The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds.
I don’t know about you, but I thought this was bloody brilliant. I may be putting an entirely different interpretation to this quote, but nonetheless, it still fits perfectly.
most of which are science fiction. I don’t know what occurred to me, all I remember was my ooh-ing and aah-ing and my arms gradually getting heavier. Seven may not be that remarkable, but considering that I only planned on buying two, which I must be sure I would like, this may be worth mentioning. I bought the following:
1. In His Image (james Beauseigneur)
-first book of the Christ Clone Trilogy. I have actually started reading it, and while I found the (semi?)philosophical sidebits amusing (e.g., “I think therefore I am. I think”, “atheist by inclination, agnostic in practice”, “…how can he who doubts his own existence believe in the existence of God?”), I found the science lacking. The author has a very flawed concept of cloning (memory remaining? Come on) and I think his claim that successful cloning will be proof that Jesus was not the Son of God quite a huge leap, among others.
2. The Lord of Light (Roger Zelazny)
-in one list in Amazon, the user claims this is the best scifi he has read. It’s about how several humans got hold of a certain technology and played gods.
3. The Forever War (Joe Haldeman)
-nice reviews in Amazon, about a soldier who kept on volunteering for intergalactic warfare. As a result, while a few years has passed for him, Earth has aged for decades.
4. Guide to Investing (Robert Kiyosaki)
-I’ve been looking for it, finally found one, and the smaller (and cheaper) version to boot. 
5. I am Legend (Richard Matheson)
-Vampire Story, sort of. I just remembered the good reviews. Only one man is left in the world populated by humans turned vampires; during day he haunts them down and at night, he is being haunted. Why this is usually labeled science fiction escapes me.
6. Spin (Robert Wilson)
-interesting premise and allegedly well written. It’s about the earth suddenly being enveloped in this thing, resulting in some sort of suspended animation relative to space i.e., a minute on Earth means a century has passed outside. This means that the inhabitants could experience the remaining life cycle of the sun, among others. Very interesting indeed.
7. The last House in the Galaxy (Andy Secombe)
-reminds me of Hitch Hiker’s Guide, both in the book design and (potential) humor.
So seven books added to my reading list of at least 15 other books, with my phenomenal pace of 5 pages per good day.
Edit:Feb06 I bought two more books, and since it’s just within a week from writing this (original) entry, I decided to add them.
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Clarke)
9. Ender’s Game (Orson Scott Card)
From now until I whenever I decide (tomorrow? :p) I will avoid giving any account of my so-called philosophical thoughts. I just realized in its full weight a few days ago how blatantly shallow my thoughts are; I’m certain if a philosopher visits my blog today and reads the posts, he’ll dismiss the ideas as common sense.
I also decided that in the meantime, I will educate myself. I will begin reading books (something I have rejected a few months ago) to a.)save me the trouble of arriving at conclusions myself and instead, focus on the frontiers of the debates and b.) to arm myself when it comes to discussions. I would probably start by finishing Dennett’s Consciousness Explained and a book on philosophy of Mathematics (I thought of reading Russell’s An Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, but a quick search on Amazon made me decide otherwise).
Given this, I felt it apt to give an overview on the two topics I am most interested in.
1. Nature of Ultimate Reality
The goal of Metaphysics, and perhaps much of Philosophy itself. I want to know how all of reality really is independent of any perception, if ever there is such.
I remember I was so caught-up with this problem during the Christmas break that I always found myself, at random moments, staring at a pen (and anything else), and wanting to throw it in frustration: here is a completely ordinary and innocent object right in front of me, yet I know nothing of it!
2. Nature of Consciousness
I want to know how perception and awareness work, and they’re implications on the subject of death and artificial immortality. Right now, I assume what most assume: materialism. How are thoughts possible? How do we account for perception? Is there free will? If we were to copy someone quark by quark, energy by energy (ignoring quantum mechanical objections), how would each view their own “self”? (i.e., it’s ridiculous to claim that there’s one consciousness in two bodies, yet it’s unimaginable how each would believe that they are this person X and that the other is merely a clone.) AND, Cryonics could work, right? RIGHT?
1. I won’t read the Bible until I gain a kind of literary sense and insight.
2. Show me a decent colored picture of the 1800s and I’ll be having orgaspasms.
3. Qualia, ftw!
I saw the present through the eyes of the future.
I spent a bit of the last two days philosophy blog-hopping. I don’t know what brought me to do so; partly perhaps because of accident, and maybe also because I’ve always wanted to see the state of academic philosophy and to know my place in it.
After a bit of reading and skimming, I have to say that I’m impressed. And when I say impressed I don’t mean I’m looking over them like some goddess but rather, that I felt a combination of astonishment, glee and much more. These people know their thing. Seriously. Thought I have an oh-so-wide range of interests? So do they. Quantum implications are never neglected and evolution is an integral part in the discussion. They make connections from various fields so easily I felt so inadequate. (e.g., on the question whether self-consciousness goes hand on hand with consciousness the author was able to relate it to the missing limb syndrome in psychiatry. Now, I’ve read about this condition before, but the connection never occured to me.)
