the cut edge of science and technology is literally a wild, wild west. There are many people who will steal, lie, make up claims, and do ruthless things for personal gains.

With this realization, the later enthusiasm about simulating the brain (and some other AI projects in the pipeline) may lead to the creation of Frankenstein and cause harm if the “magic algorithms” can convince people that they represent intelligence while their inherit characteristics of unpredictability and unreliability are not made known.

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

The Human Conditions

blogqz01 — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:08:12 -0700

It is undeniable that the world is full of mystery, and one of them is about humans, especially about human minds. The problem about understanding human minds is that there are different fields that only approach it narrowly. Neuroscience performs brain scans and anatomical dissections, and yet fails to establish the correlation between the components of the brain and functions of the brain. Psychology provides theories that have limited use in understanding the processes related to the minds, as the explanation of brain functions is not detail enough to reflect the actual process in the brain.

For example, in my earlier post about the movie “Inception”, I talked a little about the mystery of dreams. Although neuroscience has studied dreams by measuring brain waves, how dreams are created, and what causes dreams is not clear. Meantime, psychological theory such as Freud’s theory is too far remote from actual process of the brain to explain the mechanism of the dreams. Even assume Freud’s theory of suppression of desire is a valid explanation for the cause of dreams, the causal connection is as far remote as explaining food as the source of blood.

What is missing is the actual process of how brain works. For example, the processes related to dreams can be illustrated as following: If we assume that the brain functions like a computer, then what we call conscious (in the aspect of awareness) is the function of the Central Control Unit, whether the input is from sensory inputs or from memories. As the sensory inputs during the sleep are limited, the sources of dreams will mostly be from memories.

But dreams are rarely simply the recollections of memories of the past, then how would memories become dreams? We probably can also ask why we need to sleep. From detecting brain waves, the sleep can be divided into two kinds: deep sleep is dreamless sleep, and the kind of sleep with dreams. If we again use analogy of machinery, then deep sleep is very much like recharging the batteries. Neurons communicate by passing the electric pulses. Constant firing and passing the signals will cause the electric voltage of various points to be high and other points low. Deep sleep would naturally take the roles of achieving chemical and electrical rebalance in the brain.

Dreams can be explained in particular by another process of the computer, which is de-segmentation. As files in the computers are stored in various areas of the memories, rearranging the locations of the files could leave more spaces for future storage. This process is basically same as the process of reorganizing the closets.

As rearranging the locations of the files will require memories about these locations, so that the computers can find these files in the future, this process will require the participation of the Central Control Unit. In analyzing our brains, this means our “Central Control Units” can activate in different mode, as the “Central Control Units” are not fully activated in “de-segmentation mode” as in “waking mode”, yet not completely shutting down.

Then the mystery of dreams is about how much of the “Central Control Unit” is shutting down, and how the “de-segmentation mode” operates. The simple answer is that it varies in degrees. So, it would not be too far fetch to assume that the brains operate in generally the same rules during dreams as they are when we are awake. The only significant difference is in judgment.

This probably has something to do with Freud’s theory of suppressed desires. If judgment is absent from the process, then what could be suppressed by judgment could surface. But this is to presume that desires are playing an active role of shaping dreams, or at least the memories of dreams.

This leads to a question. Are the dreams only the memories or what we were aware of while sleeping? As we can only be fully aware of the contents to be processed by our “Central Control Units” when we are awake, our knowledge of the dreams could only be the after facts, i.e., memories, as we are not fully capable of verification as we dream.

But if there is any merit in the theory of suppressed desires, the memories of the dreams will at least be mostly formed during the dreams, otherwise the suppressed desires would not surface. And, our memories about the dreams often have many emotional components which indicates that they memories about our reactions in the dreams. So, it is quire clear that dreams are not merely memory tricks the brains play with us.

Personally, I don’t think I have dreams that fit into Freud’s model. I don’t know if it has anything to do with I didn’t grew up with religious guilt. The Chinese theory about dreams is “what you think about during the day will lead to what you dream about at night”. This is more close to my own experiences.

I remember I had the most futuristic dreams with I was a teenager reading many science fiction books. My anxiety or excitement during the day might lead to anxious or exciting dreams, and peaceful mind will often lead to dreamless sleep.

Motions played an important role in forming dreams, as many dreams have clear emotional states. So, many dreams are not random combination of images and other sensory signals. If we assume that the mind works under similar rules at sleep as awake, then it should not be a big surprise that dreams can have certain logically organized structures.

When I think about emotional impacts on the dreams, I wonder whether the rebalancing in the brain and se-segmentation mode is one of the same. It is possible that dreams are provoked by emotions, which means de-segmentation mode itself would not lead to dreams, only that de-segmentation process can provide unpredictable “rare materials” (images and other sensory signals) to form the dreams.

The most intriguing aspect about the dreams is that they felt real. Whether we are in a creative process, revisiting memories, or even day dreaming, the effects are distinguishable from real events. But in dreams the boundary seems to be disappeared. Why?

There are two possible explanations. It is possible that when we are awake the sensory inputs are given higher priority or high value and this process can be suspended when we are asleep. It is also possible that when we sleep the sensory inputs are switched off which lead to increases of the weights of internal signals.

In the end, it has a lot to do with the elimination of judgment. In our sleep, we are only the witnesses or viewers of the dream sequences, and we are not required to make actual decisions. (When the emotional disturbances are too great that require us to make actual decisions, we will wake up.) Therefore, there is no need to make actual correlation between sensory inputs with the sources of the inputs, so that the memories of sensory inputs can replace the actual inputs in our sleeps.

Whether this is just a theory, or a reflection of actually dream mechanism, this could be an illustration of what a functional (process) analysis about dreams would look like.

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

An Insiders� Game?

blogqz01 — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:09:46 -0700

I have given myself various titles, but by no means I will call myself an economist. If you have been reading my blog, you will notice that for someone who admits to be an outsider of the economics, I wrote many posts related to economic issues. But this post is not to apologize for this, rather adding to the list of such writing.

