Sadly the number of posts on this blog has experienced a decline correlated to the amount of time I've been in college. As I reach this point (14 days until graduation), my intellectual curiosity for things I learn in school has reached an all-time low of near-zero. These days, it takes a lot to motivate me to think beyond the rote information that I have to learn. Which is sad because I used to be a really deep-thinking person, mentally extrapolating on everything I learned in school and feeling like I was never given enough information. Now I feel like the information deluge has totally saturated me, and there's no where left to stuff the bits that are still raining down in my last few classes.
My brain was so empty and hopeful in high school; now it is full of half-understood facts and scientist names and very little of the abstract thinking that used to define it.
Sad. I can only pray that it will come back after I graduate between graduation and my MD-PhD program. Because I really miss it, and I'm just not happy with learning when I'm like this which is really tragic to me because i know how exciting learning can be. I usually tend to think more over the summer, so hopefully that will happen when I go home in two weeks.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
human rights: opposing viewpoints
I am reading (and greatly enjoying) this book right now, which was probably written for bored high school students, but is very thought-provoking nonetheless.
I'm just going to try to collect my thoughts on all of the essays I read in it, since some of them have actually left me fairly conflicted and uncertain, which is probably a good thing. I don't think it's good to be inflexible and unshakable in one's political opinions. It means one is probably not cognizant enough of the world.
1. "Human Rights are Universal" (Jack Donnelly): This essay says there are three "worlds" of rights: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. 1st is Western type, with an emphasis on civil and political rights and upholds the individual primarily; 2nd is the socialist approach emphasizing economic and social rights placing society as all-important; 3rd is self-determination and economic development, placing development highest. He points out the two views of rights, relativist (moral values are culturally/historically determined, and so are human rights which are based on these values) and universalist (all values, and thus human rights, are universal). The author of this essay argues for a weak cultural relativist approach, saying that there are many human rights which are universal, but there are some which are not. Examples which he gives are rights of a spouse in marriage (which differ culturally), political participation, dress codes.
My take: I guess I mostly agree with this guy. It seems not *all* human rights can be universal, because that would create discrepancies with a culture's right to self-determination. I am a fan of most of the rights listed on the UNDHR though.
2. "Human Rights are not Necessarily Universal" (Blair Gibb): This argues that the UNDHR can't be applied to all nations and that most nations, even that have signed it, have had to limit the rights enumerated. It argues that the UNDHR pushes western values that don't prioritize economic development the way eastern nations do. Eastern nations argue that some UNDHR civil and political (more Western) rights threaten cohesive society, like the right to criticize the government or complete freedom of opinion and expression. The author argues that the US system emphasizing individual rights get in the way of sensible societal reform and exacerbate socioeconomic gaps.
My take: I agree that the UNDHR is a bit idealistic and better applies to more developed nations as opposed to developing nations. But I do think that once governments evolve to a democratic form of government, the UNDHR is vital. However, I am conflicted on one idea that keeps coming up in this book: what is more important, the development of a better, more cohesive society that can better serve its people, or the development of the individual and all of his rights? I'm not sure. I want a balance of the two, but government priorities seem to be polarized.
3. "Health Care is a Human Right" (WHO): This essay argues that health care is inextricably intertwined with other human rights, like freedom from discrimination. Health care can be used to uphold other rights in a rights-based approach that targets minorities and marginalized populations while emphasizing transparency and accountability.
My take: Well, as always, I am an idealistic person, and in my idealistic world, health care is afforded to all, even those who don't work for it or contribute to the government, even those who just expect it, not necessarily because of its status as a human right (although I do think it's a human right), but because I think we should all love each other, and who in their right mind would watch someone they love die just because of money or a sense of justice? But I recognize that the real world revolves around cents and dollars...
4. "Health Care is not a Human Right" (Richard D. Lamm): Mostly this essay harps on about fiscal consequences of universal health care, arguing that resources aren't unlimited and that in the end, we have to choose who gets it and who doesn't. He says rights should be legislatively and not judicially determined (since it is the legislative and not the judicial branch that has to deal with the budget, I think). The essay argues that other nations recognize that compromises must be made and use wait-lists or rations based approaches.
My take: This is probably the practical approach to health care. Honestly, I recognize that. I recognize the fact that the new health care bill even, no matter what Obama says, is putting us deeper in debt as we speak. But I have this problem in that I am one of the problematic people that doesn't care about money. This is just something I expect out of a government, or out of people: that they help each other. Is it really that hard?
5. "Defining Human Rights Too Broadly Can Destroy Nations" (John A. Gentry): This argues that an expansive view of human rights leads to an entitlement ethic in which people think they deserve human rights without having to give anything back to society, even when those rights cost the government legitimacy or time/money/resources. When rights conflict, small groups are left out, creating resentment and anti-government groups, leading to political instability.
My take: I guess I might actually agree with this a little bit. I think the definition of human rights is getting a bit expansive because they're all clashing now. You can hardly tread on the airspace without being politically incorrect and offending some group or another. I do think it's a bit excessive. I think we just need to treat each other with respect and love each other. (Wow, I sound like a Miss America contestant... but I do think it would work, if people weren't so complicated.)
6. "Human Rights Are Often Defined Inconsistently" (William Ratcliff): This essay says that organizations like Amnesty International are often only willing to condemn right-wing rights violators while ignoring leftists like Castro. He also talks about politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize and Rigoberta Menchu (I remember reading about her before- she's caused quite the controversy).
My take: I completely agree. As apolitical as groups like AI pretend to be, they really are liberally biased and less willing to look at infractions from their side of the playing field.
7. "The US Has Violated the Geneva Conventions in its Treatment of Terrorist Suspects" (Michael Byers): Byers argues that detainees are actually prisoners of war since they were fighting for the Taliban or Al-Quida, which is connected to the Taliban. He argues that the Taliban is a government. He says the convention was written to protect people fighting in conflicts and situations like this one. The Geneva Convention says POW should get a trial in the same court as members of the military of their detaining power. He says treatment of detainees violates basic human rights, for instance: covering their heads, shaving their beards, detaining them without trial, not telling them their rights, not giving them a lawyer, and many other things listed by AI.
My take: I need to read the Geneva Convention to decide whether or not they've violated that, but it is pretty clear to me and always has been that they are violating human rights down there. Why do you have to have a convention to treat another human being with the rule of law you apply to Americans? If it's good enough for us, why not them? (I know many of them hate us and have done horrible things. No matter.)
8. "The US Has Not Violated the Geneva Conventions in Its Treatment of Terrorist Suspects" (Richard Lowry): Lowry says those apprehended in Afghanistan are not true POWs because Al Qaeda hasn't signed the Geneva Convention and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not real governments.
my take: cross apply my comments on number 7
9. "Sweatshops Violate Human Rights" (Gary MacEoin): workers at sweatshops work in deplorable conditions. For instance, some are allowed to go to the bathroom only once a day. They make only minimum wage, which isn't enough to take care of their families. Children that claim to be of age who are actually too young are accepted. Unions are violently discouraged.
my take: Completely agree.
10. "Sweatshops Do Not Violate Human Rights" (Scott Rubush): This is a very interesting argument. He essentially argues that wages in sweatshops are actually relatively high, and sweatshops provide a benefit both in the US and in their base country. He says that boycotts and fair labor movements against sweatshop corporations detriment workers.
my take: it may be true that sweatshops provide employment at at least minimum wage, but the conditions are unacceptable, and unless we do something to change that, it won't change because it's economically feasible for globalized corporations. However, if we fight for the human rights of sweat shops workers, perhaps we can change the whole system so the new generation of "sweatshops" will have much better conditions, and the poor workers can keep their employment. I think this argument is a cop-out.
11. "Human Rights For Women Are Receiving Greater Attention" (Temma Kaplan): She says grassroots organizations have helped the UN and developed nations to be more aware of problems surrounding women in developing nations. The Beijing Conference (1995) attempted to globally define women's rights. (That was where the CEDAW originated, the treaty thing against all forms of discrimination against women.)
my take: I do agree that in many countries women's rights are becoming more of a humanitarian focus. However, there are many humanitarian countries (Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia) that don't seem to have caught on that bandwagon at all.
12. "Human Rights for Women Have Not Improved" (Human Rights Watch): This article points out some of the exceptions to universal improvement like I just mentioned, for instance the Taliban and Saudi Arabia. It argues that governments and work places are still discriminating against women. The attempts made towards focusing on women's rights after 9/11 trickled away.
my take: I do agree with this article mainly. However, I see a lot of improvement in the world in the past fifty years in terms of women's rights. I think many countries are still very behind, unacceptably behind, on women's rights, but they are also behind on many other human rights issues as well, and I think that for them it's just a matter of developing into a more sensitive government (ie Iran).
13. "Slavery in Africa Must be Eradicated" (Charles Jacobs): He argues that slavery is still occurring in Sudan for instance, and CSI (Christian Solidarity International) is responding correctly while UNICEF is responding badly. CSI is responding by buying back the slaves and liberating them, but UNICEF has refused to ever buy a human being as a matter of principle.
my take: I think I believe that slavery is still occurring in Sudan, from what I've read/heard about Darfur. It's hard to tell though. Anyway, I don't think that buying back the slaves is a good solution, though I agree that something needs to be done somehow. I'm not sure what though. I just don't think buying back the slaves is a good plan because it pumps money into the slave trade and doesn't project the message that the West (or the rest of the world for that matter) doesn't think slavery is OK. So I'd agree more with UNICEF.
14. "Anti-Slavery Groups Are Making False Claims About African Slavery" (David Hoile): This article confusingly argues that slavery doesn't actually exist in Sudan, that people are just posing as slaves in order to get the reward from groups like CSI. He says Craig Jacobs' group is pro-rebel in Sudan and biased against the government. He says that pieces on slavery in the media are actually "puff" pieces from PR releases.
my take: it's hard to tell from these two articles whether or not there is actually slavery in Sudan. My instinct is that there is, but there are also people posing as slaves just to get the reward. At any rate, CSI is reinforcing the system and it's clear that Craig Jacobs and is organization is politically biased for whatever reason. I"m not sure about the whole media PR-puff piece thing.
15. "Consumer Boycotts Can Discourage the Use of Sweatshops" (Linda Golodner): She argues that consumer groups like the National Consumer's League can use buying power to protest against goods made in factories that violate basic human rights standards. She says that in the past colored labels have been used to indicate clothing from factories that agreed not to violate basic codes of conduct. the NCL has also prompted a lot of global corporations to develop better standards on issues such as child labor, although these standards are still inconsistent and not universally enforced. Some cities have converted all shops in the city to only receiving goods from companies that can be trusted not to be violating human rights standards (ex. Bangor, ME).
My take: I agree with everything in this article. I can say though that sometimes it's hard as the consumer to choose what is right over what is cheap, but I know that it's more important to discourage immoral practices. I love what they've done in cities like Bangor, and I must admit that I should probably (definitely) be more conscious of where my own clothes come from.
