Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Memory
What is memory? When you take account of how small your head is and how much information it can contain, the validity of this information is suspect. A newly recalled memory is often like recalling a dream.
After all, what would our dreams be without memory? This land that is our own private land that we charge up with symbols and feelings during the day. But this does not say what memory is.
So again, what is memory? Do we really save memories in these long detailed accounts? Do we have scribes in our brains?
I think the answer can be discovered easy enough. The act of remembering should reveal what happens if you examine it close enough. Most often memory starts with a pang. This is a flash of something. It is a beginning, or more accurately, a point.
This point is brought out of memory. We think about that point in the present using our minds to logically create a story. To draw the memory out. We don't store anything but this point in our head. We don't need to. All we need is the beginning and we fill it in afterwards.
Our memories depend on our thinking like math equations are. The answer to the equation does not need to be stored. To save space, all we need are some clues and then since we contain the ability to do math, we solve the puzzle with some time. Variables are not constant. We can adjust when something becomes different.
Or memories are often shifting. Things from childhood must be recalculated. Memories would be no good to us if we could not shape them in the present. They would be like wearing clothes we wore in childhood. They'd be too small and out of style and capable of tearing apart so they can't be worn.
After all, what would our dreams be without memory? This land that is our own private land that we charge up with symbols and feelings during the day. But this does not say what memory is.
So again, what is memory? Do we really save memories in these long detailed accounts? Do we have scribes in our brains?
I think the answer can be discovered easy enough. The act of remembering should reveal what happens if you examine it close enough. Most often memory starts with a pang. This is a flash of something. It is a beginning, or more accurately, a point.
This point is brought out of memory. We think about that point in the present using our minds to logically create a story. To draw the memory out. We don't store anything but this point in our head. We don't need to. All we need is the beginning and we fill it in afterwards.
Our memories depend on our thinking like math equations are. The answer to the equation does not need to be stored. To save space, all we need are some clues and then since we contain the ability to do math, we solve the puzzle with some time. Variables are not constant. We can adjust when something becomes different.
Or memories are often shifting. Things from childhood must be recalculated. Memories would be no good to us if we could not shape them in the present. They would be like wearing clothes we wore in childhood. They'd be too small and out of style and capable of tearing apart so they can't be worn.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Devided Government
Americans are often depicted as being suspicious of government. One way Americans medicate this itch is to slow down the government by creating competition between the two dominant parties.
Republicans and Democrats behave as in a sporting event. Each legislation passed is like a point. Regardless of what the legislation is or what it was proposed to do, the two parties aim to score the maximum amount of points themselves while keeping their opponent at a minimum.
When Americans want to render the powers of government impotent, they vote the parties in power so each has about equal representation. The government is rushed into inaction by the parties vehemently competing with each other.
But fierce competition is not the only way to cause inaction. It is probably the least desirable cause of inaction because it creates low quality agendas and legislation.
But what are the alternatives? How can we slow down an eager government without wasting so much energy creating needless opposition? How do we avoid parties opposing legislation that itself was proposed by the other party to be oppositional?
I will propose one method. It is a time honored tradition used by the countless intellectual beings through out human history. Thought. Thinking is the thief of action. If we want government to slow down, why not structure the government so that the intensity of thought needed to pass legislation is raised. The result of this would create laws that were enacted slowly yet well thought out. It seems to me an infinitely more advantageous way than laws enacted when two parties scratch at each other's jugular, only to pass laws when one party loses focus while finding a new ways to maim their opponent.
Why don't we as a collective society choose laws of intellect rather than laws of base, competitive tomfoolery?
Republicans and Democrats behave as in a sporting event. Each legislation passed is like a point. Regardless of what the legislation is or what it was proposed to do, the two parties aim to score the maximum amount of points themselves while keeping their opponent at a minimum.
When Americans want to render the powers of government impotent, they vote the parties in power so each has about equal representation. The government is rushed into inaction by the parties vehemently competing with each other.
But fierce competition is not the only way to cause inaction. It is probably the least desirable cause of inaction because it creates low quality agendas and legislation.
But what are the alternatives? How can we slow down an eager government without wasting so much energy creating needless opposition? How do we avoid parties opposing legislation that itself was proposed by the other party to be oppositional?
I will propose one method. It is a time honored tradition used by the countless intellectual beings through out human history. Thought. Thinking is the thief of action. If we want government to slow down, why not structure the government so that the intensity of thought needed to pass legislation is raised. The result of this would create laws that were enacted slowly yet well thought out. It seems to me an infinitely more advantageous way than laws enacted when two parties scratch at each other's jugular, only to pass laws when one party loses focus while finding a new ways to maim their opponent.
Why don't we as a collective society choose laws of intellect rather than laws of base, competitive tomfoolery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)