This is out of the belief that economics is not or should not be an insiders’ game, at least in conceptual level. If you read writings by the insiders, from world renowned economists to garden variety of economists and related professionals, you will know that there is basically no consensus on almost anything among them. . As far as many highly sophisticated scholars are so very ignorant about the fundamentals, this may also indicate that the field of economics is more ideology driven, or results driven than knowledge driven. This means that at least some of them must be wrong, and all of them could be wrong. So, as far as economics, there should be more ingenuity than anything else

But this is not the case with the field. There are a whole lot of arguments about that economics is an insiders’ game than anything else. It is true even with Obama Administrations’ top economic team, such as Larry Summer, and Tim Geithner.

Starting when they were rumored to be the candidate of their jobs, there are quite a few talks about they are too much of the insiders. I knew very little about them, but the concern did seem to be legitimate to me. The rational to counter the argument is that they are right for the jobs because their insider status will help to stabilize the financial system, and it seems that they did just that.

So, the problem is not that they did not do what they suppose to do, but whether they can do more. For this, there is serious doubt. The Obama administration accomplished a lot, but I think they can do more. We dodge a bullet on the economic melt down, the next step is to go forward, and that requires changes that can truly bring hope to the country. Change requires take chances, and of anyone, the Americans are not the people who play it safe.

The Obama administration has the chance and was successful. They have picked an outsider to reorganize GM and the result is beyond the expectation. What leads me to write this post is that I read an article written by a Nobel Laureate saying that the problem of the economy is no lack of demand. It is a shocking new to me, and more shocking is that he did not provide any reason for this conclusion.

If there is any fundamental that is agreed on, then it is about the supply and demand. In a nutshell, the economic system is real just about supply and demand. From the news that corporate America are sitting on over 1 trillion dollars cash, it seems very obvious that the problem is not supply. Then the problems with economy will obviously be the demand.

The explanation by this author is that the problem is structural. But it is shocking that this argument is so very lack of basic logic, because the structural analysis is in different aspect. His argument is like blaming the down market of real estate on the ineffectiveness of the real estate agent (well, not exactly, I will explain later below, but here I just want to illustrate a point about the supply and demand).

If we can actually focus on the basic, and not be distracted by many self serving distractions, then the answer is clear. The lack of demand is the problem. I am glad that finally the talk about deficit has quite down a little bit (probable because as I pointed out on my earlier post, “The Giant Leap Backward?”, that China relies on the US market more than US rely on Chinese bond purchase), as the private sector refuse to increase employment that can lead to increase of demand. Sometime ought to be done.

I agree that recovery takes time. But it does not mean that we can do nothing. It a disgrace to continually cut on educational budget to balance the budget on the local government level, the federal government should do more. Even the physical infrastructure is a section that needs attention. Not only on road repairs, our eyes should even go further. One proposal will lead to long term positive impact on the future of the country and solve the problem of unemployment is to build fast speed railroads.

There are many talks about the middle America that was left behind, this applies to geographic areas as well. The transportation system in US is basically based on point connections. As airlines thrive on speed, and cars thrive on convenience, ordinary railroads have long lost their allure. People rarely think about railroad as an option for their transportation. Out of sight out of mind, as the point connection often left out the middle of the continent, business development in the middle are staggering.

Unlike traditional railroads, high speed railroads can enter into the mix of transportation options, because it has the benefit of the speed and convenience, with the bonus of energy saving. For example, a night ride on the sleeping car of the fast speed train could be very convenient for business traveler from New York or DC to Bay Area or Los Angeles. If a net work of fast speed railroad basically parallel highway 10, 80, 90 and 5, 35, and 95, then the entire continental US is a train ride away.

Although I am not very athletic, I love the outdoors. Getting in touch with the nature certain add tremendous experiences to my life. Taking train ride across the country can provide more alternative and more access to the nature. It will be convenient and energy saving. Increased tourism across the country will help the local economy not just on tourism spending, but also on culture co-mingling.

As the railroad construction is an investment with significant returns, issued bond will provide the financing. The clearance zone along the railroads can be part of waste landfill to absorb the vibration, and the surface of the clearance zone can be paved with solar panel with sensors to increase safety, so the railroads can be green and safe as well. Overall this is a project that will solve the current high unemployment problem, and bring the entire country to a prosper future.

Another point related to the article of the Noble Laureate is that there are structure problems that cause the lack of demands (so that there is a causal connection between the two, unlike the real estate example I used earlier). One significant problem is that wall street is not just an insiders’ game, it literarily become a game. As I pointed out in my earlier posts, one important reason is the difference of tax ratio between capital gain and ordinary income.

I can understand the sensitive nature of this issue, but in order to essentially fix the wall street, this problem has to be confronted. The reason that corporations are sitting on so much cash now is because stock dividends have officially become the after thoughts. I certainly can appreciate the financial reform bill, but the real game changer will be the increase of capital gain taxes (if I have any hope for the future, this is against my self interests in many levels, I just like to point out I do understand this), to accomplish this, it is a more like a task for the outsiders.

I understand an argument can be made that ultimately this policy will go against creating new business and technology development, as venture capital investment is attractive as the gains are taxed at the low capital gain ratio, so the investment for new ventures might be reduced if new policy is established. But this thought is also a thought of an insider. The question is whether the venture capital model is a good model for new business or industries. Even some insiders acknowledge that many venture capital investments can be categorized as wasting investors’ money while providing no significant value to the society.

The point is predicting the future is a tough business, and many VCs are just not knowledgeable enough or competent enough to make the educated guesses. The more important point is that one cannot serve two masters, i.e., high returns and social values.

So, here is my solution. For VC funds that can stay in business, certainly no one can prevent them doing business. But for the purpose of advancing the goals of social benefits (including technology development), a new type of funds can be established.

Not too long ago, many billionaires pledged to donate over half their assets to charities. I like to take on this pledge and suggest a new kind of venture capital investment (may be we can call it Benture capital?). Unlike most of charitable funds, this kind of funds will invest in companies and expect returns from the investments, but the returns are only used for future investment. So, the requirement for performance for this kind of funds will not be as strict, as long as they can get the return of their overall investment, the funds can go on forever.