16. "Consumer Boycotts are a Misguided Response to Sweatshops" (Fred Smith): This guy has a similar argument to the Rubush guy: boycotts cause children employed in third-world countries to lose their jobs, decreasing wealth that is necessary for urbanization. These kids/adults are then either unemployed or forced into distasteful jobs like prostitution. In a country where people's alternative to a sweatshop is no wage at all, they can't complain too much at having slightly less than a "living wage." Minimum wages are a bad policy because they discourage companies to hire workers from the dregs of the employment pool, meaning those individuals will never be employed. People boycotting sweatshop apparel are treating other countries as if they are developed countries when in fact they are not, and sweatshops are just a distasteful step towards development and urbanization. Things are not egalitarian in third-world countries, and people have to do what they can to earn small amounts of capital.
My take: I actually don't reject this argument as vehemently as I thought I would from the title. Some of the things he says make sense, like the fact that perhaps we are treating third world countries a bit too much like developed, egalitarian societies by assuming that boycotts will benefit their citizens. I think it may be true that a lot of people would be hurt initially by a boycott, people that may have no other source of income or employment. However, as much as it kills my Kantian fingers to type this, I think it's more important that future generations to come get a better standard for their workplace than that this generation remain employed in squalor. So I still disagree. It's time to change the conditions. That, too, will push the country towards development. Both economic and civil/individual rights are necessary.
17. "Nongovernmental Organizations Help Improve Rights" (Peter van Tujil): This argues that in a globalized economy, NGOs have begun to fill the institutional gaps. Most NGOs nowadays operate via large international networks, fitting around the global economy. They serve as advocates for global human rights in local places.
my take: Yes, I agree. I'm a big fan of NGOs as long as they remain transparent and accountable to the people they serve.
18. "Nongovernmental Organizations are Increasingly Counterproductive" (Robert Hayden): NGOs have been co-opted by larger, stronger states since the Cold War from which they receive mass funding, making them biased.
my take: I agree that some NGOs may have been swayed by government agency funding. However, I don't think that's any reason to dismiss the whole NGO framework. I believe NGOs can be very powerful. But I think they need to remain independent, and as part of their transparency, it needs to be very clear where their loyalties lie.
19. "The US Should Support the International Criminal Court" (Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court): This addresses some possible arguments against the ICC. It says people are concerned because the ICC has jurisdiction over people from countries which haven't ratified it. It justifies this by saying that even now US citizens can be tried in a different country if they commit a crime there. So the ICC will only have jurisdiction over a member of a non-signing state if he commits a crime in a signing country. The ICC isn't unconstitutional because active duty citizens aren't guaranteed trial by jury now, so this isn't any different. All other rights from the Bill of Rights are applied. US military strategy won't have to change because it already conforms to all ICC laws.
My take: I approve of the ICC (besides the fact that it has no power itself to capture those it indicts, making it a failure in cases like Joseph Kony), but I don't like that people don't get a trial by jury. That seems like a pretty important right to be just throwing by the wayside. I don't understand why we can't have the ICC and still give the criminals a trial by jury. As for having power over citizens whose country hasn't signed it, that's fine. Plenty of crazy genocidal maniacs I'm sure aren't going to have their country sign it, yet I'd like it to have the power to indict them.
20. "The US Should Not Support the ICC" (Lee Casey and David Rivkin Jr.): This has the standard arguments: the crimes under the ICC are broadly defined and open to abuse, the ICC has too much central power in the justice process, the ICC threatens American self-government by judging US officials away from home soil, no right to trial by jury (only an inquisitorial system), no guarantee of a speedy trial, subjection of US citizens to a foreign jurisdiction, etc.
my take: some of these do sound a bit concerning, in particular the centralized, inquisitorial system lacking the trial by jury (why can't it have one? but then I guess not every country in the world works the way we do...), and the lack of guarantee of a speedy trial. But I still think its worth it to have a justice system for crimes against humanity.
21. "The US Should Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)" (Amnesty International): This address fears and argues that the convention doesn't give any enforcement power to the UN, doesn't authorize any new form of lawsuits, doesn't regulate the definition of the family structure, doesn't usurp the role of child rearing (only recognizes the shared role between parents), and doesn't eliminate single-sex education (only emphasizes equal education in all schools no matter the gender).
My take: I feel like they're sugar coating this a bit. The really conservative piece to follow makes it seem like a radical jab from a lesbian woman who works all the time and doesn't take care of her kid... I'm not sure what the truth is. Also, I have to laugh at the title. When is it ever possible to eliminate all forms of discrimination against anything, much less something traditionally discriminated against since the dawn of time?
22. "The US Should Not Ratify the CEDAW" (Kathryn Balmforth): First off, I like that it's a woman writing this (who would take a man seriously?). She sounds like one of those conservative soccer moms. She says the CEDAW is from a radical western feminist agenda which wants to legalize prostitution, eliminate the noble role of motherhood, and destroy the traditional family structure.
my take: It's a bit hard from these two radically different presentations of CEDAW to understand what exactly the convention does... and to me it seems functionally rather weak. I mean, what does it actually stipulate? Is it just an ideological statement? Because if it has no means of enforcement, it's not going to get anywhere. But I guess a ton of countries have ratified it, so I should probably read more about it. For now, I don't know enough to really formulate an opinion.
23. "The US Should Admit More Refugees Suffering Serious Human Rights Abuses" (Mark Gibney): This article says that we're admitting too many soviet refugees now when the Cold War is long since over and there are much more violent regimes we should be focusing on. It says we should reallocate our refugee intake so that we receive fewer refugees but from more terrorized places. He says he knows it would create assimilation problems, but it would be worth it, and also that we could redo the system to make the refugees only temporary until things cool off in their own countries.
My take: I like this guy. He is a man of my own thoughts. He is probably way to idealistic, and I can see how this regime change in refugee policy would be very hard to implement in our bureaucratic red-tape system. But I think it's a very good idea, and I agree that we don't let in enough refugees from truly needy locations. I had friends in middle and high school illegally from Guatemala. Guatemala is a place we should have focused refugee policy on, rather than the old soviet states.
24. "Admitting More Refugees Into the US is too Costly" (Don Barnett): He argues that refugees, although they are supposed to be assimilated into society by "Volags," actually just end up on welfare (since 1980). They use state programs, and then the Volags pay a lot of money to help them become citizens so they can use federal money instead. Either way, they are a huge drain on the economy, contributing little and taking a lot.
My take: This man is not a man of my own thoughts. His arguments are all very fiscal and he doesn't seem to care about the actual refugees. Also, if the guy in 23 is right, it would be possible to more efficiently handle the refugee system by reallocating sources rather than admitting more, and then we could even admit less. So I don't think the answer is just whining about money. Although after going to India this summer, I do know that people from developing countries do tend to just take money from westerners without earning it. I don't really blame them for this. They see our affluence, and I think that to them it feels like a sense of entitlement. So whereas before I might have believed that these people couldn't actually get jobs or pay their bills, I think now they probably are just taking the free money and running. So maybe we should change the system to slowly ease people off welfare to try to convince them to actually make a living for themselves which would be more sustainable and less of a drain on the US economy.
That's all for now, folks.
I'm just going to try to collect my thoughts on all of the essays I read in it, since some of them have actually left me fairly conflicted and uncertain, which is probably a good thing. I don't think it's good to be inflexible and unshakable in one's political opinions. It means one is probably not cognizant enough of the world.
1. "Human Rights are Universal" (Jack Donnelly): This essay says there are three "worlds" of rights: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. 1st is Western type, with an emphasis on civil and political rights and upholds the individual primarily; 2nd is the socialist approach emphasizing economic and social rights placing society as all-important; 3rd is self-determination and economic development, placing development highest. He points out the two views of rights, relativist (moral values are culturally/historically determined, and so are human rights which are based on these values) and universalist (all values, and thus human rights, are universal). The author of this essay argues for a weak cultural relativist approach, saying that there are many human rights which are universal, but there are some which are not. Examples which he gives are rights of a spouse in marriage (which differ culturally), political participation, dress codes.
My take: I guess I mostly agree with this guy. It seems not *all* human rights can be universal, because that would create discrepancies with a culture's right to self-determination. I am a fan of most of the rights listed on the UNDHR though.
2. "Human Rights are not Necessarily Universal" (Blair Gibb): This argues that the UNDHR can't be applied to all nations and that most nations, even that have signed it, have had to limit the rights enumerated. It argues that the UNDHR pushes western values that don't prioritize economic development the way eastern nations do. Eastern nations argue that some UNDHR civil and political (more Western) rights threaten cohesive society, like the right to criticize the government or complete freedom of opinion and expression. The author argues that the US system emphasizing individual rights get in the way of sensible societal reform and exacerbate socioeconomic gaps.
My take: I agree that the UNDHR is a bit idealistic and better applies to more developed nations as opposed to developing nations. But I do think that once governments evolve to a democratic form of government, the UNDHR is vital. However, I am conflicted on one idea that keeps coming up in this book: what is more important, the development of a better, more cohesive society that can better serve its people, or the development of the individual and all of his rights? I'm not sure. I want a balance of the two, but government priorities seem to be polarized.
3. "Health Care is a Human Right" (WHO): This essay argues that health care is inextricably intertwined with other human rights, like freedom from discrimination. Health care can be used to uphold other rights in a rights-based approach that targets minorities and marginalized populations while emphasizing transparency and accountability.
My take: Well, as always, I am an idealistic person, and in my idealistic world, health care is afforded to all, even those who don't work for it or contribute to the government, even those who just expect it, not necessarily because of its status as a human right (although I do think it's a human right), but because I think we should all love each other, and who in their right mind would watch someone they love die just because of money or a sense of justice? But I recognize that the real world revolves around cents and dollars...
4. "Health Care is not a Human Right" (Richard D. Lamm): Mostly this essay harps on about fiscal consequences of universal health care, arguing that resources aren't unlimited and that in the end, we have to choose who gets it and who doesn't. He says rights should be legislatively and not judicially determined (since it is the legislative and not the judicial branch that has to deal with the budget, I think). The essay argues that other nations recognize that compromises must be made and use wait-lists or rations based approaches.
My take: This is probably the practical approach to health care. Honestly, I recognize that. I recognize the fact that the new health care bill even, no matter what Obama says, is putting us deeper in debt as we speak. But I have this problem in that I am one of the problematic people that doesn't care about money. This is just something I expect out of a government, or out of people: that they help each other. Is it really that hard?
5. "Defining Human Rights Too Broadly Can Destroy Nations" (John A. Gentry): This argues that an expansive view of human rights leads to an entitlement ethic in which people think they deserve human rights without having to give anything back to society, even when those rights cost the government legitimacy or time/money/resources. When rights conflict, small groups are left out, creating resentment and anti-government groups, leading to political instability.