And the openmindedness? Wow. Barely anyone claimed to know an absolute fact, and there seems to be always a disclaimer stating that this is under the assumption that scientific view only is the only valid approach, that future knowledge may overturn everything, etc. etc.
So for now until I get bored again, I’ll be visiting and reading their posts. It’s much much better than borrowing books because the former’s discussion is much shorter, easier to understand, updated, varied and interaction-oriented. This is also much better than turning to religion (what occured to me? WHAT?) because in the latter, everyone just blabbers off, claiming to know what they don’t and all the while with the conviction that everything can be established as absolutely true or not. I just wish I could contribute something though, but I’m afraid it’ll take time before I can. I suspect that whatever “flaw” I have noticed had already occurred to them, then tore it apart a hundred times over for the sheer ridiculousity of it. Worse, I may be completely misunderstanding their point because of my lack of background knowledge. And I have really no excuse not to know now. The word “eighteen” has such an intimidating ring to it, something that says that I can now be finally judged as an individual, not some kid with a lot of potential. i.e., there’s no withholding of judgment now of who I could be, because this is it.
But in the end, there’s only one thing I could and want to say: so this is what it’s all about.
It is true. I have decided two days ago to shift my energies from the magnificent world of Philosophy (and consequently, Physics) to something else. And yes, this is just two weeks after I have been filled with such inspiration I began borrowing Russell books. So to anyone wondering just how fickle I am, then there you have it.
I’ve been thinking of shifting for quite some time actually, but was too unsure to make a decision. It is just hard to leave the thing that you are truly passionate about for some other just because. But three days ago I picked on a book that left me nodding repeatedly, and then was filled with determination and amazing stubborness that I finally relented.
One may ask, why not do both? And I say this: so far, it’s impossible. Sure, if I want mediocrity I can do that no problem, but I do not. If I try to pursue both I will make no progress, and may even result to brain overload. Doing the other (not philo) simply requires A LOT of hard work, a word so unfamiliar 07:30am is like noon.
How long will this last? I do not know; I’m already questioning my decision at this very moment. At first everything was all and good and my gut could stand it, but now I often find myself shaking my head, disappointed that everything has come down to this. It’s as if I’m doing philosophy disservice, which is a joke considering how far I have gone (i.e., smaller than the Planck length; now, who says nothing could go smaller than that?). But then still, a part of me is still determined to pursue the other, and I suppose I have to let it remain at that.
But at the end of it all, I have to ask myself: what am I talking about? What I call doing philosophy consists of 30-second random musing per day, not really something I have devoted enough time and effort to to make me feel sad. So yes mind, wtf.
By the way, I am thinking of just posting random philo things in commemoration *bawls*. I mean, every philosopherwould probably say that all I said was common sense, or even downright flawed, but for the layman, I think they will be worth looking at.
“I am inclined to think that his lack of systematic philosophical education was an advantage, and that nothing can do more to stultify original thinking than a thorough knowledge of past philosophers acquired too early in life; because it brings with it the deadening discouragement of realising that most of the ideas one thinks up have been thought of by someone else before.” Alan Wood on Russell’s philosophical approach.
So yeah, that’s it. I’m returning all the Russell books I’ve borrowed except My Philosophical Development (I feel that I would find some value in it). I was actually thinking of burning it and pounding the ashes repeatedly until what remains are vibrating strings (futile effort, indeed), but I decided there’s no need for such strong emotion when I have barely read anything anyway.
Don’t get me wrong though. I believe that almost everything has been thought of, and I wouldn’t be so arrogant to claim that I’ll discover a new idea myself. I have long come to realized that seemingly absurd ideas like “everything is just an illusion” and “time is just a continuous cycle, repeating eternally” are not just random ideas a depressed and/or stupid person came about. While they can be, at the end, be disproven*, they still have a rational, perhaps even scientific, basis.
What I’m mostly concerned about is the stultifying of one’s originality; by reading too much, I may deviate from the path that has worked marvelously up to now. I may be too influenced, or be annoyed I haven’t come up with anything by myself. I don’t really know yet how. But, as an example, it sure annoys me how I have gradually affirmed Russell’s statement, that the proper method of philosophy is looking at the results and arriving at the premises. I expected to be amazed whenever a situation affirms this, and I suppose I really was amazed, but a part of me can’t help but sigh. I was not even close to realizing this, but now I am fully aware of it, and I simply take no pleasure in having hopped such a long way. I feel this idea to be superficial and entirely not my own; it shall be a long, long time before I could fully trace its development and hence, realize its true worth. If ever I would that is, for I feel that my attempts will always be corrupted by my prior knowledge; I may be making too many connections and giving too much weight on everything that it would just feel unnatural.
So when I read Alan Wood’s statement, I just decided to screw it all. What worked for me is taking a book or article and take a sentence-worth of idea that is just at the tip of my tongue of at the back of my head. And, of course, it’s a bonus when the I would apply that knowledge in a completely unrelated field; for then, I have really done something.
My only possible regret is that I may never catch-up; indeed, the only thing I understood regarding Russell’s philosophy are his musings when he was 16. Beyond that, especially all those Geometry-proving and language syntax crap, I am completely at loss. If I do not read, I am afraid I would remain as I am, unable to grasp the more academic language of philosophy.