The investment criteria will be very different from traditional VC. The goal is only one, to advance technologies that can benefit humanity. The size and exit requirement will also be different. In stead of requiring 5, 7, or even 10 years exits, companies can take as long as it would actually take, as long as it is cause worthy. And there might not even be traditional exit, as long as there are incomes that can be provided to the funds. The fund managers would be the type of people that take rewards mostly on the cause achieved than the financial awards (perhaps those that already makes their millions or billions, but care about the causes).

These are just some random thoughts related to economic problems. The goal of this post is emphasis that it is time to think outsider the box, because the insiders’ game can only benefit the insiders in the short run, while take everything else down.

**Please look for my other posts regarding modern life, politics and economy, about discussions related to issues in this post.

Is the movie �Inception� itself an Inception?

blogqz01 — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:30:29 -0700

I want to say first that this post is not a review of the movie “Inception”. I will comments on some aspects related to plot of the movie, and it will be partially continue the discussion of my last post “Arts”. It will be more beneficial (and avoid to spoil it for you) to read this if you have seen the movie.

I think it is fair to say that “Inception” is not a Sci-Fi thriller. There is very little scientific base for the plot, and as someone suggested, the entire movie might be interpretated as one big dream. However, it might stir up the many interests for brains, dreams, perceptions, minds, etc. as no one has. For this and other reasons I will talk about later in this post, it might be more close to an artistic creation than many other movies.

I like to offer a little of my own grain of salt here. Perhaps the most nonsense in the movie (perhaps its biggest selling point) is the plot of dreams within the dreams.

There could be no dream within a dream, not to mention multiple levels of dreams. The person who dream the dream is the only real person, the same person in the dream is either the signal that represents the person (to other people’s minds), or the same person who dream the dreams, it is even more impossible for what happened in the lower level dreams to have any effect on the high level dreams(the confusion could be trace back to the confusion related to the concept of unconscious, I will write about it in my later posts).

In addition, the way that they enter or bring the targeted person to enter a dream does not need all these people to dream. What people experienced in their dreams are not reality. They are only signals of images, sounds, or sense of touch etc., processed in the brains. Following the logic of the movie, to bring people into a dream there only need to be signals sending to the mind of the targeted person, while they are dreaming, either the signals can be generated by somebody’s minds (while awake), or by computer programs that were designed to provide the signals.

Actually, following the logic of the movie, for the purpose of stealing ideas, if they can share dreams, there is no reason why they can just take the ideas directly from the brains. There is no lock in the brain, so if you can read information from other people’s minds, you can read all information from their mind, no need to build elaborate dreams.

Following the same logic, it would not be difficult to plant an idea either. In fact, if there is an access to the mind, then it would not be difficult to plant a “memory” that was not actually the memory of real event. But there is a complication here. Although it would not be difficult to plant the idea to someone’s mind, it might not be so easy for the idea to stick. Here, we are talking about concludes, initiatives (like in the movie), etc.. As they are the end results of thought processes, if the facts changes, or if the process changes, then the results could be different. As we can see in the movies, this can only be done if we fixed the processes, and fixed the facts that that processes rely on. (in fact, in real life, “inception” happens all the time, but the technique is quite different, mostly through paralyzing the thought processes).

To be honest, especially in my current situation, I am not fond of a plot that glorifies and provides excuses for idea thefts. And the suggestion about monopoly is also shocking. The title of this post is initially refereeing to this aspect.

Speaking of stealing ideas, as I mentioned in my last post “Arts”, there is a difference between exploitation and exploration, and between living off others lives and living the life of one’s own. For many people, who steal ideas, they often like to muddy the water. But there is a difference between inspiration and exploitation. To illustrate this point, we can use the example of life. We humans can take rare materials to sustain our live. It is different from the case that life is supported by the life of others. It is one thing that many people will draw inspiration from various sources to conceive new ideas, and it is different if someone that take all the essence of the ideas from others and pretends to be their own. The difference is between humans and vampires (I feel sorry that vampires are also getting major makeovers). In this sense, we are often live in the age of darkness, because otherwise, when the sun rises, vampires would turn into dusts.

If these are the intention of the film, then the effects are a little too obvious (it remain to be seen whether it will be effective). But the effects of creative works might not always follow the intent of the creator (assuming it is part of the intent of the creator), and for most creations, there is always bad even if there is a good side of it.

To me, there is a good side of it. And, for reasons I will explain below, the good might out weight the bad significantly . The good is that it firmly planted the idea of doubt. I like to give myself the title of philosopher (and I believe I might be more qualified to this title that the title of artist), and one of my philosophical assertions is that there no absolution substantive truth (to say it in another way, any knowledge about any particular is subjected to modification). If there is absolute truth, it could only be procedure truth (this topic could be discussed in great length, here I only want to introduce this idea).

This portion is related to my last post “Arts”. In my last post, I talked about the gap between reality and conscious, and I believe that the gap is inevitable. The reason is that the world is not built according to rules. So that, the ultimate goal is no longer in finding the truth, but about finding the process of finding truth in each particular circumstance. As I mentioned in my last post, the focus in the art world seems to reflect this change, so does this movie.

If we follow the logic of the move, the deepest embedded ideas will be the ones that people will hold on to the most. Then the deepest inception of this movie seems to be the element of doubt (as the entire movie is a process that enforce and enforce this idea). Even the idea of lucid dream is about retain judgment(which contains doubt).

Ultimately this is what the world (i.e., us) need, independent judgment and reserved doubt about any given truth. It was repeated in the movie that idea can spread faster than a virus. Even seemingly perfectly good ideas can be deadly in the wrong place, and our only defense is our judgment, our doubt.

Of course even doubt is not absolute. We can see in the movie 8 ½ that we have to overcome doubt as well. Uncontrolled doubt can lead us to doom day sentiment. Ultimately to live is to battle with our limitations, and aware of the possibility of failure. The element doubt will be a health beginning for independent judgment, not the persistent barrier to action. Often, our fear of failure can lead us to lose the opportunity to success, to life. Like the spinning top, we will fall from time to time, but until we do, we can still keep on spinning.

Did the movie “inception” over play the element of doubt? An explanation I found for the word “inception” is “beginning”. As a start, as long as we are aware of its own limitation, maybe we can overlook this flaw as well?