My take: I guess I might actually agree with this a little bit. I think the definition of human rights is getting a bit expansive because they're all clashing now. You can hardly tread on the airspace without being politically incorrect and offending some group or another. I do think it's a bit excessive. I think we just need to treat each other with respect and love each other. (Wow, I sound like a Miss America contestant... but I do think it would work, if people weren't so complicated.)
6. "Human Rights Are Often Defined Inconsistently" (William Ratcliff): This essay says that organizations like Amnesty International are often only willing to condemn right-wing rights violators while ignoring leftists like Castro. He also talks about politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize and Rigoberta Menchu (I remember reading about her before- she's caused quite the controversy).
My take: I completely agree. As apolitical as groups like AI pretend to be, they really are liberally biased and less willing to look at infractions from their side of the playing field.
7. "The US Has Violated the Geneva Conventions in its Treatment of Terrorist Suspects" (Michael Byers): Byers argues that detainees are actually prisoners of war since they were fighting for the Taliban or Al-Quida, which is connected to the Taliban. He argues that the Taliban is a government. He says the convention was written to protect people fighting in conflicts and situations like this one. The Geneva Convention says POW should get a trial in the same court as members of the military of their detaining power. He says treatment of detainees violates basic human rights, for instance: covering their heads, shaving their beards, detaining them without trial, not telling them their rights, not giving them a lawyer, and many other things listed by AI.
My take: I need to read the Geneva Convention to decide whether or not they've violated that, but it is pretty clear to me and always has been that they are violating human rights down there. Why do you have to have a convention to treat another human being with the rule of law you apply to Americans? If it's good enough for us, why not them? (I know many of them hate us and have done horrible things. No matter.)
8. "The US Has Not Violated the Geneva Conventions in Its Treatment of Terrorist Suspects" (Richard Lowry): Lowry says those apprehended in Afghanistan are not true POWs because Al Qaeda hasn't signed the Geneva Convention and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not real governments.
my take: cross apply my comments on number 7
9. "Sweatshops Violate Human Rights" (Gary MacEoin): workers at sweatshops work in deplorable conditions. For instance, some are allowed to go to the bathroom only once a day. They make only minimum wage, which isn't enough to take care of their families. Children that claim to be of age who are actually too young are accepted. Unions are violently discouraged.
my take: Completely agree.
10. "Sweatshops Do Not Violate Human Rights" (Scott Rubush): This is a very interesting argument. He essentially argues that wages in sweatshops are actually relatively high, and sweatshops provide a benefit both in the US and in their base country. He says that boycotts and fair labor movements against sweatshop corporations detriment workers.
my take: it may be true that sweatshops provide employment at at least minimum wage, but the conditions are unacceptable, and unless we do something to change that, it won't change because it's economically feasible for globalized corporations. However, if we fight for the human rights of sweat shops workers, perhaps we can change the whole system so the new generation of "sweatshops" will have much better conditions, and the poor workers can keep their employment. I think this argument is a cop-out.
11. "Human Rights For Women Are Receiving Greater Attention" (Temma Kaplan): She says grassroots organizations have helped the UN and developed nations to be more aware of problems surrounding women in developing nations. The Beijing Conference (1995) attempted to globally define women's rights. (That was where the CEDAW originated, the treaty thing against all forms of discrimination against women.)
my take: I do agree that in many countries women's rights are becoming more of a humanitarian focus. However, there are many humanitarian countries (Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia) that don't seem to have caught on that bandwagon at all.
12. "Human Rights for Women Have Not Improved" (Human Rights Watch): This article points out some of the exceptions to universal improvement like I just mentioned, for instance the Taliban and Saudi Arabia. It argues that governments and work places are still discriminating against women. The attempts made towards focusing on women's rights after 9/11 trickled away.
my take: I do agree with this article mainly. However, I see a lot of improvement in the world in the past fifty years in terms of women's rights. I think many countries are still very behind, unacceptably behind, on women's rights, but they are also behind on many other human rights issues as well, and I think that for them it's just a matter of developing into a more sensitive government (ie Iran).
13. "Slavery in Africa Must be Eradicated" (Charles Jacobs): He argues that slavery is still occurring in Sudan for instance, and CSI (Christian Solidarity International) is responding correctly while UNICEF is responding badly. CSI is responding by buying back the slaves and liberating them, but UNICEF has refused to ever buy a human being as a matter of principle.
my take: I think I believe that slavery is still occurring in Sudan, from what I've read/heard about Darfur. It's hard to tell though. Anyway, I don't think that buying back the slaves is a good solution, though I agree that something needs to be done somehow. I'm not sure what though. I just don't think buying back the slaves is a good plan because it pumps money into the slave trade and doesn't project the message that the West (or the rest of the world for that matter) doesn't think slavery is OK. So I'd agree more with UNICEF.
14. "Anti-Slavery Groups Are Making False Claims About African Slavery" (David Hoile): This article confusingly argues that slavery doesn't actually exist in Sudan, that people are just posing as slaves in order to get the reward from groups like CSI. He says Craig Jacobs' group is pro-rebel in Sudan and biased against the government. He says that pieces on slavery in the media are actually "puff" pieces from PR releases.
my take: it's hard to tell from these two articles whether or not there is actually slavery in Sudan. My instinct is that there is, but there are also people posing as slaves just to get the reward. At any rate, CSI is reinforcing the system and it's clear that Craig Jacobs and is organization is politically biased for whatever reason. I"m not sure about the whole media PR-puff piece thing.
15. "Consumer Boycotts Can Discourage the Use of Sweatshops" (Linda Golodner): She argues that consumer groups like the National Consumer's League can use buying power to protest against goods made in factories that violate basic human rights standards. She says that in the past colored labels have been used to indicate clothing from factories that agreed not to violate basic codes of conduct. the NCL has also prompted a lot of global corporations to develop better standards on issues such as child labor, although these standards are still inconsistent and not universally enforced. Some cities have converted all shops in the city to only receiving goods from companies that can be trusted not to be violating human rights standards (ex. Bangor, ME).
My take: I agree with everything in this article. I can say though that sometimes it's hard as the consumer to choose what is right over what is cheap, but I know that it's more important to discourage immoral practices. I love what they've done in cities like Bangor, and I must admit that I should probably (definitely) be more conscious of where my own clothes come from.
16. "Consumer Boycotts are a Misguided Response to Sweatshops" (Fred Smith): This guy has a similar argument to the Rubush guy: boycotts cause children employed in third-world countries to lose their jobs, decreasing wealth that is necessary for urbanization. These kids/adults are then either unemployed or forced into distasteful jobs like prostitution. In a country where people's alternative to a sweatshop is no wage at all, they can't complain too much at having slightly less than a "living wage." Minimum wages are a bad policy because they discourage companies to hire workers from the dregs of the employment pool, meaning those individuals will never be employed. People boycotting sweatshop apparel are treating other countries as if they are developed countries when in fact they are not, and sweatshops are just a distasteful step towards development and urbanization. Things are not egalitarian in third-world countries, and people have to do what they can to earn small amounts of capital.
My take: I actually don't reject this argument as vehemently as I thought I would from the title. Some of the things he says make sense, like the fact that perhaps we are treating third world countries a bit too much like developed, egalitarian societies by assuming that boycotts will benefit their citizens. I think it may be true that a lot of people would be hurt initially by a boycott, people that may have no other source of income or employment. However, as much as it kills my Kantian fingers to type this, I think it's more important that future generations to come get a better standard for their workplace than that this generation remain employed in squalor. So I still disagree. It's time to change the conditions. That, too, will push the country towards development. Both economic and civil/individual rights are necessary.
17. "Nongovernmental Organizations Help Improve Rights" (Peter van Tujil): This argues that in a globalized economy, NGOs have begun to fill the institutional gaps. Most NGOs nowadays operate via large international networks, fitting around the global economy. They serve as advocates for global human rights in local places.
my take: Yes, I agree. I'm a big fan of NGOs as long as they remain transparent and accountable to the people they serve.
18. "Nongovernmental Organizations are Increasingly Counterproductive" (Robert Hayden): NGOs have been co-opted by larger, stronger states since the Cold War from which they receive mass funding, making them biased.
my take: I agree that some NGOs may have been swayed by government agency funding. However, I don't think that's any reason to dismiss the whole NGO framework. I believe NGOs can be very powerful. But I think they need to remain independent, and as part of their transparency, it needs to be very clear where their loyalties lie.
19. "The US Should Support the International Criminal Court" (Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court): This addresses some possible arguments against the ICC. It says people are concerned because the ICC has jurisdiction over people from countries which haven't ratified it. It justifies this by saying that even now US citizens can be tried in a different country if they commit a crime there. So the ICC will only have jurisdiction over a member of a non-signing state if he commits a crime in a signing country. The ICC isn't unconstitutional because active duty citizens aren't guaranteed trial by jury now, so this isn't any different. All other rights from the Bill of Rights are applied. US military strategy won't have to change because it already conforms to all ICC laws.
My take: I approve of the ICC (besides the fact that it has no power itself to capture those it indicts, making it a failure in cases like Joseph Kony), but I don't like that people don't get a trial by jury. That seems like a pretty important right to be just throwing by the wayside. I don't understand why we can't have the ICC and still give the criminals a trial by jury. As for having power over citizens whose country hasn't signed it, that's fine. Plenty of crazy genocidal maniacs I'm sure aren't going to have their country sign it, yet I'd like it to have the power to indict them.
20. "The US Should Not Support the ICC" (Lee Casey and David Rivkin Jr.): This has the standard arguments: the crimes under the ICC are broadly defined and open to abuse, the ICC has too much central power in the justice process, the ICC threatens American self-government by judging US officials away from home soil, no right to trial by jury (only an inquisitorial system), no guarantee of a speedy trial, subjection of US citizens to a foreign jurisdiction, etc.
my take: some of these do sound a bit concerning, in particular the centralized, inquisitorial system lacking the trial by jury (why can't it have one? but then I guess not every country in the world works the way we do...), and the lack of guarantee of a speedy trial. But I still think its worth it to have a justice system for crimes against humanity.
21. "The US Should Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)" (Amnesty International): This address fears and argues that the convention doesn't give any enforcement power to the UN, doesn't authorize any new form of lawsuits, doesn't regulate the definition of the family structure, doesn't usurp the role of child rearing (only recognizes the shared role between parents), and doesn't eliminate single-sex education (only emphasizes equal education in all schools no matter the gender).
My take: I feel like they're sugar coating this a bit. The really conservative piece to follow makes it seem like a radical jab from a lesbian woman who works all the time and doesn't take care of her kid... I'm not sure what the truth is. Also, I have to laugh at the title. When is it ever possible to eliminate all forms of discrimination against anything, much less something traditionally discriminated against since the dawn of time?
22. "The US Should Not Ratify the CEDAW" (Kathryn Balmforth): First off, I like that it's a woman writing this (who would take a man seriously?). She sounds like one of those conservative soccer moms. She says the CEDAW is from a radical western feminist agenda which wants to legalize prostitution, eliminate the noble role of motherhood, and destroy the traditional family structure.
my take: It's a bit hard from these two radically different presentations of CEDAW to understand what exactly the convention does... and to me it seems functionally rather weak. I mean, what does it actually stipulate? Is it just an ideological statement? Because if it has no means of enforcement, it's not going to get anywhere. But I guess a ton of countries have ratified it, so I should probably read more about it. For now, I don't know enough to really formulate an opinion.
23. "The US Should Admit More Refugees Suffering Serious Human Rights Abuses" (Mark Gibney): This article says that we're admitting too many soviet refugees now when the Cold War is long since over and there are much more violent regimes we should be focusing on. It says we should reallocate our refugee intake so that we receive fewer refugees but from more terrorized places. He says he knows it would create assimilation problems, but it would be worth it, and also that we could redo the system to make the refugees only temporary until things cool off in their own countries.
My take: I like this guy. He is a man of my own thoughts. He is probably way to idealistic, and I can see how this regime change in refugee policy would be very hard to implement in our bureaucratic red-tape system. But I think it's a very good idea, and I agree that we don't let in enough refugees from truly needy locations. I had friends in middle and high school illegally from Guatemala. Guatemala is a place we should have focused refugee policy on, rather than the old soviet states.
24. "Admitting More Refugees Into the US is too Costly" (Don Barnett): He argues that refugees, although they are supposed to be assimilated into society by "Volags," actually just end up on welfare (since 1980). They use state programs, and then the Volags pay a lot of money to help them become citizens so they can use federal money instead. Either way, they are a huge drain on the economy, contributing little and taking a lot.
My take: This man is not a man of my own thoughts. His arguments are all very fiscal and he doesn't seem to care about the actual refugees. Also, if the guy in 23 is right, it would be possible to more efficiently handle the refugee system by reallocating sources rather than admitting more, and then we could even admit less. So I don't think the answer is just whining about money. Although after going to India this summer, I do know that people from developing countries do tend to just take money from westerners without earning it. I don't really blame them for this. They see our affluence, and I think that to them it feels like a sense of entitlement. So whereas before I might have believed that these people couldn't actually get jobs or pay their bills, I think now they probably are just taking the free money and running. So maybe we should change the system to slowly ease people off welfare to try to convince them to actually make a living for themselves which would be more sustainable and less of a drain on the US economy.
That's all for now, folks.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
multilateral action
I've just finished reading "Moral Victories: How activists provoke multilateral action" by Susan Burgerman. It was a very interesting book (although filled with too many acronyms). It discussed the cases of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Cambodia mainly.
El Salvador: the government itself was committing atrocities against the people and the gorilla fighting force, mostly the right wing of the government, and the president claimed to be unable to control them. However, the country was concerned about its international reputation and the military was highly dependent on US aid (the US pumped money into a terrorist government for years!), so when the fighting reached a stalemate and the US finally pulled the plug on aid after some high profile assassinations, the UN was able to come in and set up a peace negotiations process that included a high emphasis on human rights. With the help of the UN, El Salvador was able to establish a civilian police force, build its governmental institutions, and make necessary compromises with the gorillas. It's a much safer place to be now.
Guatemala: similar to El Salvador except the gorilla forces were much smaller so there was no question of fighting reaching a stalemate. The government was abusing human rights by enlisting peasants into the war and other methods. They also didn't care quite so much about an international pariah reputation. However, after thirty something years of bloody civil war and the jabs of economic sanctions and international disdain, they finally agreed to a peace process like in El Salvador but with less of a UN role.
Cambodia: this was an instance of two governments fighting and also grappling with Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge were fighting Cambodia and the USSR, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Americans were all involved in a big geopolitical fight. The country was very closed off, allowing no NGOs or commission investigations. Also, because the involved parties wouldn't agree to demilitarization, the peace effort was hampered (also, both sides went back on agreements), so its main successes were in building institutions such as the judicial branch.
I just thought these cases were interesting because they give you hope, you know? Even in a place like Cambodia where they had "killing fields" and so many people died, it was possible, via international cooperation, sanctions etc, and local/international NGOs, it is actually possible to get an extremely abusive government to change its ways, or to end a long and bloody civil war. Sometimes it's easy to think that something is so bad that it will never change, but it turns out that you just need enough people working together.
That's how I hope it will be in the Middle East. I guess it's different, though, to stop the civil unrest of millennia, than to stop a 35 year civil war. But if it's possible in South America and Cambodia, maybe someday it will be possible in Israel and Palestine.
El Salvador: the government itself was committing atrocities against the people and the gorilla fighting force, mostly the right wing of the government, and the president claimed to be unable to control them. However, the country was concerned about its international reputation and the military was highly dependent on US aid (the US pumped money into a terrorist government for years!), so when the fighting reached a stalemate and the US finally pulled the plug on aid after some high profile assassinations, the UN was able to come in and set up a peace negotiations process that included a high emphasis on human rights. With the help of the UN, El Salvador was able to establish a civilian police force, build its governmental institutions, and make necessary compromises with the gorillas. It's a much safer place to be now.
Guatemala: similar to El Salvador except the gorilla forces were much smaller so there was no question of fighting reaching a stalemate. The government was abusing human rights by enlisting peasants into the war and other methods. They also didn't care quite so much about an international pariah reputation. However, after thirty something years of bloody civil war and the jabs of economic sanctions and international disdain, they finally agreed to a peace process like in El Salvador but with less of a UN role.
Cambodia: this was an instance of two governments fighting and also grappling with Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge were fighting Cambodia and the USSR, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Americans were all involved in a big geopolitical fight. The country was very closed off, allowing no NGOs or commission investigations. Also, because the involved parties wouldn't agree to demilitarization, the peace effort was hampered (also, both sides went back on agreements), so its main successes were in building institutions such as the judicial branch.
I just thought these cases were interesting because they give you hope, you know? Even in a place like Cambodia where they had "killing fields" and so many people died, it was possible, via international cooperation, sanctions etc, and local/international NGOs, it is actually possible to get an extremely abusive government to change its ways, or to end a long and bloody civil war. Sometimes it's easy to think that something is so bad that it will never change, but it turns out that you just need enough people working together.
That's how I hope it will be in the Middle East. I guess it's different, though, to stop the civil unrest of millennia, than to stop a 35 year civil war. But if it's possible in South America and Cambodia, maybe someday it will be possible in Israel and Palestine.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
:-(
This is so sad.
It is especially sad because I have spent the last three weeks volunteering at a leprosy colony in rural India seeing how much beauty people have inside of them. And I can't really believe we're all the same species and all have that beauty inside of us, even the people that did this, although I believe it in theory. It just doesn't make sense that one human being, thinking, feeling, could do that to another.
No sense at all.
It is especially sad because I have spent the last three weeks volunteering at a leprosy colony in rural India seeing how much beauty people have inside of them. And I can't really believe we're all the same species and all have that beauty inside of us, even the people that did this, although I believe it in theory. It just doesn't make sense that one human being, thinking, feeling, could do that to another.
No sense at all.
Friday, August 6, 2010
on the other hand...
The microwave works exactly how a MRI works. Just maybe the microwave doesn't get the preception around the axis? Not sure, Wikipedia gets a little hazy on upper level physics. Anyway, Ethan and I decided people don't get cooked in MRI machines because radio waves (used to achieve EM fields in MRIs) are much weaker than microwaves.
I imagine X-rays probably cook people a little bit too.
That's kind of disturbing. Every time you get an X-ray/MRI, you're doing a little bit of what you do the leftover turkey when you put it in the microwave.
Not that I eat turkey. But still.
I imagine X-rays probably cook people a little bit too.
That's kind of disturbing. Every time you get an X-ray/MRI, you're doing a little bit of what you do the leftover turkey when you put it in the microwave.
Not that I eat turkey. But still.
trying to keep those brain cells alive
1. Word of the day: pundit, which comes from pandit, which is an Indian Sanskrit word meaning teacher. Pundit is someone with great authority on a subject who provides his/her opinion. That's what I gathered.
Also, he/she is erudite (possessing great mental faculty. ish.)
I realized that since my brain became less plastic in high school, even though I'm reading a lot, my vocabulary is extremely static. I don't like that. I want it to grow. Grow, dang it, grow.
Lessons for the day:
HOW FLUORESCENT ANGIOGRAM WORKS: (used in diagnosing ocular diseases in which blood vessels leak like diabetic retinopathy or idiopathic choroidal vitreopathy):
You inject a sodium based eye in the arm which makes its way to the eyes in a matter of *seconds* (super cool). Then you apply a laser with a wavelength such that it excites the sodium electrons to an energy level that interacts with photons at an energy corresponding to wavelengths above the visual spectrum. When the electrons relax, they release the same amount of energy in the form of fluorescence (basic principle of fluorescence). You can then see the early and late characteristics of the blood flow in the eye to identify leaks and the dynamic nature of any leaks.
HOW MICROWAVES WORK: (only slightly related)
The microwaves apply an electromagnetic field which causes any molecules with a dipole to align to it. It's like an MRI machine kind of, but way less strong. (Microwaves are of a pretty long wavelength.) The movement of the dipoles aligning with the induced field produces heat energy. Because water has a dipolar much higher than any other molecules naturally found in food, it will produce the most heat, cooking the food the most.
Good home experiment: (Not perfect since the cups will have moisture/dipoles in them themselves) take a cup of water and a cup of oil and a cup of alcohol and put them in the microwave for like one minute. The alcohol should boil away (maybe not but close), the water should heat up a lot but not boil, and the oil shouldn't heat up nearly as much. Science in action! :-)
Also, he/she is erudite (possessing great mental faculty. ish.)
I realized that since my brain became less plastic in high school, even though I'm reading a lot, my vocabulary is extremely static. I don't like that. I want it to grow. Grow, dang it, grow.
Lessons for the day:
HOW FLUORESCENT ANGIOGRAM WORKS: (used in diagnosing ocular diseases in which blood vessels leak like diabetic retinopathy or idiopathic choroidal vitreopathy):
You inject a sodium based eye in the arm which makes its way to the eyes in a matter of *seconds* (super cool). Then you apply a laser with a wavelength such that it excites the sodium electrons to an energy level that interacts with photons at an energy corresponding to wavelengths above the visual spectrum. When the electrons relax, they release the same amount of energy in the form of fluorescence (basic principle of fluorescence). You can then see the early and late characteristics of the blood flow in the eye to identify leaks and the dynamic nature of any leaks.
HOW MICROWAVES WORK: (only slightly related)
The microwaves apply an electromagnetic field which causes any molecules with a dipole to align to it. It's like an MRI machine kind of, but way less strong. (Microwaves are of a pretty long wavelength.) The movement of the dipoles aligning with the induced field produces heat energy. Because water has a dipolar much higher than any other molecules naturally found in food, it will produce the most heat, cooking the food the most.