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

Arts

blogqz01 — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:51:14 -0700

I use the term arts as the title of this post, because I realized arts are very much connected. But I like to focus more on fine art, or visual art here.

My first contact with art is from drawings. I started to draw in my teenage years, but before that I had seen books of drawings, sketches, etching drawings, and loved them. I have to say I was never a big fan of classical paintings. I might like certain paintings individually, but overall all, it usually have too many iconic meaning, and stories behind it, so I found it wearing.

I love drawings of great masters such De Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Rembrandt, etc., for their clarity and strength shown by precision, but perhaps also about the fact that they left space for potentials, and possibilities. Later when I stated my own drawings, especially when I started painting, I often felt the resistance to complete them.

I just saw the poetic film “8 ½” (which the new movie “Inception” was somehow related to, I probably will write a post about this movie later), which is also what the movie “Nine” is based on. But the focus of “8 ½” seems quite different from “Nine”. The director of the movie “Nine” seems to have a theme about the exploitation of women, and “Nine” follows the same focus, that the Guido’s relationship with women is about using them for his inspirations, and dispose them after they are of no use.

But in “8 ½” there is something more, the exploration of his soul went deeper. What it is for him is related to what I just said about the fear of completion. His explanation of womanizing is that he is afraid that he will miss anything, that his devour of their people’s lives and energy is due to the creative need if exploration (as he thought so).

There is a subtle difference between paranoia before one started things and unwillingness to finish something, and there is difference between sprit of adventure and the desire to have it all.

The paranoia to start is quite common in many people, as people often feel things are just better in their minds than in real life, that their vague sense of perfection is overshadowing their identity, or that they refuse to assume clear identity to escape criticism of their own and projected.

Unable to finish their creations might have more than one reasons. One of the reasons is the same as the fear to start, but there are other reasons such as that the creators are so much attached to the world and process of the creation that they hate to stop. Another reason is that they are constantly seeking to improve themselves, so the process could even be helpful, although there ought to be some control.

When is one just adventures, and when is one just live off the lives of others? There are also the issue of eco system and mental morality related to the psychological landscape that was not discussed.

But it seems that the problem with Guido could actually is something else. It could be the difference between dream and lie. And, it could be between being true to him, and to tailor to other’s dreams. This world is full of lie, and they often overwhelm the truth. Many lies are self serving, but how many lies are started for the benefit of others?

Certainly being true to oneself is a struggle that artists have to deal with constantly. To please the audience or to tell the true, or stick with one’s own dream? It certainly takes courage to go against the crowd.

I like to call myself an artist sometimes but I wonder whether I have the right to do so. My love for the art is due to the fact that it provides a good escape for me. When I am really bored or down, just read my art magazines will immediately give me a good fix. But as I started to be more serious about my own creations, I gradually realized that it is not fun and game anymore.

As an audience to appreciate the art, I am bedazzled and inspired by the art. I believe the significant effort on me started with impressionism. Monet, Manet, Degas, Renoir, etc., they not only drawn me into their worlds, I also looked at the world differently because of their influences.

Appreciation is an active thing. Appreciation is not simply to accept, it requires that one has to go further and makes something out of it. Basically, what the impressionist artists did is that they conveyed their mental impression of the scenes in their works, so that it helped to evoke that same type of impression as they did.

I often felt that my life is richer than it would be if I did not know about art. Through access to artistic interpretation and appreciation of the world, I expanded my own ability of perception, interpretation and appreciation.

If impressionists can convey their impressions of the moments in their paintings, then Vaughn’s paintings are soaked with his emotions. I could not help but felt that he is a modern day Christ like figure. Many lost souls seem to find a resting place in his art.

I had been trying to understand modern art for sometime without much success until a day I saw the “Three musicians” in person. I still cannot explain what it is, but all of sudden right there I knew I got it., and instantly felt a freedom, like another dimension had been crack open in my mind. It opened the door for me to able to feel about the modern art.

Contemporary art can be very personal. If Picasso might not always require to see his works in person, many contemporary art works do, as most of are installations, or installation like piece. But the trade back is that it may trigger some senses, or feeling of perceptions unexpectedly. As I climbed up the stairs of the wooden structure of a roofless pavilion (LMCA), I literarily felt the breath of the spring wind, and I was in the world of “Tale of Genji”. Would a person not known about the story had the same feeling? I certainly doubt so. But as this is a very popular piece, I assume that at least many people felt the spring wind.

Since the beginning of modern art, it is not just about how the words makes us feel, but how art affect our mind in many unexpected ways. The modern day artists often embark on the journey of questioning and reconstructing perceptions, conceptions, thinking process, social process, or any other thing that they can think of, it often throw me into “quite frenzy”, how could they have done it?

Going back to Guido’s dilemma, it is related to the source of creativity. If artists enrich our lives, then what life gives to the artists to have this ability?

Some say the role of the artist is to tell the truth, others will say that it is about perfection. But it seems that in chasing perfection, he lost the ability to tell the truth.

Perhaps it just reflects the truth that truth is never perfect. As perfection is the product of the mind, and the place between the truth (world) and the mind are vast and full of surprises, the truth will always out done perfection.

Perhaps it gave us reason to live and the purpose for life. Learning what is impossible can give us the freedom. We will not need to try to live a life like anyone else, as if there is perfection, there will only be one perfection, then we are not free. But the place in between gives us plenty of space to explore and to leave our own marks, not to be pressed to chase the ever elusive perfection.

Just as what was said in the movie, true perfection is nothingness, and in the context of conscious, death. So, life is not perfect, and it could never be, not even if you get anything, and everything. And the role of the artists is not to create a perfect world, or a world above and beyond this real world, but to explore the world to their own sense of adventures.

This also seems to solve the dilemma about exploration and exploitation. To find one’s own truth does not require to devour other’s lives or energy. We are not only free from perfection, but free from anxiety that lead us to exploitation. The only responsibility one has is to be true to oneself, which eventually could lead to no lies.