Good home experiment: (Not perfect since the cups will have moisture/dipoles in them themselves) take a cup of water and a cup of oil and a cup of alcohol and put them in the microwave for like one minute. The alcohol should boil away (maybe not but close), the water should heat up a lot but not boil, and the oil shouldn't heat up nearly as much. Science in action! :-)
Saturday, July 31, 2010
two clocks
Say you have a quantum mechanical atomic clock based on entangled particles (there are some articles describing these clocks if you Google it, so it's possible; I don't know the math). Now say we separate the clocks and move lightyears apart. Say you stop with your clock while I continue moving so we are no longer in the same reference frame. Then you observe your clock so that the quantum mechanical properties are set (thus instantaneously setting mine).
1. Even though we are in different reference frames, will my clock instantly follow suit?
2. If we continue this process and use it to establish an absolute time, doesn't that violate both laws against absolute simultaneity and the general laws of relativity about time dilation and lack of an absolute reference frame?
1. Even though we are in different reference frames, will my clock instantly follow suit?
2. If we continue this process and use it to establish an absolute time, doesn't that violate both laws against absolute simultaneity and the general laws of relativity about time dilation and lack of an absolute reference frame?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
infrastructure
I am currently in Hyderabad, India for reasons which I don't really need to explain on the internet. Anyway, I'm realizing that a lot of my opinions about fixing third world infrastructure were a bit naive. I'm beginning to understand that even attempting to solve the simplest problems in a country like India is much, much more complicated than I initially thought with my idealistic notions about solving world poverty etc.
I'm too tired to really talk about it now, but here's one example:
There is a lot of trash by the side of the roads in India. You could say the government should put up more trash receptacles. The problem is that many people on the streets are homeless and have no reason to throw trash in receptacles. Laws couldn't be enforced. To really effectively solve the trash problem in India, which seems like a simple infrastructure problem, you'd really have to solve Indian poverty first and homelessness, which requires solving unemployment, etc etc etc (etc etc etc).
Nothing is simple.
It's very discouraging. I thought volunteer work would be all sunshine and rainbows. I'm realizing that was a very youthful notion.
I'm too tired to really talk about it now, but here's one example:
There is a lot of trash by the side of the roads in India. You could say the government should put up more trash receptacles. The problem is that many people on the streets are homeless and have no reason to throw trash in receptacles. Laws couldn't be enforced. To really effectively solve the trash problem in India, which seems like a simple infrastructure problem, you'd really have to solve Indian poverty first and homelessness, which requires solving unemployment, etc etc etc (etc etc etc).
Nothing is simple.
It's very discouraging. I thought volunteer work would be all sunshine and rainbows. I'm realizing that was a very youthful notion.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
slight bit of guilt over posting this but...
Watch this
As a future psychiatrist or general practitioner, I'm telling you I have great respect for people with schizophrenia. However, this is still really funny. Kind of like even when you know racist jokes are wrong, they can still be clever? Maybe I shouldn't try to justify myself here...
Anyway, I enjoyed it.
As a future psychiatrist or general practitioner, I'm telling you I have great respect for people with schizophrenia. However, this is still really funny. Kind of like even when you know racist jokes are wrong, they can still be clever? Maybe I shouldn't try to justify myself here...
Anyway, I enjoyed it.
Monday, April 5, 2010
ad on the weather site
quoted verbatum:
"Can pigs fly? Find out with the tornado week virtual tornado simulator." And complete with a picture of a virtual tornado with a pig flying in it.
Jeesh. what the heck?!
"Can pigs fly? Find out with the tornado week virtual tornado simulator." And complete with a picture of a virtual tornado with a pig flying in it.
Jeesh. what the heck?!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Holden
The Catcher in the Rye battles fiercely with The Clearing for the tile of my favorite book. Both are books I read usually annually, and both are books that no matter how many times I have read them (which is over five times for the first and ten times for the second), I am amazed every time with the sheer, well, amazingness of the books.
One thing that The Catcher in the Rye has that The Clearing lacks is Holden Caulfield, easily my favorite character of the literally thousands of books I have read over the course of my literary life. I just... I LOVE Holden. And I love this book. I would actually name a child after Holden if I wanted that kid to read TCITR before he was of an appropriate age (teenage years), but I don't, and considering it's not fair to name a kid after someone but discourage him to read the book until he's a teenager, I wouldn't do that. But that's how much I love Holden.
Lots of books attempt the "coming of age" story, but really only this book succeeds in creating a believable, disillusioned character trying to cope with the "phoniness" of the bourgeois, upper middle-class New England/NYC society. And to accomplish what Salinger accomplishes in writing about only a couple of days... as an self-described "budding" author, I'm not sure I could ever hope to come close to what Salinger has managed to accomplish in this book. Having read parts of Salinger's other books, I think this is really the only time he manages it too. But if the option is to put all of your most amazing writing into one work and writing lots of other mediocre works like Salinger or the guy that wrote "Lord of the Flies" (Golding or something-- all his other books kind of suck in my opinion), I'd definitely pick to write the one amazing work.
Ironically enough, I just finished my ?sixth? reading of TCITR (sorry, too lazy to spell that out) today, and there was also a post secret post card today on the subject which I will paste in here now which duplicates my sentiments exactly (hmm okay well it appeared at the top of the post). But yes, Holden, you've saved us all, generations of disillusioned youth unsure of a phony society of cheerleaders and football players, groping for meaning in hollow places. Thank you, Holden. You brought us hope. And I'm sure that through my life, again and again, as I read this book for the fourtieth and fiftieth time, you will continue to do so.
slightly more articulate version of my post a while ago on prayer/quantum physics
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Brain and Cognitive Building, like any good brain, is split between tactile neuroscience and the more ephemeral cognitive science, but unlike the brains dissected in class, it has a piteously thin corpus callosum, with little or no communication between the two sides. The Cartesian notion of a spiritual mover of the physical realm was long ago abandoned by science, and the study of the brain is crippled by the brain’s inability to truly trust its own mechanisms of introspection. While some scientists cling to ideas of spirituality, these doctrines are largely sequestered from the workday experience. Especially as arguments against free will have arisen from quantum physics, the movement to truly connect body and mind has seemed utterly hopeless. However, if a few fundamental assumptions are made about the requisite nature of a spiritual realm, quantum physical arguments for indeterminacy can be used to develop a new metaphorical argument for free will based on observation and the collapse of probability waves.
In order to understand how consciousness could arise from spirituality, it must be established that the spiritual realm encompasses and supersedes the physical realm. One way of showing this is an unorthodox application of Godel’s second incompleteness theorem. This theorem, originally a mathematical construct concerning natural numbers, is relevant in its statement that a system of truths, whether they are arithmetical or, as in this case, physical, cannot prove its own consistency. One physical example of this is that the human mind cannot prove a ubiquitous defect in human thought. The consistency of the human brain has to be proved from outside of the system of human consciousness. Thus, if spirituality is proposed as a system to explain the natural laws of the universe, in order for spirituality to be complete, it must contain the physical realm within it. Another indirect argument for an overriding spiritual realm is the inability of science or any observation in the physical world to disprove anything purely spiritual or religious. According to the laws of mathematical set theories, if the spiritual realm were a product of human thought rather than an independent and encompassing space, its existence would be possible to prove or disprove within the larger mathematical system, or the system of human knowledge. Because such a proof has been impossible, it is mathematically more likely that the physical set is contained within the spiritual set. Although it could be argued, given this hierarchy, that applying human topological knowledge is applying specific rules from a subset to a set in which they may not apply, mathematics itself seems to be the one exception to Godel’s theorems: it is absolute, despite the fact that is a human creation. Thus it can be safely applied throughout all sets. A final argument for the extension of the spiritual beyond the physical is historical precedent. Although this argument is weaker than a mathematical theorem, most peoples and religious denominations have assumed that the spiritual realm exists beyond the physical realm. Given the protests of scientists against the existence of a spiritual realm, no arguments have been made for the embedment of the spiritual within the physical. Thus it is reasonable to continue with the status quo. Using Godel’s incompleteness theorems, the inability of science to prove or disprove religion, and the historical precedent, it can be hypothesized that the physical world exists within the spiritual world.
Despite this hierarchy, quantum physicists have argued that the physical properties of diminutive matter make spiritual interactions with the physical world, and thus free will and directed consciousness, impossible. Physicists have made this argument based on the inherent randomness of the action of subatomic particles. For instance, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know the exact position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, and measuring one property eliminates the possibility of measuring the other. This quality arises from the probabilistic nature of particles. While matter on an atomic scale behaves in a predictable, Newtonian manner, quantum matter exhibits irregular properties as a wave in probability space. It lacks definable qualities, and can be nudged to act in any way by physical surroundings. It has the potential to possess a great many qualities, but does not actualize any of them. Human observation of a quantum particle actually sets these qualities. What makes these particles so random is that they don’t actually have qualities that require observation to determine; the act of observation actually determines their quantum properties. In that manner, the human being truly changes the essential nature of the particle simply through observation. While old arguments against free will contended that the chemicals in the brain were deterministic on the atomic scale, new arguments put forth by quantum physicists rely on the random properties of particles to argue that all that is human is truly arbitrary, if at the deepest level all human decisions result from randomly collapsing probability waves of subatomic particles.
While both deterministic and quantum randomness arguments are difficult to resolve, quantum effects can provide a metaphorical explanation for free will as the spiritual self observing the physical self and thereby collapsing probability waves. It must be admitted that in the physical world, events are apparently determined on an atomic scale and are random on a quantum scale. However, as was established, the physical world is only a set within the spiritual world. Thus it is possible that there is more to the situation than meets the physicist’s eye. In fact, the very arguments for randomness that he employs against free will can be used in its support. When these arguments are applied to a more holistic view of the universe, a universe including both a physical and a spiritual realm, one can view the spiritual self as an observational mechanism similar to the machines used in quantum physics experiments to view particles and consequentially to set their parameters. In this interpretation, the physical human being is a complex probability wave of unrealized states, a superposition of possible outcomes. It is from this superposition that physicists draw their arguments for randomness or determinacy. However, where they err is in assuming that the human outcome superposition collapses randomly, or according to physical laws. Because the universe has a spiritual element, and because free will is an unexplained phenomenon, it is much more likely that a free action originates from the spiritual realm acting on the physical realm. Moreover, just as in quantum physics, it is likely that this is similar to an observational action, in which the spiritual self observes the physical self, thereby collapsing the probability wave and causing the physical self to pursue a singular course of action. While this explanation is similar to Descartes’ explanation for free will, it better accommodates contemporary scientific arguments. In this interpretation, it is still possible to view actions as scientifically determined or random because science is only a set within the larger spiritual set, and thus is incomplete. Therefore this explanation better addresses scientific arguments while still providing a spiritual explanation. Quantum effects themselves provide a metaphor for the mechanism of free will.