It becomes clearer and clearer to me, that the art is less about content or subject, more about process now. What I felt from the art world now is that what is most important is not about what they produced, or event how their productions makes us felt (although the effect itself can be life changing), the bigger picture is the energy that hovers over, or arises from the art world, the freedom beyond any limitations. Unlike most of the other fields in the modern society, the norm in the art world is to be different, and the more the better. Whether everyone can measure up to this standard could be a question, but what is important is that everyone is trying to do so.

I have not investigated the history of the civilization and the history of art enough to make a statement of the fact, so I will just offer this as my own impression: that it seems that art has been leading the way of the development of the civilization, and it seems that it could be an very early indicator of what it is going to become. If this is truth, then the future looks quite bright to me. This means that we can eventually break free from the imprint of machinerization and arrive at a higher freer state of humanity.

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

The Giant Leap Backward?

blogqz01 — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:09:07 -0700

Just about all the economists will tell us that globalization is a good thing, that we should embrace globalization. The reason is based on the theory of free trade.

Although I don’t want to dispute the principle of free trade, the economists have ignored at least one factor, which is the efforts of labor movement that have been undermined (and overlooked) by globalization. I admit I am not an expert on labor movement (or economics), but I don’t think we can deny its effects on the society, and the economy.

Many people will view high labor costs as a factor for preventing economic growth, but this view is short sighted. When Karl Marx pointed the problems of capitalist society, and provide socialism as the solution, labor movement, along with other social programs, provided the real solution within the system. It is important not simply due to the reason of fairness, but that it helped to stabilize the society, and sustained the driving force of market economy, the consumer demand.

Economically, modernism started with mass production enabled by standardized machine operation invented by Henry Ford,, but from market point of view, it is started when he decided to pay higher wages to his workers, so that they can afford their products. There will be no use of mass production, if there is no mass consumption, and mass consumption requires that the mass have the ability to consume.

The consumption and labor problem become apparent recently in US (and elsewhere). The economic solvency of the companies (or event surplus cash) did not lead to lower unemployment rate in US, which suppressed demands, which sustain the high unemployment rate.

Obviously, US economy is still in trouble. But I found it interesting that people seems to be nurturing the fantasy of China more and more. The truth is China is not much better (it might actually be much worse). US might rely on China to finance the deficit, but China simply relies on US now. The simple proof of it is that when US first experienced sharp economic down turn, within a month there were several million people in China lost their jobs.

If anything, the globalization as we know is supposed to benefit countries such as China, but it is not what it seems. It is true that Chinese government now have significant US currency surplus that it is a big creditor of the US, but the government has the money because the average citizen in China does not.

Put it this way, the deficit of US government can be bought by the wealthy individuals and businesses in US many times over. But if the cash reserve of Chinese government is distributed to its citizens evenly, it would not make any difference on their lives.

There are talks about the secret of success of China, the way as I see it there is no secret. If anything, the “progress” made in China is solely on the back of its average citizens, which has been suppressed and screezned near the breaking point. I have made comments about the inflated prices in real estate market in US had led to higher wages so that jobs are lost to overseas. But the fact is many places in China the real estate prices is almost as high as US. It turns out that the China government’s method of stimulating economy is also pouring money into real estate market (they did it outright ), so that in many places the real estate market is about as high as US, and the living expanses are growing higher, although the wages are much lower.

The theory of globalization and the allure of China is that there will be growing middle class due to economic development, but it had not happens. What many reported as emerge of middle class that have the purchasing power remotely resemble that of US middle class is actually a small percentage of the population. The actual middle class in China is struggling to survive

This phenomenon owes its “thanks” to the iron fist of the Chinese political system. When people in China get squeezed from both side, the only recourse seems to be committing suicide. There is no politician to vent their anger on, and for the most part, they could not even speak out to be heard. It is not a surprise that many corporations prefer to go business in countries such as in China, and investors prefer to invest in China. There is no labor movement, no environmental protection regulations, and no consumer protection law suits, only thing they need to do is to master the game of bribery, and it seems that they learn fast.

I have heard people talked about the “genius” of China that everything that is introduced into China will be changed into something unrecognizable. Actually, the capitalism did not change into something unrecognizable, but reserved in its “deadly form”, that in “Communist” China, it becomes truly a suppressing force.

I think it is not exaggeration to call it the dark force. Without fair wages, there will never be robust domestic economy that can support the labor force in China, and labor outsource will inevitably keep the unemployment in US high, and drive the wage low, thus drain the consumer power ( the cash cow), and together there will be a downward spire. If you say that US market is addicted to cheap Chinese goods, then China is much more addicted to exports to US, it is obvious who is more vulnerable.

I call it dark force is because it will eventually bring everyone down. There is no clear winner in this in the long run. The concentrated power means that the “high rollers” in China are simply living between “high life” and prison (it might be less obvious now, but you can count on it), and everyone live in the constant stake of “the end of the world” mentality.

On US side, higher unemployment and lost of relatively higher wages of manufacturing jobs will be the new norm without generating another bubble. Even from the corporations that seemingly benefit from the lower labor costs might not have much benefit in the long run. From the surface, lower labor cost means higher profit, and some of the cost cutting can lead to lower price due to competition, and hopefully will draw higher volume, and further increase the profit. But as the overall purchasing power decrease, the triggering effect will lead to the results that corporations could end up earning less in the long run, due to loss in volume.

Even if corporations are earning more than they would have been, it is not clear who will actually benefit. As dividends became a secondary benefit of stock ownership, corporations are more incline to put cash on reserve, and buy out other businesses. So, the higher profit earned are not passed on to average shareholders, but only fuel the game of stock trading (the facts the companies are so cash rich, or asset rich can explain the popularity of hedge funds, and high wind fall of hedge fund managers).

In any event, the intermediate result is wealth is concentrated on a few people. Putting fairness and exploitation aside, wealth concentration is just not good for the market economy, because it decrease demands.

The game of wealth is also like going against the current, if you don’t make progress, you are will fall behind. Wealth can only stay wealthy if they spend less than they earned. As the wealthy earn their income mostly through investment (and there are always win and loses in investment), their consumption will generally a lot less than their net worth. In bad time, they will invest less and spending less (as most of the spending are not for necessities), so the overall demand will be less than if the wealth is spread more evenly.