Based on a knowledge of the hierarchy of the spiritual and physical realms, quantum physics arguments against free will can actually provide a platform upon which an argument for free will can be constructed on the basis of collapsing probability waves. While this theory leaves no hope for a scientific discovery of the mechanism for free will, it provides hope to all of those beleaguered scientists who put on a tie to go to church on Sunday and then head back to the neuroscience laboratory on Monday. Separating the fields of neuroscience and cognitive science is counterproductive and false, and only a more accommodating picture of human consciousness can thicken that corpus callosum.
In order to understand how consciousness could arise from spirituality, it must be established that the spiritual realm encompasses and supersedes the physical realm. One way of showing this is an unorthodox application of Godel’s second incompleteness theorem. This theorem, originally a mathematical construct concerning natural numbers, is relevant in its statement that a system of truths, whether they are arithmetical or, as in this case, physical, cannot prove its own consistency. One physical example of this is that the human mind cannot prove a ubiquitous defect in human thought. The consistency of the human brain has to be proved from outside of the system of human consciousness. Thus, if spirituality is proposed as a system to explain the natural laws of the universe, in order for spirituality to be complete, it must contain the physical realm within it. Another indirect argument for an overriding spiritual realm is the inability of science or any observation in the physical world to disprove anything purely spiritual or religious. According to the laws of mathematical set theories, if the spiritual realm were a product of human thought rather than an independent and encompassing space, its existence would be possible to prove or disprove within the larger mathematical system, or the system of human knowledge. Because such a proof has been impossible, it is mathematically more likely that the physical set is contained within the spiritual set. Although it could be argued, given this hierarchy, that applying human topological knowledge is applying specific rules from a subset to a set in which they may not apply, mathematics itself seems to be the one exception to Godel’s theorems: it is absolute, despite the fact that is a human creation. Thus it can be safely applied throughout all sets. A final argument for the extension of the spiritual beyond the physical is historical precedent. Although this argument is weaker than a mathematical theorem, most peoples and religious denominations have assumed that the spiritual realm exists beyond the physical realm. Given the protests of scientists against the existence of a spiritual realm, no arguments have been made for the embedment of the spiritual within the physical. Thus it is reasonable to continue with the status quo. Using Godel’s incompleteness theorems, the inability of science to prove or disprove religion, and the historical precedent, it can be hypothesized that the physical world exists within the spiritual world.
Despite this hierarchy, quantum physicists have argued that the physical properties of diminutive matter make spiritual interactions with the physical world, and thus free will and directed consciousness, impossible. Physicists have made this argument based on the inherent randomness of the action of subatomic particles. For instance, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know the exact position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, and measuring one property eliminates the possibility of measuring the other. This quality arises from the probabilistic nature of particles. While matter on an atomic scale behaves in a predictable, Newtonian manner, quantum matter exhibits irregular properties as a wave in probability space. It lacks definable qualities, and can be nudged to act in any way by physical surroundings. It has the potential to possess a great many qualities, but does not actualize any of them. Human observation of a quantum particle actually sets these qualities. What makes these particles so random is that they don’t actually have qualities that require observation to determine; the act of observation actually determines their quantum properties. In that manner, the human being truly changes the essential nature of the particle simply through observation. While old arguments against free will contended that the chemicals in the brain were deterministic on the atomic scale, new arguments put forth by quantum physicists rely on the random properties of particles to argue that all that is human is truly arbitrary, if at the deepest level all human decisions result from randomly collapsing probability waves of subatomic particles.
While both deterministic and quantum randomness arguments are difficult to resolve, quantum effects can provide a metaphorical explanation for free will as the spiritual self observing the physical self and thereby collapsing probability waves. It must be admitted that in the physical world, events are apparently determined on an atomic scale and are random on a quantum scale. However, as was established, the physical world is only a set within the spiritual world. Thus it is possible that there is more to the situation than meets the physicist’s eye. In fact, the very arguments for randomness that he employs against free will can be used in its support. When these arguments are applied to a more holistic view of the universe, a universe including both a physical and a spiritual realm, one can view the spiritual self as an observational mechanism similar to the machines used in quantum physics experiments to view particles and consequentially to set their parameters. In this interpretation, the physical human being is a complex probability wave of unrealized states, a superposition of possible outcomes. It is from this superposition that physicists draw their arguments for randomness or determinacy. However, where they err is in assuming that the human outcome superposition collapses randomly, or according to physical laws. Because the universe has a spiritual element, and because free will is an unexplained phenomenon, it is much more likely that a free action originates from the spiritual realm acting on the physical realm. Moreover, just as in quantum physics, it is likely that this is similar to an observational action, in which the spiritual self observes the physical self, thereby collapsing the probability wave and causing the physical self to pursue a singular course of action. While this explanation is similar to Descartes’ explanation for free will, it better accommodates contemporary scientific arguments. In this interpretation, it is still possible to view actions as scientifically determined or random because science is only a set within the larger spiritual set, and thus is incomplete. Therefore this explanation better addresses scientific arguments while still providing a spiritual explanation. Quantum effects themselves provide a metaphor for the mechanism of free will.
Based on a knowledge of the hierarchy of the spiritual and physical realms, quantum physics arguments against free will can actually provide a platform upon which an argument for free will can be constructed on the basis of collapsing probability waves. While this theory leaves no hope for a scientific discovery of the mechanism for free will, it provides hope to all of those beleaguered scientists who put on a tie to go to church on Sunday and then head back to the neuroscience laboratory on Monday. Separating the fields of neuroscience and cognitive science is counterproductive and false, and only a more accommodating picture of human consciousness can thicken that corpus callosum.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
the things we learn
Today I went to part of church (made a deal with God), and I'm really glad I did if only for the observations I made on the bus.
First, there was a man with some kind of mental disability. He sat down next to these kids, appeared to have some kind of panic attack, started freaking out, took out a stress ball, and started squeezing it. Then he asked the kids (my age), completely out of the blue, if they were getting married, and the boy said "no sir, we're not" (I think they were just friends). Then the man started asking them all these questions (seemingly to distract himself from whatever was giving him the panic attack), including what the boy was majoring in, and the boy was majoring in philosophy. So then the guy started asking the boy all these questions about different philosophers and political philosophy. It was a very interesting conversation.
I realize that I grew up with a lot of powerful stigmas that I really want to get rid of, including a lot of judgmental ways of looking at people with severe mental illness and homelessness. Because in my hometown I saw very little of either and all depictions were radicalized descriptions fed to me through the media (not an excuse, but still), I developed a very negative view of either class of people. Not a consciously negative view... I mean, I was always taught to be sympathetic to people in those situations. But more of a visceral rejection of those people as being *different* from me, an automatic judgment that I have nothing to learn from them. As I came to Boston and started volunteering at homeless shelters, and as I started working with severely mentally ill people back home, I realize what an error in judgment this is. I have *so* much to learn from people that I used to just dismiss without a conscious thought.
I guess what I'm saying isn't that I judged them, because I never viewed them as bad or not as good as me or anything, but that I otherized them. I made them the class into two divisions, people like me and people not like me, and homeless people and "crazy" people got lumped into people not like me. But now I'm realizing that dividing the world into two classes of people is very idiotic because we're all the same inside, and we all have so much to learn from each other. Assuming that we have some privileged knowledge a mentally ill person doesn't is a huge mistake. There's always something to learn from someone else.
Anyway, it is difficult, at the age of 20, to change this about myself, but I am glad I have finally recognized it and addressed it as the serious problem that it is. Because I think that in order to be a successful psychiatrist, I have to be the kind of doctor that relates to my patients on a personal level rather than adopting a separatist, holier-than-thou attitude (who wants to believe they're broken? everyone has fixed and broken parts inside of them).
So that was just one observation on the bus, and it's one complicated, semi-selfish goal of my volunteer work in homeless shelters. I guess it's both selfish and unselfish. I mean, I want to quit otherize people and improve myself as a person, which is selfish, but I want to do this so I can relate to people and help them more when I'm eventually in a position to do so, which I think is unselfish. So like everything, it's a bit of both.
Other interesting bus observations: a woman wearing sweatpants carrying a very expensive-looking camera and a very hairy dog, occasionally taking pictures of it (she even gave it its own seat on the bus until the bus became too busy).
And, the one conversation I am always sick of having: so I was somehow squashed on the way home from church between this girl who smelled like cigarette smoke which was giving me allergies and this man who smelled like alcohol (or maybe I was imagining that? But I swear he did, and he was practically sitting on top of me even though he could have had way more room if he'd sat in the seat adjacent to the one next to me). When I pressed the stop for MIT, he said,
"So, you go to MIT?"
"Yes,"
"You must be very smart."
Why is this everyone's first reaction???? I mean, I know it's a good school, but please people, give a little thought for the sake of conversation. What is the other person supposed to say to this? I mean, I don't think I'm very smart. But even if I did, what am I supposed to say, "Yes, thank you, why yes, actually I am"? No of course not! So anyone is cornered into responding, as I did, with some variant of,
"Ha, not really..." which just sounds like false modesty even if it's (as in my case) true.
I've just had this conversation so many times. I'm sure anyone going to a decent school has to deal with it. But it's just ridiculous. People don't think before they open their mouths. I mean, there are some conventions to polite conversation, are there not? One does not give complements that so effectively trap the conversation partner into such flimsy modesty. It's not considerate. Sigh.
Also, the truth is, nothing makes a kid feel dumb like MIT. We might have felt smart in high school, but here, almost all of us feel dumb. So it doesn't really make us feel better to have the whole smart card pulled on us. Usually.
I don't know. Now I sound ungrateful. I really am not ungrateful. I'm not, I swear.
First, there was a man with some kind of mental disability. He sat down next to these kids, appeared to have some kind of panic attack, started freaking out, took out a stress ball, and started squeezing it. Then he asked the kids (my age), completely out of the blue, if they were getting married, and the boy said "no sir, we're not" (I think they were just friends). Then the man started asking them all these questions (seemingly to distract himself from whatever was giving him the panic attack), including what the boy was majoring in, and the boy was majoring in philosophy. So then the guy started asking the boy all these questions about different philosophers and political philosophy. It was a very interesting conversation.
I realize that I grew up with a lot of powerful stigmas that I really want to get rid of, including a lot of judgmental ways of looking at people with severe mental illness and homelessness. Because in my hometown I saw very little of either and all depictions were radicalized descriptions fed to me through the media (not an excuse, but still), I developed a very negative view of either class of people. Not a consciously negative view... I mean, I was always taught to be sympathetic to people in those situations. But more of a visceral rejection of those people as being *different* from me, an automatic judgment that I have nothing to learn from them. As I came to Boston and started volunteering at homeless shelters, and as I started working with severely mentally ill people back home, I realize what an error in judgment this is. I have *so* much to learn from people that I used to just dismiss without a conscious thought.
I guess what I'm saying isn't that I judged them, because I never viewed them as bad or not as good as me or anything, but that I otherized them. I made them the class into two divisions, people like me and people not like me, and homeless people and "crazy" people got lumped into people not like me. But now I'm realizing that dividing the world into two classes of people is very idiotic because we're all the same inside, and we all have so much to learn from each other. Assuming that we have some privileged knowledge a mentally ill person doesn't is a huge mistake. There's always something to learn from someone else.
Anyway, it is difficult, at the age of 20, to change this about myself, but I am glad I have finally recognized it and addressed it as the serious problem that it is. Because I think that in order to be a successful psychiatrist, I have to be the kind of doctor that relates to my patients on a personal level rather than adopting a separatist, holier-than-thou attitude (who wants to believe they're broken? everyone has fixed and broken parts inside of them).
So that was just one observation on the bus, and it's one complicated, semi-selfish goal of my volunteer work in homeless shelters. I guess it's both selfish and unselfish. I mean, I want to quit otherize people and improve myself as a person, which is selfish, but I want to do this so I can relate to people and help them more when I'm eventually in a position to do so, which I think is unselfish. So like everything, it's a bit of both.
Other interesting bus observations: a woman wearing sweatpants carrying a very expensive-looking camera and a very hairy dog, occasionally taking pictures of it (she even gave it its own seat on the bus until the bus became too busy).
And, the one conversation I am always sick of having: so I was somehow squashed on the way home from church between this girl who smelled like cigarette smoke which was giving me allergies and this man who smelled like alcohol (or maybe I was imagining that? But I swear he did, and he was practically sitting on top of me even though he could have had way more room if he'd sat in the seat adjacent to the one next to me). When I pressed the stop for MIT, he said,
"So, you go to MIT?"
"Yes,"
"You must be very smart."
Why is this everyone's first reaction???? I mean, I know it's a good school, but please people, give a little thought for the sake of conversation. What is the other person supposed to say to this? I mean, I don't think I'm very smart. But even if I did, what am I supposed to say, "Yes, thank you, why yes, actually I am"? No of course not! So anyone is cornered into responding, as I did, with some variant of,
"Ha, not really..." which just sounds like false modesty even if it's (as in my case) true.
I've just had this conversation so many times. I'm sure anyone going to a decent school has to deal with it. But it's just ridiculous. People don't think before they open their mouths. I mean, there are some conventions to polite conversation, are there not? One does not give complements that so effectively trap the conversation partner into such flimsy modesty. It's not considerate. Sigh.
Also, the truth is, nothing makes a kid feel dumb like MIT. We might have felt smart in high school, but here, almost all of us feel dumb. So it doesn't really make us feel better to have the whole smart card pulled on us. Usually.
I don't know. Now I sound ungrateful. I really am not ungrateful. I'm not, I swear.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
centuries of catholicism destroyed by pedophilia?
Not that this pedophilia thing is anything new (reports have been surfacing on Catholic etc clerical leaders for years), but CNN seems to have just caught on, and all the lawsuits are starting to become critical. Anyway, the cumulative effect is that I think the church can no longer keep it under the wraps, at least not in countries like the US or the UK.
I think that to say this is the death of catholicism, as one Irish priest said in an interview, is a really Ad-hominem thing to say... I mean, maybe it's the death for the time being of organized Catholicism in Ireland, but if people really believe in the church, then the moral qualms of its leaders shouldn't affect the veracity of the church's teachings, should it? I think that in a perfect world, it shouldn't. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world.
My argument against Catholicism is that celibacy was just never the greatest idea, and it's their own fault if it's backfired. It's not doctrinal. It says nowhere in the Bible that priests need be celibate. It was never spoken by Christ or a prophet. It's probably another one of those Nicaen doctrines they decided at one of their medieval conferences (sorry I know I sound slightly disrespectful... please consider these words with all due respect to Catholicism). But anyway, sex is a biological need. It's driven by *hormones.* And no matter how much people try, they can't really control their hormones. While I think I would be capable of living my life without it, that's not for everyone. If becoming a priest was an entirely self-selective process, it might be okay. But there's a ton of selective environmental pressure put on those guys, so sometimes people become priests who maybe shouldn't have. And then we get issues of people abusing those in our society who are small enough and vulnerable enough to keep quiet (since if anyone found out about the infidelity, that would be the end of that priest's priesthood... or so we hoped until CNN told us that actually wasn't the case in the Catholic church; apparently the priests just got moved when they were found out). Anyway, it led to child abuse is what I'm saying. And really, that makes a lot of sense, all things considered. It certainly doesn't excuse it, but it's just as much an organizational issue of the Catholic church as it is a serious issue of the child molesters in the church who have been getting away with this for years (and who need to be removed from office right away).
I don't know. I just don't think God would ask someone to do something so distinctly anti-human that made him so... unhappy, unless that person really wanted to do it. Which is why I don't believe in the Catholic brand of celibacy. Of course my Mormon brand isn't extremely improved (aka if a Mormon doesn't get married, his shots aren't great either), but it's less restrictive I think and the view of sex is a lot more healthy anyway.
If the reason priests are supposed to be celibate is to keep them from thinking about sex, I really don't think it's working. Look at CNN for evidence.
As for whether this is the death of the Catholic church? I hope not. I mean, if real Catholics do exist, the church will go on even if it's leaders do not. That's the way a real religion should operate. If religions are only dependently true, they can't really be true. They have to have independent truth. That's the point of religion. It stands beyond all human logic. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it, religion hears it.
:-)
That made sense to me anyway.
I think that to say this is the death of catholicism, as one Irish priest said in an interview, is a really Ad-hominem thing to say... I mean, maybe it's the death for the time being of organized Catholicism in Ireland, but if people really believe in the church, then the moral qualms of its leaders shouldn't affect the veracity of the church's teachings, should it? I think that in a perfect world, it shouldn't. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world.
My argument against Catholicism is that celibacy was just never the greatest idea, and it's their own fault if it's backfired. It's not doctrinal. It says nowhere in the Bible that priests need be celibate. It was never spoken by Christ or a prophet. It's probably another one of those Nicaen doctrines they decided at one of their medieval conferences (sorry I know I sound slightly disrespectful... please consider these words with all due respect to Catholicism). But anyway, sex is a biological need. It's driven by *hormones.* And no matter how much people try, they can't really control their hormones. While I think I would be capable of living my life without it, that's not for everyone. If becoming a priest was an entirely self-selective process, it might be okay. But there's a ton of selective environmental pressure put on those guys, so sometimes people become priests who maybe shouldn't have. And then we get issues of people abusing those in our society who are small enough and vulnerable enough to keep quiet (since if anyone found out about the infidelity, that would be the end of that priest's priesthood... or so we hoped until CNN told us that actually wasn't the case in the Catholic church; apparently the priests just got moved when they were found out). Anyway, it led to child abuse is what I'm saying. And really, that makes a lot of sense, all things considered. It certainly doesn't excuse it, but it's just as much an organizational issue of the Catholic church as it is a serious issue of the child molesters in the church who have been getting away with this for years (and who need to be removed from office right away).
I don't know. I just don't think God would ask someone to do something so distinctly anti-human that made him so... unhappy, unless that person really wanted to do it. Which is why I don't believe in the Catholic brand of celibacy. Of course my Mormon brand isn't extremely improved (aka if a Mormon doesn't get married, his shots aren't great either), but it's less restrictive I think and the view of sex is a lot more healthy anyway.
If the reason priests are supposed to be celibate is to keep them from thinking about sex, I really don't think it's working. Look at CNN for evidence.
As for whether this is the death of the Catholic church? I hope not. I mean, if real Catholics do exist, the church will go on even if it's leaders do not. That's the way a real religion should operate. If religions are only dependently true, they can't really be true. They have to have independent truth. That's the point of religion. It stands beyond all human logic. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it, religion hears it.
:-)
That made sense to me anyway.
Monday, March 1, 2010
my own kind of tsunami
Yes, this does feel selfish when people out there are facing some things so much larger... but I am a spoiled rich white kid... even if I get out of my bubble, volunteer at homeless shelters, want to crack the the shell, I'm still me.
Interesting thought (rather personal for this blog, but the other blog has become a bit caustic so here it goes):
So if you are a quantum physicist, you believe that reality actually doesn't have a certain state until you measure it. Schroedinger's quantum cat actually is in a probabilistic haze of life and death; he isn't alive or dead until the box is opened. It isn't simple that we as people standing around outside the box don't *know* whether he is alive or dead inside the box; he actually isn't either until we ourselves somehow make him one or the other by observing his state. It sounds like fantasy, but it's actually physics.
So I am a scientist, I truly am. I know a lot about neuroscience and biology and organic chemistry, and I know more than the average Joe about physics and most other topics in science. But, being the odd one that I am, I am in the anomaly: I believe in God. I believe He is all-powerful. This leads me to do something which most people would probably view as highly strange and irrational; most people, that is, except the quantum physicists, which is perhaps why I don't view it as so irrational because quantum physics doesn't seem so weird to me after all these years of books about it.
Namely, I took the MCAT a little over four weeks ago. As soon as I left that testing center, my score was arguably determined. The computer had already scored my multiple choice questions, and by now some lady named Edna from Atlanta who likes cats or whoever it is has scored my essays. Arguably, this is a fatalistic venture and really there hasn't been anything I could do for the past month of agonizing waiting. And yet, I haven't just been inert. I've been doing what I always do while waiting for test results: praying madly. And why? Because I don't believe the wave has collapsed yet.
See, very small things have this principle that arises from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is that we can't know their position and momentum simultaneously, and once we measure one we lose the other. The larger something gets, the more it loses its wave-like properties, and the less applicable Heisenberg's principle becomes. Thus although it's technically true that I exist as a probabilistic wave function, it's much more correct to say that I'm laying on my bed right now, mostly stationary. The error is much, much, much ^ trillion smaller for me than for some tiny particle. But for Schroedinger's tiny cat, as long as the box is closed, he exists as a probability wave of all of his possible states of momentum and position (a superposition wave) rather than a single position or momentum. When we open the box, we with our eyes (we actually ourselves, somehow) change things by seeing the cat; isn't that crazy! We change an electron just by observing it! That's insane! Anyway, so that's the quantum theory.
So why can't this apply to my spirituality? My idea is that if God is all-powerful, he probably has a handle on quantum principles. Thus perhaps he can somehow extend them to my test. Then until I view my test with my own eyes, it exists as a probability wave. Edna may have graded the essays; the computer may have graded my test; but in my mind, I have no score. It is still possible, until I see the score, break the uncertainty principle, and collapse the probability wave, for God to change things. And I actually do believe that He could (much to my atheist and agnostic friend's consternation).
It actually has some doctrinal justification too. I mean, according to scripture, we're destined to do something, but we have the choice to do it or not. Thus it must be kind of like a probability wave that we can choose to collapse in some fashion. God must know the probabilities, but we must have the observational powers that collapse the waves.