It seems quite clear that the globalization as the way it is had undone the social processes made in the western society through labor movement, environmental policies, etc, and the economic effect is that it actually reduce the all over wealth in circulation.

So, it is not an exaggeration to say that t is a giant leap backward. But it does not have to be this way. In stead of trade war such as tariff add to imported products, new policies should directly target the problems.

For labor problems, either efforts should be made to assure that real labor organizations can be established to assure that every business in other countries that are doing business directly or remotely with US (or other developed countries) will pay fair wages according to locate standard, or there could be laws established to allow cause of actions for unfair wages in business that doing business with countries such as US in US. The same type of policies can be applied to environmental protections issues as well.

You can call these type of policies as exporting democracy, and it will cost money and efforts, but it will be a lot cheaper and a lot effective to do so (comparing with evading other countries). It will benefit everyone, and it seems that we owe it to the world. I often wonder if the suppressive and corruptive regimes in many countries could have existed for so long, but for the developed world’s demands for nature resources and low cost products.

**Please look for my other posts regarding modern life, politics and economy, and legal system about discussions related to issues in this post.

Designer Babies and Designer Brains

blogqz01 — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:05:27 -0700

Like it or not, the world is changing, and it will change faster and out of our imaginations and comfort zones. People try to predict the changes. Although no one can see everything in the future, some thoughts behind the predictions are trouble some.

Of the new technology developments, the developments in the fields of biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology will have the most impacts on our sense of being humans, and the predictions about the developments lead to many discussions. I wrote some of my thoughts related to these subjects, this post here can be viewed as additional thoughts on these subjects.

The talk about genetic engineering has lead to concerns as the fear of “designer babies”. So, first, I like to talk about this concern. Is it wrong to avoid human defects by screening the genetic makeup of the embryos? If certain genetic defects will lead to certain health problems, I do not see why avoiding these defects would be wrong.

But how far should this go? If we can change our genes to get us healthier and live longer, then it seems foolish not to do so, whether through selecting or modifying genes. But what if we can change the genes to make people better looking, stronger, happier, smarter, etc.?

The issue first is how much we can be sure of the effects. Then the question is whether we should do so. For the first question, DNA is the blueprint of how a person will grow, and the environment will play certain role on how actually a person could grow into. In other words, there will be uncertainty to our predictions. In addition, unlike health and longevity, there will not likely to be objective standards for many of the features, and there are needs for determining the limit and selection when there will be trade off. Think about how children blame their parents for many things now, then how would they blame their parents for many more?

Regardless of the dilemma, while physical attributes are relatively closely related to genetic makeup, things like smarter or happier, or even some of the attribute related to physical abilities such as viability and flexibility are features related to processes, and processes are more related to “software” than “hardware”.

If you ever watched “American Top Model”, you will know that even modeling career requires personality and presentation. Even assume temperament can somewhat related to genetic makeup, personalities are reflections of what people think, how they think, and how they carry themselves, and presentation has a lot to do with responsiveness.

The difference between software and hardware with the brain is an important distinction, and there are some confusion related to the role of genes related to the “software” of the brain. First, we should be clear that all mental process are expressed by physical embodiment. In other words, all mental processes are biological processes. The distinction between process and physical structure, and the distinction of software and hardware is due to distinction of mechanisms, not distinction between material (or physical, or biological) things and the non-material things.

Related to genetic determination on brain development, even assuming genetic may determine the all over structure of the brain or even the amounts of neurons in the brains (assuming environment has little effects), the connections between neurons are determined by external stimulates, and memories and other learned features responding to external stimulates. This means that at best, genetic can only provide the possibility, not the end results of particular mental processes.

The characteristics related to process are not determined by genetic makeup alone because as living being, we ought to be highly adaptive, which means that our genetic makeup must allow us to have the ability to develop different abilities according to the environment and our mental conclusions responding to the environment.

So that not only genetic cannot be determined the mental processes, mental processes should not be controlled by preset design, whether by genetic, or human design. To design the brain according to certain predetermined standard will be in conflict with the highly adaptive nature of our brains, as there ought not to be a fixed standard of what are the desirable features of the brains (as I find fewer people are interested in dramatically changing the physical features of humans that would render us non-human look alike, the focus is more or less on changing and enhancing the brains).

Hence the argument against the “designer brain”. As I mentioned in my earlier post (especially in “singularity”), there is no evidence to support the idea that machine will by itself become smarter than human. But can we opt for “designer brain” in order to make ourselves smarter? As I mentioned in my earlier posts, smart is not a feature that related to particular physical features, but a feature that mostly related to the tasks. If a person can perform a mentally challenging task, then the person will be considered smart. The less people can perform the same the task, the smarter that the person who can perform the task would be.

So, by this definition, obviously the smartest person will be the person could do something that no one had done before, and the more important the thing for human beings and society, the smarter the person would be considered to be. Thus it is generally related to creativity. When we are dealing with creativity, it is clearer that it is result oriented. Many people can come up with many different ideas, but unless the ideas are of some values (not in straightly monetary sense), these people will be considered, mad, weirdo, etc.

Life is full of risks, the road to greatness is always a narrow road. So, obviously order a “designer brain” is not a solution for greatness, because others will do the same. But if I can improve my brain that it will be able to do things it was not able to do before, then I will be happy about the improvements, no matter what other will be able to do, and if human race can do more things that they cannot do before, then collectively they just becomes smarter, it will not be bad.

Here I like to take a look on the definition of the word “machine”. What is the definition of a machine? To take into considerations of future development, I like to give a broad definition for the word “machine”, that it is something that designed according to certain rules to perform certain functions to achieve certain goals.

Ultimately, the argument against designer brain is that it will inherently lack the ability to adapt. What is amazing about life is its ability to adapt, that its internal mechanism can change and “find a way” to live. But this ability is not guaranteed individually, but through the process of natural selection. This is where machines designed by humans would not be able to do, because as we expect the machines to function and reach certain goals, the internal mechanism are set, and the behaviors are set, so that they can be assured to reach the predetermined goals.

This is to say that in order that we can order the designer brain that can make us smarter, we have to set a standard on what is smart, and according to the standard, the designer will design the machines, so that the designer brains will be more or less the same, as they are designed according to the same design principle and according to the same standard (I will talk about other features in later posts).

The progress of civilizations is done through introductions of new ideas, and these ideas are new because they are often the products of different mentality (i.e., from brains with different design criteria), and the important lesson we learned is that we cannot predict what mentalities will be the ones for producing the bright new ideas. So the designer brains will not only not be able to accelerate civilization development, it will hinder or stall the development (depend on how much it spread). This why although designer brain is very much a science fiction, we need to take its possible effect seriously.

**Please look for my other posts regarding modern life, science and technology, mind and body, human knowledge and language system, about discussions related to issues in this post.

Learning

blogqz01 — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:07:50 -0700

This post is about learning process. When I think about it, the mystery about human intelligence has a lot to do with the mystery of learning. Although the ability to learn is absolute essential for human existence, there is not much knowledge about learning.

There are two types of learning, memorizing knowledge given to us, and acquire abilities. The most common technique for memorizing knowledge is through repetition. But memories acquired can often be forgotten. As in the current school system most of the memorization is done for the purpose of passing the exam, and afterward, there could be not much left.

In order to function, one had to have some basic knowledge, so the process of memorizing knowledge is inevitable. But for the effectiveness of memory, there is a difference between passive learning and active learning. Knowledge is, after all, association of things. When learning with a purpose, the knowledge is more vivid, and sustainable. So, as a technique, effective learning is active learning.

In the early days of civilization, education was a privilege, and the way it was done involved much of personal attentions, and the goal was to foster certain way of thinking, not just acquiring knowledge.

The modern day education system provides broader access of the masses to knowledge. But just as mass production lead to humans deferring to the machines, mass education also fails to attend to individual needs, passive learning is the norm. Not only there is little attention on the way of thinking, there is little attempt on understanding how the students can learn better, and how to improve their abilities. Basically, the system is a system for the survival of the fittest (for however reason they get it right), not based on nurturing.

I remembered my father gave me a math puzzle book when I was young, one example from the book I still remember is how to get a goat, a wolf and a cabbage pass the river with a boat can carry only one of them at a time. I got very interested in the book, later I was trying to find other puzzles in science magazines, and then read an Algebra book before I took the class. Then I became the unofficial teacher of my entire class, giving night classes regularly (Think about everyone was willing to go to school at night and listening to me, even the trouble makers, it did make me proud). The training from this book also helped me when I was preparing for GRE (test for entering graduate school) and later LSAT test.

I have to admit that the only school that I went to truly out of my own initiative is law school, and it benefited me more than I had hoped for. It was not easy, but in the end, I can really say, I acquired (or at least solidify) the ability of critical thinking, and it led me to creativity.

The law school entering exam (LSAT) is designed to find people with this potential for critical thinking, and the way the school exams are designed are also used to do so. I heard someone said that it is a waste of time to read case books in order to prepare for the exams, I have to say it has some truth, and on a related matter, it seems that reading text books might not be the best way to prepare for exams covering broad subjects, such as most of the qualifying exams (it has a lot to do with active learning).

So, I was able to acquire (or at least solidify) the ability of critical thinking by taking tests, not reading case books or attending classes. But when you think about it, it should not be so surprising. People acquire ability through practicing, through doing, and through solving problems. The law school exams are mostly designed with hidden traps, hoops to jump, etc., which are good exercises for the mind. But it could only be effective if the participants somewhat became aware of the rationality, which to my knowledge is an unspoken secret. Maybe people will say that law school exams, especially bar exams are designed intentional to keep some people out. But for the general education system, I could not see the rationality still stand, or maybe this in itself is an unspoken secret.

My point is ability can be trained. As athletes will have to practice to enhance and maintain their physical abilities, so are people who want to enhance their mental abilities. I just read an article asking the question whether creativity can be acquired. The answer is certainly yes.

I was convinced that I was just not a creative person. I remembered seeing my mother drew up more than ten plans for a building she was designing in just a few days, and all of them were so wonderful to me (she certainly did not get to use her talent to full potential), I was glad that I did not go to architecture school. I remembered I thought to my self, how could I ever do that? That it why I was probably most happy when I exhibited my paintings. It is a small achievement for mankind, but a big step for me.

Most people will say that law school is intense. With my English skill (especially slow reading), it was not a piece of cake for me. In the middle of the pressure, I was seeking escape (I was also going through a difficult time in my personal life), and found it in my painting. In the middle of going to law school full time, while preparing for patent bar (before I took patent class at school), and thinking about my painting, it somewhat created enlightment moments for me. I somehow seemed to be able to see the logic of creativity, and my painting had visible improvements (I can see they are more like real art as I was creating them).

But even after this, my doubt about my creativity persisted. I heard my classmate and colleagues talked about patent engineers and attorneys often later became inventors themselves, but I often said to them I could never imagine myself doing that. But when I talked to inventors and helping them to solidify their ideas and making suggestions about alternative, I gradually realized this is not so out of the ordinary. Especially when a client asking my opinion on how to avoid a patent litigation, and I made a suggestion about an alternative design, I later realized that I had cross the line. A few years later, even I sometime was still wondering how things had happened, it is no denying that I am an inventor.

But there is something elusive about creativity. With most of the abilities, the targets are relatively clear, but the problem with creativity is that there is no clear target. By definition creativity related to activities that are creating something new, so what is to be created and how to create it are always up in the air.

My personal experience is critical thinking is important to creativity. Creations cannot come out of nothing (as far as human creation goes), there much be some existing elements and some known rules that are used to create new things or modify the new creations. Critical thinking is useful for finding out what is the area that new creations can be made, and how to modify the new creations to make them more valuable.

But creative process is always hit or miss (think about great artists, no all their creations are master pieces, and scientists rarely have many discoveries under their belts), success is not guaranteed. You can look at the wrong place or come up with the wrong creations easily. That is why it is a moving target. This why I said (in my earlier post “Singularity”) machines cannot be smarter than humans, as ultimately smart or not will mostly be related creations and discoveries.