And you thought people that prayed about things like that were just being stupid. See, there's a rationality to everything.
Interesting thought (rather personal for this blog, but the other blog has become a bit caustic so here it goes):
So if you are a quantum physicist, you believe that reality actually doesn't have a certain state until you measure it. Schroedinger's quantum cat actually is in a probabilistic haze of life and death; he isn't alive or dead until the box is opened. It isn't simple that we as people standing around outside the box don't *know* whether he is alive or dead inside the box; he actually isn't either until we ourselves somehow make him one or the other by observing his state. It sounds like fantasy, but it's actually physics.
So I am a scientist, I truly am. I know a lot about neuroscience and biology and organic chemistry, and I know more than the average Joe about physics and most other topics in science. But, being the odd one that I am, I am in the anomaly: I believe in God. I believe He is all-powerful. This leads me to do something which most people would probably view as highly strange and irrational; most people, that is, except the quantum physicists, which is perhaps why I don't view it as so irrational because quantum physics doesn't seem so weird to me after all these years of books about it.
Namely, I took the MCAT a little over four weeks ago. As soon as I left that testing center, my score was arguably determined. The computer had already scored my multiple choice questions, and by now some lady named Edna from Atlanta who likes cats or whoever it is has scored my essays. Arguably, this is a fatalistic venture and really there hasn't been anything I could do for the past month of agonizing waiting. And yet, I haven't just been inert. I've been doing what I always do while waiting for test results: praying madly. And why? Because I don't believe the wave has collapsed yet.
See, very small things have this principle that arises from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is that we can't know their position and momentum simultaneously, and once we measure one we lose the other. The larger something gets, the more it loses its wave-like properties, and the less applicable Heisenberg's principle becomes. Thus although it's technically true that I exist as a probabilistic wave function, it's much more correct to say that I'm laying on my bed right now, mostly stationary. The error is much, much, much ^ trillion smaller for me than for some tiny particle. But for Schroedinger's tiny cat, as long as the box is closed, he exists as a probability wave of all of his possible states of momentum and position (a superposition wave) rather than a single position or momentum. When we open the box, we with our eyes (we actually ourselves, somehow) change things by seeing the cat; isn't that crazy! We change an electron just by observing it! That's insane! Anyway, so that's the quantum theory.
So why can't this apply to my spirituality? My idea is that if God is all-powerful, he probably has a handle on quantum principles. Thus perhaps he can somehow extend them to my test. Then until I view my test with my own eyes, it exists as a probability wave. Edna may have graded the essays; the computer may have graded my test; but in my mind, I have no score. It is still possible, until I see the score, break the uncertainty principle, and collapse the probability wave, for God to change things. And I actually do believe that He could (much to my atheist and agnostic friend's consternation).
It actually has some doctrinal justification too. I mean, according to scripture, we're destined to do something, but we have the choice to do it or not. Thus it must be kind of like a probability wave that we can choose to collapse in some fashion. God must know the probabilities, but we must have the observational powers that collapse the waves.
And you thought people that prayed about things like that were just being stupid. See, there's a rationality to everything.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
analytical solution to membrane potentials
I asked today in class why they can't come up with some decent analytical solutions to the differential equations for neuron membrane potentials, but my professor didn't really give me a good response (he also keeps telling us we should say "yes to drugs" aka TTX and wears multiple tie-dye Grateful Dead T-shirts, so I'm still skeptical).
I know there's a bajillion variables involved, and perhaps interpolating better accounts for environmental factors, but seriously after all these years and all these membranes, you'd think someone would have spent a little time on an analytical solution. I want a real reason why. But I don't want to research it so I just want someone to tell me.
I also want some quantum entanglement miracle to change my MCAT score so I don't have to take the blasted test again. I'm so sick of studying for it and I'm so sick of the dumb thing. I hate it. I really, really, really don't want to take it again. It is truly unfortunate the so much of my future depends on my performance on it. I'm not sure who came up with this standardized system, but he and I are having a little talk once we get to heaven.
I know there's a bajillion variables involved, and perhaps interpolating better accounts for environmental factors, but seriously after all these years and all these membranes, you'd think someone would have spent a little time on an analytical solution. I want a real reason why. But I don't want to research it so I just want someone to tell me.
I also want some quantum entanglement miracle to change my MCAT score so I don't have to take the blasted test again. I'm so sick of studying for it and I'm so sick of the dumb thing. I hate it. I really, really, really don't want to take it again. It is truly unfortunate the so much of my future depends on my performance on it. I'm not sure who came up with this standardized system, but he and I are having a little talk once we get to heaven.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
division lines
I think that I once read that in ancient times the Olympic games were used as a mode of political union, a way to bring the separating factions of the world together again.
I was watching the parade the other day, and I realized that while it may be nominally possible for all the different nations to march in some form (I'm glad Taiwan got some form of representation out of China for instance), putting labels on things can't really fix things anymore. Some prejudices run too deep. I think we've come too far to fix them with a parade or some games. But I don't know what the solution is. It makes me sad.
My x-boyfriend's sole goal in life is to unify the Middle East. I wouldn't tell him this (although I'm sure he suspects it), but I don't think he'll succeed, even though he is one of the most compassionate, determined people I know. And that also makes me sad.
I was watching the parade the other day, and I realized that while it may be nominally possible for all the different nations to march in some form (I'm glad Taiwan got some form of representation out of China for instance), putting labels on things can't really fix things anymore. Some prejudices run too deep. I think we've come too far to fix them with a parade or some games. But I don't know what the solution is. It makes me sad.
My x-boyfriend's sole goal in life is to unify the Middle East. I wouldn't tell him this (although I'm sure he suspects it), but I don't think he'll succeed, even though he is one of the most compassionate, determined people I know. And that also makes me sad.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
philanthropic obligation
Somewhere in the world, hundreds and thousands of bodies are lying in the streets, being shoved into once-sealed crypts, and millions of living people are sleeping on the concrete mourning those they love. And what am I doing? Sitting in my nice house, studying for the MCAT (which will kill me someday, quite soon actually).
A lot of people, usually those that are affluent, don't feel any real obligation towards those less fortunate, or at least they don't act on it, so they can't take it that seriously. I think the wealth disparities in the world, especially the differences between third world countries and countries like the United States, but even the difference between poverty and affluence in the United States, are proof of that. People think that if they work hard for their money, they deserve it. A lot of people also seem to subscribe to the "rags to riches" belief that anyone, through hard work, can rise from poverty (like in "the pursuit of happyness"). While that is true on rare occasions with individuals that are poor due to a fixable bad work ethic, so many people are bogged down by circumstances that go beyond what they have power to change. Although most people look down on homeless people as being alcoholics and drug addicts, 1. those aren't easy addictions to kick and there's no reason they should be denigrated for having a hard time with it and 2. they often have mental issues that make kicking such habits or holding a job difficult.
Anyway, what I mean by all this and which I must say before my broken-fan computer explodes is that I do believe everyone who has a cent more money or an hour more time than his neighbor, whether that's his neighbor in the US or in some other country, has a moral obligation to give. Not even just a little, but a lot. People look down on my "socialist" ideas, but quasi-socialist countries have been deemed the happiest on earth (I think I'm speaking of Sweden). I am leery of pushing my moral ideas on others, but I think that philanthropic duty is a moral absolute. That being said, I think that only each individual can decide how much he can feasibly give, and that his choice should be respected without question. In the end, I'm not the judge. In my opinion, we'll eventually all face God. But even if you take God out of the picture, I think that we should all love each other, and if we love each other, donating time and money is a logical conclusion.
Not that I'm really acting out my philosophy at the moment, but considering all my money for school etc comes from my parents still, and considering I need an MD to do what I want to do (doctors without borders), I don't have a ton of money to spare. But I really want to start volunteering at the homeless shelter I go to with more of my time and spending less of it on me.
My singular new year's resolution this year is to be less selfish. While I know that's a terrible resolution because it has no tangible benchmarks or definable ending, I believe that I know myself well enough to tell whether I am progressing, and things like spending more of my time volunteering are realistic outcomes of my goal. But it's not just volunteering... it's volunteering unselfishly and for the right reasons. I don't think it's a moral action just because it's a utilitarian outcome; the intent has to be there.
It's all very difficult, and the more I try to act unselfishly, the more I fear my motives are selfish. It is my life goal to eradicate my selfishness and self absorption. That is also something only I can keep tabs on. But I fear that right now I am far from my goal.
A lot of people, usually those that are affluent, don't feel any real obligation towards those less fortunate, or at least they don't act on it, so they can't take it that seriously. I think the wealth disparities in the world, especially the differences between third world countries and countries like the United States, but even the difference between poverty and affluence in the United States, are proof of that. People think that if they work hard for their money, they deserve it. A lot of people also seem to subscribe to the "rags to riches" belief that anyone, through hard work, can rise from poverty (like in "the pursuit of happyness"). While that is true on rare occasions with individuals that are poor due to a fixable bad work ethic, so many people are bogged down by circumstances that go beyond what they have power to change. Although most people look down on homeless people as being alcoholics and drug addicts, 1. those aren't easy addictions to kick and there's no reason they should be denigrated for having a hard time with it and 2. they often have mental issues that make kicking such habits or holding a job difficult.
Anyway, what I mean by all this and which I must say before my broken-fan computer explodes is that I do believe everyone who has a cent more money or an hour more time than his neighbor, whether that's his neighbor in the US or in some other country, has a moral obligation to give. Not even just a little, but a lot. People look down on my "socialist" ideas, but quasi-socialist countries have been deemed the happiest on earth (I think I'm speaking of Sweden). I am leery of pushing my moral ideas on others, but I think that philanthropic duty is a moral absolute. That being said, I think that only each individual can decide how much he can feasibly give, and that his choice should be respected without question. In the end, I'm not the judge. In my opinion, we'll eventually all face God. But even if you take God out of the picture, I think that we should all love each other, and if we love each other, donating time and money is a logical conclusion.
Not that I'm really acting out my philosophy at the moment, but considering all my money for school etc comes from my parents still, and considering I need an MD to do what I want to do (doctors without borders), I don't have a ton of money to spare. But I really want to start volunteering at the homeless shelter I go to with more of my time and spending less of it on me.
My singular new year's resolution this year is to be less selfish. While I know that's a terrible resolution because it has no tangible benchmarks or definable ending, I believe that I know myself well enough to tell whether I am progressing, and things like spending more of my time volunteering are realistic outcomes of my goal. But it's not just volunteering... it's volunteering unselfishly and for the right reasons. I don't think it's a moral action just because it's a utilitarian outcome; the intent has to be there.
It's all very difficult, and the more I try to act unselfishly, the more I fear my motives are selfish. It is my life goal to eradicate my selfishness and self absorption. That is also something only I can keep tabs on. But I fear that right now I am far from my goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