As every creation or discovery is unique, and imagination is an essential part of creation and discovery, it is wasteful to design machines for the sole purpose of making creations or discoveries. Machines are set with particular abilities according to the designs of humans. If humans know the way for creation or discovery, there will not be a need for machine. If humans don’t know the way, then they cannot design a machine that magically will have the ability to do so.

The essential difference between humans and machines is that humans exist out of their own rights, but machines are made out of needs of humans. So, instead of trying to undertake the impossible task of making machines smarter than humans, we should try to help people to be able to learn knowledge and acquire abilities in the most effective way.

**Please look for my other posts regarding modern life, arts, science and technology, mind and body, human knowledge and language system, about discussions related to issues in this post.

Trust

blogqz01 — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:13:10 -0700

The BP spill, financial crisis made me think about the concept of trust. I don’t know if you noticed or not, trust is a fundamental concept in market economy. In the market economy, most of the activities are delegated activities, so the underlining trust is more than ever important.

Think about it, almost everything we use is from some where else. We buy food, clothes, medicines, cars, etc., etc. with trust that they would not hurt us. We breath the air, drink the water, move around in the space believe it is safe. We go on the airplane, cruise lines etc. believing we will be taking care of.

But what if our trust is not well founded? In the modern society, without trust, one cannot function. But how would we know who and what to trust? The trust is first based on the goodness of human nature, but is also mostly based on the legal system that punishes the wrong doers. There is news about products from China that are harmful (such as toys, drywalls, etc.), these are evidence of the function of the legal system. There was news in China about baby formula (and some other diary products) that made many babies became sick or even died, but Chinese government prevented Chinese lawyers from taking these cases, even prosecuted lawyers who did take the case. So, it is no surprise that many products from China are not reliable.

But the punitive system is not bullet prove. We experienced the flaws of this system recently, the problems are mostly from the disconnection of responsibilities. As corporations are the entities that are held responsible, individuals can obtain profits from reckless behaviors while the corporations will take the fault. On the other hands, since the responsibilities are mostly financial, even in corporation point of view, some cost analysis will lead to wrong doing as financially more favorable solutions.

No matter what is your view, it is simply impossible not to have certain trust, on the individual case, or on the system, as we are increasing relied on the system. As we emphasis individual freedom, we ought to realize that each individual is a part of the system and the system is the extension of individuals.

Historically, the relationship of individual and the system is often expressed in the relationship of the individual and the government, but in practical sense, since most of the activities in United States are conducted by private corporations, the system comprises all the players in the system.

When people are urged to trust the system, the reliance on the system is often manifested by the reliance on the free market, and more specifically the force of nature. In the end, it is the argument against government regulation. The division often is viewed as ideology difference, so debate is often lack of rationality.

The truth is reliable market is never truly free (as lawless state will only be chaos and lead to devastating to the majority), and the government will always play certain role in the economic system. So that although there ought be trust for the mechanism of the market, and trust for the government, not the trust should always be qualified trust.

As the result of development in technology and civilization, the social structure and technology structure become more and more complicated. The rule about structure is more complicated structures break easily. A rock will always be a rock in ordinary cases, but living things will cease to be so if the delicate balance is broken. My point is the system we rely on can malfunction and even break down, so it will be a constant struggle to keep things at where we want them to be, and prevent things that will harm the system from happening.

A problem here is we ought to know what to prevent. Many of the problems arise from the lack of knowledge, lack of knowledge about events not foreseen, and lack of knowledge that our methods of doing things have flaws that could lead to undesirable consequences.

The rise of professionism in general lead to more understanding about the world and the expansion of human knowledge, but it also lead to false sense of security. As the general public is lack of knowledge about any specific field, people tend to rely more and more on the expertise of the professionals (especially on the matter of importance, because we don’t have much choices). But the trust or reliance is based on the assumption that the professionals know what they are doing, and their interests will not be in serious conflict with us. These are all assumptions that would not necessarily be true.

But what can we do? Once we realize this problem we can find solutions. The first step is to realize that the trust is a qualified trust, i.e., we trust with reasonable doubt. We can find inspiration from the principles for establishment of the political system, check and balance, and the application of critical thinking.

In the case of financial crisis, and the BP oil spill, we can clearly realize that policies, methods, plans, etc. that are related to the failures are lack of scrutiny. Here, I think it is helpful to look at litigation process. In a lawsuit related to reliability, the lawyers and the experts in the field will go over each step of the way, and look at what the defendant should and could have done to prevent the outcome. This is what scrutiny means, and the same mentality will be very helpful in reviewing policies, methods, plans, etc.

Knowledge requires efforts. If there are people who’s job is to point out what could be wrong with the financial systems, then many of the problems arises from the financial systems would be foreseeable. And, if there are people who are closely criticizing each steps of the oil spill response plans, then I am sure they will find many problems with the plans (as for after so many days, none of the methods would work, there ought to be many problems with the plans).

In civil litigation related liability, the standard of care is average person in the position, which means group behavior provides a shield for the individuals. As long as one is with pack, then no matter how bad it turns out, the individual is pretty much safe from the liability. This means even if something could be done, but if no one had done it, then no one need to do it. This does not seem to be in line with the spirit of free market competition.

It is true that if accidents happen, there will be experts who will analysis the problems, but then it is already too late. The best preventive measure is to prevent problems from happening. So, instead of having experts analyzing what went wrong, more efforts should be made (to create independent professions of detail analysis of what could be wrong), and there ought to government like entities to oversee the efforts.

My thought is government regulations are indispensable, most of the problems related to government regulations originated from bad policies, policies lack of careful considerations. The political process is very much seasonal, and most of the policy decisions seems to be rather spontaneous, many policies seems to originated from vague ideas, not much studies have been conducted about the results and impacts of the policies. I think it is the time to change this. In order to prevent undesired results, we ought to make efforts to prevent them, this is the price we need to pay. Because otherwise, we will pay much more later. Furthermore, implementing the concept of critical thinking to broader spectrum will greatly improve the progress of our society.

**Please look for my other posts regarding modern life, politics and economy, science and technology, and legal system about discussions related to issues in this post.